studiot

Huffing and puffing creates hot air, not vacuum. I don't need paragraphs of introduction I just need you to state your case, coldy and clinically, in three lines or less.

So what was the question or proposition?

I like this +1 I'm having more trouble with this since, as I understand it, Newton didn't mention straight lines either. Again straight is one modern interpretation of "in its right line", there are others which suggest Newton was leading into geodesics. Interestingly I was looking at modules 3 and 4 (mechanics) of the London University modular A level mathematics and physics and what do you think they were analysing at high school level? You got it in one The Norton Dome, although they did not call it that.

I am puzzled where this definition comes from? The English verb to compel comes directly from the Latin com and pellare (= to drive as in forced direction) which Newton actually used and means pretty much the same thing. It does not include the change, since compulsion can be preventative as well as causative. Perhaps you meant a(p) and pellare which use is closer to your translation?

With the greatest respect if you are going to make an assertion, you need to be prepared for it to be subject to considered scrutiny and to back up your assertion if that scrutiny reveals chinks. Use of the word 'unless' asserts that there is no other cause or concurrent agent possible. However it does not assert that just because the agent is present the effect will occur either. The word compelled asserts that if such an agent is present it will act to create a stated effect. However it says nothing about the relationship in time between the two. In particular it does not preclude them being simultaneous and continuous. Nor does it preclude other (un-named) agents also being able to effect the same cause. So the discussion should not be Which definition is better ? but Why do they demonstrably not mean the same thing ?

Please display the chain of reasonsoning backing up this claim. Newton, of course, knew nothing of Wikipedia, and did not mention causality. I see nothing in the statement to require precedence of the forces over the effect. I repeat and repeat and repeat that there is a difference between the plural and singular in this comparison, because rest is involved. Furthermore The Wiki version definitely implies an effect since it states that there is no effect unless acted on.... Newton backs both horses by stating the positive....'compelled' I have noticed that in several areas of physics carefully wrought statements by truly great men have been changed by lesser men in modern parlance with the result of a problem somewhere. there are two MIT lectures on Ytube where this has happened to Kirchoff in electrical engineering and Lord Thompson in thermodynamics. Edit As a matter of interest Newton and his contempories realised that their mechanics 'fluffed' action at a distance, but they did not know how to resolve the issue (have we truly done so today?) so had to remain content that their strong statements worked at the short ranges they were concerned with. They also lweft some wiggle room and this is cutely discussed by Turner in the Routledge University Physics book Relativity Physics. Turner presents a fascinating rewrite of N1, N2 and N3 to make this compatible with the principle of relativity.

I don't get the connection. 'impressed theron' from Newton implies to me the external force in the modern version. With the exception, already noted, that Newton was specific in his use of the plural forces and the modern version only contains one force. and therefore allows the possibility of a contradiction when two or more forces in balanced opposition act on a body, producing zero effect. Such a contradiction is excluded in Newton's version. But none of this is relevent to md65536's comment.

how is 'acted upon' different from 'compelled' ?

1/36 When I went to school there were 36 inches in a yard. 1/4 is an engineering 'collection efficiency factor'. I did state this before, and assumes you can only collect 25% of the rainfall for various reasons. 18 inches per month, well I looked here and waved my guesstimate wand. http://www.costaricaexpeditions.com/AboutCR/tempchart.php

One swallow doth not a summer make nor one electron a spray. But then you asked for a spray.

Funny, my parent's TV could do just that back in the 1950s and I understand the LHC at CERN could now do it across a continent. And somewhere between the two I hear they have developed a techology called electron beam welding.

What particles please bob?

As a matter of interest since my alignment of point masses and particles caused some eyebrows to be raised. I still contend that this is the normal common or garden interpretation British best practice. Classical Mechanics : Gregory : Cambridge University press American best practice. Analytical Mechanics : Cassidy and Fowles : Saunders

lasix, from your posts, you seem to have an interest in electric/electronic experiments. This is good but you need to get some solid facts and theory behind you so you can understand and properly evaluate things you are being shown. I think legal discussion about captuing minute quantities of radio waves is a bit over the top. But Mordred has offered you some solid Physics about Ohm's and other laws. Capturing some 'free' energy from the air is easy. Farmers and gardeners do it all the time when they lay black polythene on the ground to warm it or use greenhouses, cloches etc. You voltmeter will not register anything from the light involved, but a suitable lightmeter would and black polythene is a suitable physical structure to receive it. The electric field of waves given off by wiring and of radio waves can vary enormously from a few microvolts in the remote countryside to many volts, tens of volts or even greater near the source. As I have shown you cannot draw significant power from most of these without suitable apparatus, though you can observe the voltage. For those making electrical measurements or connections these are often unwanted signals (voltages). This is why the standard connection cables are usually 50 ohms. These extraneous signals are soon cut down to size by this low impedance as the souce cannot maintain significant voltage into this low value. In my workshop I do not need a coil or special magnets, I can simply dangle the test leads of a better quality voltmeter than used in the video over the edge of the bench and see the voltage jumping around several volts until I connect it to something or use a 50 ohm connection. Any Radio Amateur or Technician will show you this phenomenon. It has been known since we had meters.

