Strange

The resistance of a coil depends on the length and thickness of the wire. (And what it is made of.) The repelling force of a magnet depends on the strength of the two magnets and the distance. (Nearby it will be an inverse square law, becoming an inverse cube law at greater distance. I think.) You cannot relate these two things. It is like asking "how much flavour does a strawberry have in comparison to the fuel economy of a Ferrari"

OK. I don't really understand your description. You would probably need to draw a properly detailed diagram. I will merely point out that, as you seem to be making a machine that will run without power, it is obviously impossible. That makes all attempts to help you somewhat pointless. However, that said, I would refer you back to the drawing from studiot: Ignore the N and S poles on the coils (that was because you said you wanted a motor). There you have a set of coils, closely spaced, around half the path of the magnet. You will get a series of pulses from each coil. Connect them in series and you get a roughly steady current for half the cycle, then a similar slightly wobbly current in the other direction for the other half cycle. Of course, you could put another set of coils on the other side and get twice as much current. And, equally obviously, you are going to get less power out than it takes to rotate the magnet.

OK. Not helpful. But I will take that to mean that you have an existing rotating system that you want to generate an alternating voltage from. Does the alternating voltage NEED to be generated by coils and magnets? Or could it use, for example, electronic sensors to detect the position of the rotor and then use an electronic circuit to generate the alternating voltage?

In case there is some confusion. The title was originally "Thornberg" (possibly autocorrect, or just a typo). I corrected it, moved the post and made my note. Then later spotted that it had changed back to the original (maybe a side effect of moving it?). So I have now corrected it again! Greta Thunberg suffers from the double disadvantage of (a) talking about something that is seen to be a political issue, mainly by political extremists, and (b) being female. The second is a major factor (perhaps exacerbated by her age). The amount of terrible abuse that female campaigners, journalists or just people, get on social media is appalling. Male commenters may get angry criticism and verbal abuse. But I doubt many get the sort of daily threats of death and rape faced by women in the public eye. This spills over into public behaviour as well. People have been threatened and attacked in the street as well as on social media.

That is going to make it harder. But let's try and narrow it down: Does it need to be a mechanical device?

! Moderator Note Corrected title. Moved to The Lounge as this does not appear to be about climate science.

Why? What are you trying to achieve? What is the purpose? Rather than asking about the solution you have thought of, it is always netter to explain the whole problem. There might be a better solution. Why does it red to be mechanical? Does it need to be mechanical? Why does the current (voltage) need to last for half the cycle?

That is alternating once per cycle. Why not one coil, end-on to the spinning bar magnet as shown in studiot's diagram? That will generate alternate pulses in each direction. If you want a smooth waveform (a sine wave) then you need a more complex setup and some conditioning circuitry. Is there a reason this has to be done mechanically? Are you counting rotations? If you say what problem you are trying to solve, it might be easier to help you.

I would recommend an electronic circuit to generate a pulse, rather than a mechanical system. For example, a circuit that charges a large capacitor and then discharges it rapidly through a resistor, air gap, inductor, other circuit (depending what the purpose is). A motor generates movement when you apply electric power. A generator produces electricity from movement. You appear to want a generator. You don't want what to switch too rapidly? And what is "too rapidly"? 1000 times a second? Once per week?

So it's not a motor?

I guess "best" depends on what you are trying to achieve. If it is a motor, then perhaps looking at simple motor and cutting it in half (not literally) would be the obvious route.

Oh yes, I have come across it before. Never really got into it, though. (I looked at the page the sample sentence came from and, although I have no problem with that specific sentence, there are some really awkward examples there.) Exactly. Natural language is not readily codified. We can determine some rules that usually apply, but there are always exceptions. And the "rules" are descriptions or how people use that language, rather than rules for how it "works" or must be used.

Although a more important factor is that most of the organic carbon formed from the CO2 is (or was) sequestered in a form that prevents it quickly reacting with oxygen again. So there are many other mechanisms that are involved in maintaining the oxygen level.

