studiot

It's still an undershot wheel and can never be more than 50% efficient in energy extraction, and then there is the generator efficiency. This one, from the list at the end of the video would be more efficient. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dbxLba1EXqs

So you have an equation for x in terms of y So rearrange it to get an equation for y in terms of x Then multiply what ever this is by 3 to get 3y ie 3 times as much. Then take 30% of this. You should notice something interesting about the result.

Have you considered fluid flywheels?

A clear and concise refutation, Bignose +1. metacogitans, you have the germ of a good idea so I am trying to steer you in the appriate direction, because others have trod this path before. However you are trying to minimise the wrong thing, hence my reference to Hamiltonian - Lagrangian mechanics. However I'm sorry to tell you that this approach requires some advanced mathematics and I do not know of a website or book that presents it in elementary terms. Using H-M mechanics leads, amongst other things, to the Schrodinger equation.

Of course it's a problem. Near where I live the river Severn goes up and down 30mtres, twice a day. How do you connect the electrical output from floating paddles to appaatus that has this magnitude of movement? Note I did not say it was impossible, I just said it was a difficulty to overcome. Did you look at the other thread I linked to? There is a deal more information about small installations on rivers there. In the old days watermills were indeed dotted along many rivers, but most had dedicated channels to improve efficiency. Other considerations against simpky 'dipping in are': What about damage to river wildife from the paddles? What about damage from the river in spate including free floating logs etc to the paddle wheels? This is where dedicated side channels score, they can be closed off against flood conditions and netted against fish or debris ingress.

Expressed as a fraction [math]30\% ofy = \frac{{30}}{{100}}y[/math] Can you do it now?

Yes the 'drude model' would be appropriate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drude_model

An electric, magnetic or electromagnetic field can exist far from any charge, and even after the effect of the charge can be felt locally, for instance if the emitting star has become a black hole. This field stores energy: the one that the camera feels when seeing the light emitted by the then alive star. And even before this light is detected, standard physics tells it contains energy, whether an electron feels it or not. It's convenient to say so because the energy lost by the emitter's radiation is retrieved at the absorber. In these cases, the field stores energy (0.5*eps*E2, 0.5*B2/mu) without a charged particle to create it nor a charged particle to feel it. Then you have the gravitational effects of light. Negating that the EM field contains energy woud let one run into trouble. You are still avoiding the issue.

You are working towards Lagrangian and Hamiltonian Mechanics. But you need to think in energy terms not force terms. https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en-GB&source=hp&q=hamiltonian+mechanics&gbv=2&oq=Hamiltonian&gs_l=heirloom-hp.1.2.0l10.1453.3968.0.7953.11.6.0.5.5.0.125.671.0j6.6.0....0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..0.11.905.0yx_xPQhI7U

Interesting, here's more http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2711806/Has-mystery-Siberian-craters-finally-solved-Scientist-claims-created-SINKHOLES-erupted-outwards.html

Does this version help? Said1.pdf

What physical law says that the Lorenz transformation (your starting point) has be be obeyed by a superluminal particle? All we can say with certainty is that letting v = c results in a singularity. We do not know what happens beyond that.

I was the only poster to acknowledge that you might have a point, even if not totally correct in formal mathematics. It's not condescension. It's the rules of this forum. You have posted in maths, where we speculation and theories are not allowed. There is another section for that called speculations, where the rules are more relaxed. Further I asked a question and have since explained why I asked it. Again the rules are quite specific about promoters answering such questions. The whole point of my question is to be able to offer a more detailed answer, because my brief, informal, comment on set theory contains the essence of the mathematical reason why your statement (why shouted in red - this is annoying to many, including myself) is wrong. The reason is simple, there are two mathematical versions of 'nothing', one of which corresponds to your statement above. I had thought that you would be interested in discussing that further.

There are many wild statements about the speed of light and the mathematics of relativity. You should beware of them. The mathematics of relativity does not prohibit superluminal speeds (faster than light). What is does is contain a singularity as a result of division by zero at the the speed of light for any massive object (a massive object, in Physics, is an object with (not necessarily large) rest mass). As you probably know division by zero is not defined in the normal system of mathematics that we use. There is no singularity in the equations at greater than light speeds. This is not an uncommon situation in the mathematics of physics. But what we don't know is if the same equations apply at these greater speeds. If they do there are consequences, not least being that we cannot communicate with anything travelling at these speeds, or even see them. Two examples of other situations where the equations have a barrier like this. Firstly consider the thermal expansion of chocolate, placed in an oven at 15 degrees centigrade and slowly heated. We have an equation that describes the expansion of said chocolate as it heats up, until the chocolate temperature reaches the melting point. At this point the equation fails as the chocolate melts. We can, however, continue to raise the chocolate temperature and the now liquid chocolate expands edit nearly as before, but with a different equation. Secondly there is a quantity known as the specific energy of a flowing liquid described by an equation along the flow surface. Under certain conditions this equation results in a singularity and the flow surface changes abruptly. We do not have a mathematical desciption of the fluid motion in this region. Beyond this region the equations reassert themselves and the flowe surface is again predictable, and the same equations apply again. The phenomenon is known as the hydraulic jump and is used to slow water down at the base of dams to prevent channel scouring.

"For example, i can have a set such as; A={a, b, 4, 3e, boy, &, apple, 0}" That much is true, but the rest is nonsense. The set you describe has negligable significance in Mathematics or Physics. Your mind appears closed to the offerings of others. The word vector has at least four different meanings in Maths, Physics, Computing Science, and Biological Science. I offered you the beginnings of an informal discussion and asked a polite question to find out if it could be tightened up and made more formal. You did not deign to answer. How does this lead to fruitful discussion?

