Danijel Gorupec

I am not sure what do you exactly mean by 'minimization of the magnetic energy'. Because how I understand it, the force can exist without any change in magnetic energy: In the above setup a constant-current-carrying-wire is placed between two 'indefinitely' wide magnet poles. The force on the wire exist despite the fact that magnetic energy remains the same after the wire is moved laterally (although, moving the wire will draw some energy from the current source).

Who is responsible for traffic accidents - car owner or car manufacturer?

Yes, this makes sense to me... This would mean that also in my original 'experiment' (the picture B) in OP) the force can still increase despite the fact that the leakage flux decreased. It can increase because the flux outside the wire (within magnet body) can increase a lot after inserting the iron plug. There are various texts (all that I read, Wikipedia included) where wording is not clear and the claim can be understood as the wire is only effected by the flux that actually flows through the wire.

Here is my motivation for the question: The picture above shows a part of a slotted motor rotor. Current-carrying wires are inserted into slots. The problem is that almost all the flux goes through teeth, very small amount of flux actually goes through slots. These teeth in a way carry the flux away from the wires. Wires are actually immersed into a low-density flux. If you are correct, then shouldn't it be inefficient, generating small torque? Would then it be better to have iron wires, instead of copper wires, in order to increase flux density through them?

After reading your answers (thanks), and rethinking, I now believe that: - if the magnet core was already near saturation, then inserting the iron plug would significantly decrease the leakage flux in that area (because the flux within the magnet cannot increase much and almost all of the flux will be channeled through the iron plug) - if the magnet core is far from saturation and the flux strength was regulated only by the air gap, then inserting the iron plug would decrease the leakage flux only slightly (because the flux within magnet will greatly increase) - in any case, the leakage flux will not increase. Unfortunately, it does not answer me what happens with the force: - if the force only depends on the leakage flux, then it will decrease - but if the force depends also on the flux within the magnet (because two flux fields interacts) then the force can also increase under some circumstances - that is, in the case when the flux internal to magnet increases a lot after inserting the plug. What do you think? (Note: whenever I read about the force excreted on a current-carrying wire, the text always talk about flux density the wire is immersed into. But from the beginning I am not sure what the word 'immersed' actually means - does it include nearby magnetic fields that are not really 'touching' the wire but are within the reach of the wire-generated magnetic field?)

I don't know. For sure there will be some because there is always some leakage of the flux. But I cannot understand if, after the iron plug is inserted, the leakage becomes weaker (because it is now better channeled within iron core) or stronger (because now there is probably increased flux within core, so maybe leakages also increase) or stays about the same. But even if I suppose there are no leakages at all, the following puzzles me: When I draw the magnetic field created by current in the wire I see it expands around the wire, and because the wire is very close to the magnetic core it enters the core too - there it interacts with the flux of the magnet. Is this enough to create force on the wire? The answer, I think, is YES, but it troubles me. [The picture shows how I imagine what is happening - the picture C) shows two magnetic fields; the picture D) shows their addition]

Help needed: I have a C-shaped permanent magnet as on the picture A). I sketched magnetic field lines between magnet poles... very close to the magnet, there is a current-carrying wire (perpendicular to your monitor plane). Some of the magnetic field can reach the wire and so I know the wire 'feels' a force F. In the picture B) there is the same setup, only now I plugged the gap with some magnetically permeable iron insert. My question is will the wire now feel a force F'? Is this force higher, smaller or equal to F? Can you explain what is happening?

Producing more sea weed is probably a good idea... Although using 9% of world oceans seems quite unrealistic to me. (In fact, I think and I hope that we will not choose any one single megalomaniac idea to pursue, but we will purse hundred of them in parallel in order to 'save the world'). But the very first step, I would say, must be to un-shrink that cubic mile back to its 4.1 cubic km value

So, you say it is even simpler than I thought.

I was thinking the same... but I came with the idea in about 10 seconds. Everyone could do this. Can you of think anything to counteract this?

What do you think, would it be possible to make a spray can that contains DNA samples from hundreds (or better, thousands) human individuals? Would such spray be any effective to mask an earlier presence of an individual in some room? If it works, what would be legal concerns about manufacturing such spray cans? Should people volunteer to have their DNA sample canned? Would there be a health risk: is it possible to somehow sterilize those DNA samples?

I would send my car to choose a hooker for me. I plan to own a car that has an eye for round bottoms. Seriously, just few weeks ago I was thinking that once statistics shows that self-driving cars generate less traffic accidents, the human drivers will be forbidden. It will be possible to drive a car only on special tracks. But I love to drive.

Yes, I think you are right. You have a good eye... I was deceived because the creature is not depicted wearing a hat and a revolver belt.

