studiot

The point here is that the electrical mechanism of operation of transformers and electric machinery is complicated and not a one step process. This is (perhaps) why Dima was right to observe that many textbooks skate over this issue rather delicately. I mentioned transformers as they are easier to understand than motors or generators so I would always start with them first.

Neither velocity (nor momentum) is a Force. You specifically said more than one force, which excludes all other vecotors. So yes, thank you Ghideon, I still await a proper explanation of this claim. +1 for reminding me.

As a most infrequent visitor to the religion section here I made a special trip to see what all the fuss was about. This is my honest impression/assessment. This was a piece of journalism worthy of the Huffington Post instead of suitable material for a discussion site. At ScienceForums you have two degrees of freedom compared to the only one degree of freedom you would get on open court. 1) In both you can pose an identifiable question. 2) At SF you can also state (clearly and succinctly) a proposition for discussion. You have unfortunately achieved neither. I once went to court to watch a friend of mine who was determined to conduct his case himself and he made the same mistake, insisting on diatribe attempting to question the witnesses. He failed miserably. Another friend once said for instance you do not say to the witness "The Highway Code says ......." You have to pose it as a question. So I'm sure you are welcome to try again but cut it down to something short and identifiable. Rurther I wonder if you were referring to psychic surgery not psychedelic, which I associate with pop concerts and Pink Floyd.

Well we certainly breathe out a lot of hot air as CO2 None more so thanFleet Street and our Houses of Parliament. Hopefully you can distinguish between 'most damaging' and 'greatest quantity'.

You didn't read the article then. Or my question properly. Fair enough it's a free world. But there's no point talking further to you.

Your claim right there that the only EM radiation occurs at the anode and nowhere else is the problem. I don't disagree that radiation is generated at the anode, and never have done. Of course it will, the anode accelerates the electrons, as does striking the glass tube or any phosphor. Note the difference between at the anode and your 'from the anode'. X rays from the anode are not from the cathode rays! Why do the electrons striking the glass, not emit Xrays? These come from the glass/phosphor itself. But it is generated elsewhere as well. Read the Wiki article properly

What evidence do have for this assumption on your part? How would you test the truth or falsity of it?

Strange was correct, you are asking about the differences between the fluid mechanics of liquids and the fluid mechanics of gases. To a first approximation the difference is that liquids are incompressible and gases are compressible.

Just to emphasise the point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_tube Note that there are no magnetic or gravitational forces involved, only electrostatic ones. Note that the comment in the article that Wilhelm Röntgen discovered X-rays using the Crookes tube in 1895

It is tempting to use the simple kinetic theory, which compares the single component phases of liquids and gases (and solids) at conditions well away from the phase interface lines on the material phase diagram. The closer to that line you get the closer the densities and molecular speeds converge, until they are equal on the line. Magma is neither a single component nor a single phase material so its rheology is correspondingly complex. There is also the transition from laminar flow to turbulent flow to consider in your example. A similar, though less spectacular, effect can be observed by simply turning a tap on and observing the water stream at various flow rates.

Good question Jake and a good start to this forum. +1 Both gases and liquids are fluids, which means that they deform to take the shape of their container - bottle, bucket hole in the ground whatever, so what is the difference? The basic difference is that gases expand to fill a container, liquids do not, that is their volume does not change when transferred from one container to another. A more subtle difference is that liquids have a 'free surface' and gases do not. An example of a free surface is the surface of the sea or the top part of your beer in a glass. Tempting but not actually true. I agree with the rest.

Your proposal has two planks that appear to me to be entirely separate. Repeated after extended rebuttal by swansont. 1) Charge only radiates when it is decelerated 2) Charge may radiate when it is accelerated by more than one force. How is this proposal compatible with the Larmor formula? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larmor_formula A cathode ray is accelerated by only one force in a simple cathode ray tube and is yet known to emit (dangerous) Xrays. This is direct observational evidence against your proposal. Of course if more than one force act on a point particle they combine vectorially to produce a single resultant. So how Why does your proposal not also contravene the laws of mechanics?