Have you been on holiday? I hope it was somewhere nice. Whilst you were away your question was also developed in another thread. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/65768-paddle-wheel-calculations-please/

Aircraft carriers are often tilted an/or facing the wrong way. I don't have the knowledge, but what we need is a pilot with carrier experience to tell us his/her thoughts.

Actually. O'Nero your thoughts are not far from the truth. There are in fact several key ideas or words that differ in mathematics and physics. Are you familiar with set theory and the construction of the real numbers from elementary sets? Informally mathematicians distinguish two versions of 'nothing'. Null and Zero. Consider sets of numbers. There is a set that has one member, a set that has two members, as set that has three members and so on. That is {a} ; (a,b}; {a,b,c} and so on. The letters a, b, c etc can stand for any number so b could be the number that solves the equation 2+2=b (ie 4) a could be the number that solves the equation x + a = x for all numbers, x. That is another name for zero. It must be a valid number since it solves an equation. So the set {0} is a set that contains just one number zero. But in additions to the sets above there is another set of numbers that has no members whasoever. This is called the empty set or the null set {} and is different from {0}. Does this help?

Yes, I agree that's the way it works, but that is not the point I have been trying to make. So I will try again. In an otherwise empty universe Take 1kg of mass. I can calculate the total energy in Joules I would receive if I were able to convert that to energy, using the expression E=mc2 Now compare that with charge In an otherwise empty universe Take 1 coulomb of charge. As far as i know there is no formula, similar to the mass one, to replace all that charge with a specific quantity of Joules. Worse, in the mass universe part only of the mass may be converted to energy, leaving a smaller amount of mass. But in the charge universe there is I know of no corresponding process that can partly destroy charge. Now in each universe if you introduce a second entity In the mass universe there will be gravitational potential energy between the two masses. In the charge universe there will be electric potential energy between the two charges. So they are more similar here.

So you are stating that the total energy of any charge depends upon the volume of the surrounding ball of space, which in turn depends upon its radius all the way out to infinity, regardless of the presence or absence of any other charge?

No, a definition of a closed system is that mass does not enter or leave, not that it remains constant. Consider the system to be the following reaction 2He4 + 5B10 [math] \to [/math] 6C13 + 1H1 + Q Where Q represents 4.03 Mev of energy. This can be compared with the measured mass differences as follows 2He4 4.00388 amu 5B1010.01611 amu Tot 14.01999 amu 1H1 1.00815 amu 6C1313.00751 amu Tot 14.01566 amu Difference = 0.00433 amu (loss of mass) ~Since 1 amu is equivalent to 931.2 Mev, this amounts to 4.032 Mev, which is usually Here we have mass converted to energy. I apologise for using old fashioned units but I studied this stuff a long time ago. (Source of figures Semat : Atomic and Nuclear Physics 4th ED)

OK, I understand, I seem to remember you mentioned this before. Then you will need to become slick and quick at writing out maths in words. This is why I offered a description in my post#5 and also what I meant by my question in post#7. These were meant for practice. So in words Since PQ is parallel to YZ Angle XPQ is equal to angle XYZ and angle XQP is equal to angle XZY Thus triangle XYZ is similar to triangle XPQ (Three angles the same) Thus the area XYZ : area XPQ is in the ratio of the square of the sides ie XPQ / XYZ = (2/5)2 Thus XYZ = (25*24)/4 = 150 cm2 Area XYZ = Area XQP + Area PQZY Thus Area PQZY = 150 - 24 = 126 cm2 If you can learn how to layout your working so the examiner can follow it you will get better marks. You will also find it easier to check your own work and follow it at a later date.

I'm sorry, which Professor Pippard are you (or Bohm) referring to? Your first paragraph notes that 'classical physics' does not explain or predict all observed effects/phenomena. So QM came into being since it explained/predicted observable effects/phenomena additional to those explained by classical physics. Since the calculation effort for QM is much greater than for classical physics, this was retained where it produced reliable results. There remained other effects, explainable by neither system, notably at that time relativity, and the simultaneity inherent in action at a distance theories. So in the 1920s we gained a dual system and maybe in the future we will gain a triple one............... Final point, QM does not rest upon probability, it is just one possible interpretation. But these days we have learned to live with mutiple theories and how to select the most appropriate for the phenomenon in hand.

If that was a comment on my posts, I didn't say pair production was not real. I actually said: Now field theories are only one possible explanation of the interaction - there are others. However that is not the point. Take a closed system with mass M. There are measurable internal (radio) chemical process that can change M to M', the difference appearing as energy given by E = (M-M')c2. This can happen spontaneously without any interaction with the surroundings. Radioactivity is such a process as are some chemical reactions. This mass M or the end mass M' can also participate in energetic processes via other mechanisms that do not involve the partial conversion of the mass into energy. So far as I am aware, a similar effect involving the partial convertion of an elementary charge into energy has never been observed, or proposed. Charge conservation is rigidly maintained in all processes. Charge can, however, participate in energetic processes via other mechanisms that do not involve the partial convertion of charge into energy. Finally I believe I said charge can interact energetically with other charges. Is not pair production or annihilation interaction with another charge and is not total charge preserved by these processes? Edit, Apologies to Sensei who has let me know that his post was not a comment on mine but on something else. Hopefully he disn't find me too rude.

I think you have that wrong. Please show calculations to quantify this energy.