I would love to have such a large hands! Twice the size than human... if I slap someone... I wonder if there is skeletal evidence that Neanderthals had such large hands. (But I am afraid that the depicted Neanderthal has somewhat 'romanticized' proportions). Wide hips do not seem good for walking. Knuckle-walking? With such short hands they would need to keep their asses high in the air when knuckle-walking. No wonder homo sapiens used to jump on their women. (Maybe this wide-hipped neanderthal really is a female, I just cannot tell by examining the crotch. If this is a penis then no, I would not like to trade my hands for that price.) Black skin... hard to tell, but I was explained that people living farther north have lighter skin to aid with D vitamin production. Not that Neanderthals lived that much north. And they certainly died out (because of D vitamin deficiency?). Well, this is a gorilla. My instinctive move would be to compare neanderthal skeleton to gorilla skeleton and neanderthal skeleton to human skeleton. Looking to which one is more similar. Two things still impress me... the first one is not having white eyes. Is there any reason to suspect Neanderthals had white eyes? The second thing is how nicely are these pictures rendered. (P.S. Moontanman, you should really insert some '1' or '2' when you use multiple exclamation marks. That is what young people like us do.)

If Earth never had oil/coal deposits... I would be a farmer. My father too. He would tell stories to me - about days when wood covered all land and when sperm whales lived in seas. I would visit a library in nearby town very often. I would read about electricity... dreaming about the future electrical world. But knowing that today only the elite can afford to play with electric toys. On my way home I would be thinking how we cut trees faster than they can regrow. I would be tempted to join some environmentalist group... but no. I am painfully aware that fallen trees make steel plows. Yes, steel! Without a steel plow we would start dying of hunger - there is almost 3 billion people on this planet. How will we ever reach the electrical world if we cut all the trees much sooner? I look at the Moon above. The Moon too is unreachable.

Interesting... I would consider a "chicken egg" to be an egg produced by a chicken (at least in my native language - is understanding in English any different?). I would not consider a "chicken egg" to be and egg that contains a chicken embryo. That is how I understand my language. BTW, what would be an unfertilized egg laid down by a chicken - is it still called a "chicken egg" in English language?

Sure, for this part I agree with you.

I think this is a different kind of question... Here you are concerned about 'quality' of something that is to be created. On the other hand, the abortion question (and excessive smoking, drinking, drug abuse during pregnancy) is a question about conflicting rights of two existing beings. Even if there is no problem during early stages of pregnancy, as the pregnancy continues more and more people would start to recognize the child as a person with human rights that society is obligated to protect. Conflict arises. My personal view is that woman's right on their own body is a strong right. I think that woman should be able to terminate her pregnancy at any moment, but not by any means. The legal procedure should be that the woman announces her wish for the separation to the state (because the state is the one that is to protect human rights of us all), and then the state should proceed with the separation. The responsibility about the action taken is then on the state... I know that many of you will find this clumsy, but I think it is not. Unfortunately, the above view means that also state should be able to request the separation if there is conclusion that the unborn child is at serious risk (excessive smoking, drinking, drug abuse). So, I don't think the woman right on her body can be absolute, but it should still be strong and protected. Once the child is born, nothing much changes. A woman should still have the right to requests separation and state should still handle it. (Just a personal off-topic note: once my child is born I will seize the right to protect him. I might easily decide to fuck off all other rights you or the state might have. That much about rights, lol.) (Regarding men right on his own body... it is also not absolute. Many men died in wars being forced to be there. Nobody asks them what they want.)

But don't forget that some women are married to rapists, and cannot find their way out of this nightmare. They will sneak out to have an abortion if possible (often not seeking professionals)... maybe to protect their other children from poverty and hunger.... So you cannot judge just by 'number of times' if abortion is acceptable or not.

Oh, I agree on this, for sure... but this is not what I asked. I asked if the woman right on her body is absolute, does she then have the right even on irrational actions.

BTW, is there a difference in first three months of pregnancy and last three months of pregnancy in your jurisdiction (regarding woman rights)? In my jurisdiction, I am afraid, the woman right about how to use her body is somewhat suspended during high pregnancy. What is justification for this difference, from your point of view? For example, if woman right on her body is absolute, is it ok then if, one week before birth, she decides to finely chop the baby inside her and take it out by straw just because she suddenly panicked about birth pain?

This remembered me how I was quite grown-up when I decided to check how surimi looks in its natural habitat.

I do have a vague feeling that mass and time are somehow connected more deeply than I am able to understand. If only because it seems to me that mass-less object just cannot sense time. Only... this observation did not lead me where you moved. In fact, it led me nowhere.

Just out of interest I checked how much meat is being eaten in US per capita per year - almost 100kg (I was amazed - much more than I expected). I also checked how many deer there is in US - about 30 million (mostly whitetail). I guess that the average deer weight is some 50kg. That is at max 1.5 billion kg of venison (had to look into dictionary about 'venison'). I am afraid guys that if you all decide to eat healthy meat in an ethical way, you will finish all your deer in several months I guess, here in Europe we would finish all our wildlife before the dinner. (and don't take this post seriously)

For some reason, people that have their own gardens always positively impress me ... I am a dummy in this field, but I just remembered a table from wikipedia about biomass production rate, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_%28ecology%29 , maybe it can help you to make a rough estimation (look under the 'global rate of production' section). Obviously, if you want to maximize your CO2 'removal' you should grow a swamp, lol. Another random idea.... Maybe you can estimate the upper limit by finding insolation data where you live and then multiply it with photosynthesis efficiency (maybe you can find more precise efficiency data form some specific plant groups). But as I understand, you are actually asking about metabolism rate (more or less) as, if I understand it correctly, gardens do not remove CO2 from atmosphere overall - unless, of course, every year you take some of plant material and store it so that it can never decompose.