Don't forget what I said was very broad brush and compact. 1) I am sorry if what I wrote led you to think that I meant the wires were pushing the rotor. Thiswas not a description to the working of a motor, but the answer to a question Why do we bother with slots? 2) Yes slots have several advantages. My comment was about what would happen if we did not have them. 3) Well I would like to see your mathematics that supports this view. I would suggest wire, embedded or not, passes through the whole of the flux generated by the stator pole, in passing from one meshing point to the next. Therefore the EMF generated will be the same, embedded or not. See my comment.

OK so I gather you are still interested in this subject, so with reference to your circuit, let us consider the Physics. This is appropriate because most methods of streamlining circuit analysis are all about clever mathematical manipulation. The Node potential method is about using Physics to help instead. In particular it involves the law of conservation of energy which here asserts that if you have two nodes, A and B in a cicuit then it does not matter which route you use to move a given charge from A to B through part of the circuit, the resulting energy change will be the same. If this were not so you could obtain energy by moving the charge crom A to B by one route and back by another from B to A with a net gain of energy. The implementation of this is to assign potential energy level to each node, stated as a voltage level. One node is chosen as a baseline and all the other energy levels are recorded relative to it as voltage levels. So in your circuit you have four nodes and therefore four node voltages V0 , V1, V2 and V3, although you have not labelled V0. It is commonly most convenient to set V0 = 0 but there are circumstance when you might choose a different value, say if you were 'piggybacking' power supplies. This allows you to write equations involving V1, V2 and V3 which must be simultaneously satisfied. Since there are only resistors in this circuit, Ohm's law may be employed and this is what your teacher has done in the three equations. But note it is not true to say that it is an easieer way to solve the circuit ie fully analyse it since you need extra equations to actually calculate all the circuit parameters (currents in this case). Of course it save effort if you only want the four node voltages. Have you followed this?

Inreference to your pm well done for solving it. +1 I have replied there about the posting restriction. I solved the equation like this - I used just v instead of v1 for the velocity [math]\frac{{0.5}}{v} + \frac{{3.5}}{{2v}} = 0.25[/math] The first thing to do is to clear the fractions so multiply though by v [math]0.5 + \frac{{3.5}}{2} = 0.25v[/math] Then multiply through by 4 [math]2 + 7 = v[/math] I hope you will see that this is easier.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Copper increases the COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand), competing with aerobic organisms, thus favouring anaerobic ones. But the efect is low unless the copper is at high level because copper is not a particularly high level contaminent in normal landfill.

If they are dissolved in the water, they will go where the water goes. When the water evaporates, they will deposit. By the way I don't think all copper salts are soluble but I know many are.

Look at the water solubility of copper salts. Can they be carried by groundwater?

How do you feel about t1 = 0.5/v ? ? Well you have obviously gone to bed for your well earned rest. If it all becomes clear in the morning perhaps you can find a similar expression for t2 in terms of the distance run and v, the original velocity? then you know the total of t1 and t2 so if you can then form an equation by adding them together and equating their sum to this, you can solve it for v , which is the speed you require. I would be interested if you would post your quation and how you solved it Then I will show you my version, which may be of interest. Good night anyway.

Yea. So on the first 0.5km if his speed is v what is t1 ? You only have one number to put in that equation you just wrote t1 = ?

so t = ? This is just in general, not specific to this problem.

OK so what what equation connects distance, speed and time? That's easy isn't it?

There's too much information here, but let's see The rabbit runs 0.5km at v and the remaining 3.5km at 2v. According to your information this takes (1.75 - 1.5) = 0.25 hours Can you write an equation in v connecting these facts?

You should always compare zero load to some load to full load. Not part load to full load. Now I need to introduce you to power factor. The actual power your motor is consuming is volts x amps x power factor. The PF is typically 0.85 (85%) for a well designed motor So you are actually using 1.4*240*0.85 = 286 real world watts. I won't go into the technical details of why, just say this is due to the way volts and amps are measured in inductive machinery. Here is an american site with some practical information. https://www.ecmweb.com/motors/motor-efficiency-power-factor-and-load

So it's not on bo load?