You ask about free energy. and display a voltmeter reading 2.5 x 10-1 volts on a digital multimeter. Voltage is not energy. But the input resistance of a typical DVM is 107 Ohms and power is V2 divided by R ie (2.5 x10-1)2 x 10-7 watts or just over 6 nanowatts. So you are measuring about just over 6 nano joules in one second.

This is sometimes called a 'grey water' system where non drinkable water is collected and used for horticulture, toilet flushing or other non drinking uses. It can include recycled household water from the bath, washing machine etc.

No. Some (fixed amount of) energy goes into creating a magnet. If you remove it (use it up) then you no longer have a magnet. If you use the magnetic force to do work to gain energy then the energy comes from the devive you use to move the magnet, not from the magnet itself. There is no such thing as a free lunch in the known universe.

Not again, groan.

Looking at rainfall data it seems to depend a bit on where you are in CR. Basing the figures on an average of 18 inches per month for May to December (8 months) you could expect 1/4 x 8 x 18 x 1/36 cubic yards of water per square yard of collection area, which is conveniently 1 cubic yard per square yard, over the season. You would also probably need one of these at the inlet to remove silt that such heavy rainfall would create. https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en-GB&source=hp&q=silt+trap+design&gbv=2&oq=silt+trap&gs_l=heirloom-hp.1.1.0l10.1141.2594.0.4563.9.7.0.2.2.0.187.999.0j7.7.0....0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..0.9.1092.cR6nZ0AvKV0

Good afternoon Danijel. You refer to transmission line antics by the bulb. Now I have assumed the bulb to be resistive and therefore it will only respond to the real part of the disturbance. Do you not consider this will have a bearing on your case for a light oscillator based on a battery, bulb and transmission line?

Just as a matter of interest, how many pump and hose systems do you know that require a return hose to the reservoir? Also what happens at the cut end if you suddenly cut a hose that has water being pumped through it, does the flow from the pump stop? Electricity in cables is not (very) like water is a hosepipe.

Scenario 1 is the nearest to common sense. Scenario 2 basically says that the current leaves the battery, arrives at the lamp and passes through it, but the lamp does not light until 1 year later, when the current has arrived back at the battery. That is ridiculous. Scenario 3 is even more against electrical theory. What are the agents of the two currents - they can't be the same can they? How about scenario 4? You switch on the battery and half a year later I come and switch if off again. Will the lamp light briefly? Or even worse suppose that scenario 2 was actually true and the lamp will not light until the current returns to the battery after 2 years. Now for scenario 5 suppose I come along and switch off the battery after 1.5 years, ie after the current has left the battery, arrived at the lamp and is on its way back to the battery. So where does the current or energy go now since it is not dissipated in the light and does not return to the battery?

Rainwater collection and storage is a great idea. Just a few practical thoughts. You are intending to store it for long periods in a hot climate so you will need to think of ways to stop it going rancid or putrid and ways to clean the storage reservoir. Like emptying a swimming pool you would need somewhere to put the water whichilst you did this, or some seasonal cycle to carry the cleaning out. If you dig a hole below the level of your garden you will also have to pump the water back out. I'm sure there are some here with tropical gardens who can tell you better than I can the amount of water you would need to store. You can calculate the available volume by taking the collection area and multiplying this by say 1/4 the average total rainy season rainfall.

Why do I get the impression you are trying to catch people out, rather than gain understanding? By itself the question in the above quote is perfectly reasonable and understandable. Indeed I considered mentioning this link to where mass is used as the constant of proportionality. However as part of the too-clever complete post above, all it shows is that you are not thinking because one part contradicts the other. If applied force is to be proportional to mass, then it must be allowable for mass to vary. So mass cannot be a constant. If we we are going to hold mass constant and vary the acceleration, then we can say the applied force = a constant mass times the variable acceleration (in suitable units) So in those circumstances we can say that mass is the 'constant of proportionality'. And yes you will find plenty of references to this as it is a way of introducing inertia or inertial mass and it is one of the great unifying triumphs of Physics that we have been able to show that the quantity 'mass' as defined in Newton's second law is the same as the quantity 'mass' as defined in Newton's Law of Gravitation. This is also an equation of the form [math]F = G\frac{{{M_1}{M_2}}}{{{r^2}}}[/math] Would you say mass is the 'constant of proportionality here, or would you say something more complicated is going on?

Yes this is just fine. It actually tells us what you have written after. So that part is not really needed. It actually tells us even more than this because it says that even if a body has mass, the force applied to it is zero, if the acceleration is zero. (Which, of course, is what we want) And of course we don't have any accelerating bodies with zero mass in classical physics to bother with thoughts of zero mass. This means that there are no additive constants in the equation.