There are no simple rues for determining this (or the more general case of pronouns). As you say, the most recent antecedent is usually what is referred to. But that may be changed by context. So, for example, in this case, the use of "is" make it impossible for "spores" to be the antecedent so the next closest seem the obvious choice. (Actually, I would say it is the whole noun phrase " fluid containing reproductive spores".) But is could be the SCP-4380 (whatever that is). The rule is not completely correct. It is not the choice of "that" or "which" that determines whether the clause is restrictive or not. It is actually the presence of the comma. "That" is nearly always used with restrictive clauses but "which" can be used for either. (But because someone invented that style rule, people tend to prefer "which" for non-restrictive clauses.) I would not say that is correct, or at least, doesn't have the same meaning. It says that the insect contains a spore.

! Moderator Note This is a science forum. If you don’t want science-based answers don’t ask questions.

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. Please see the rules for this section of the forum. As this thread contains claims of over unity energy production, I do not expect it to stay open long.

Presumably you mean that immigration from outside the EU was completely under control of the UK? There are some who have latched onto the spin that "free movement is unfair to people from other countries", if they really believe that then the answer is not to remove the rights of one group but to enhance the rights of the others. You wouldn't say that workers in one sector have better employment rights therefore we should remove their rights. You would say that other people should be brought up to the same level.

Could the fact that majority of the press is printing headlines about immigration, traitors, sabotage and betrayal have any connection to the fact they are owned by multi-millionaires with their own agenda?

No it isn't. Sound waves require a medium. The speed of sound waves is observer dependent. Apart from the fact they are both described by wave equations, they don't have much in common. You seem very fond of these straw man arguments against current theory. Which is odd as you starting out saying that: This is, of course, false. But it is exactly the argument you are making: if there is something wrong with relativity, then your model must be right. But, apart from the fact there are no flaws in relativity, this logic is bogus as you rightly point out. Nonsense. You could, of course, are claim that the electromagnetic field is the "aether" but it has none of the physical properties of the traditional luminiferous aether. So the analogy is fatally flawed. You seem to be claiming that because light is a wave then there must be a medium. This was the false reasoning that led to an initial assumption that there was an aether. It was wrong then, and you are still wrong.

Nice summary, Ghideon. I think the one model that applies in all cases is described by Maxwell's equations. The simpler equations that can be applied in specific equations are special cases of the more general model.

Victor John has been banned as a spammer.

This is not about "sides". This is about experts analysing the facts. You can, of course, take Michael Gove's line and disregard experts. But you have to admit, in that case, that you are basing your claims of "little harm" purely on belief and not on evidence. From the automotive industry, cited earlier: "No deal is not an option. Catastrophic." Maybe you think "catastrophic" does not quite amount to "immense harm". I can't follow your logic here. Are you suggesting that people are claiming that remaining in the EU would suddenly fix all the problems the UK has? One of the reasons so many voted for Brexit was because of problems in the poorer areas of the country: lack of jobs, low salaries, poor infrastructure, etc. None of these are caused by the EU (in fact, in many parts of the country the EU provides assistance). But people voted from a sense of dissatisfaction (and some tabloid papers like to blame problems on "others" including the EU). So leaving the EU is not going to address any of those problems. In fact it will probably make them worse because another recession will mean more austerity and more problems for the hardest hit. Leaving with no deal will make this even worse. The government will also be distracted by another decade or more of debate and argument as they attempt to renegotiate trade deals to replace the 50 or so they walked away from, as well as they extra ones they claim they want (USA, etc). On the other hand, remaining in the EU would have allowed a government to focus on addressing those domestic issues that have been highlighted by Brexit. (I am not confident they would have done though.) Maintaining the status quo would not necessarily help a drowning man (but there is more chance than when everyone is busy arguing about something else). But neither would maintaining the status quo cause anyone to start drowning.

And that is based on assessments of experts in industry, agriculture, the supply chain, health, and many other sectors. However, you did claim that this would not happen. Based on .... well, what exactly? How can maintaining the status quo suddenly cause extra levels of harm?

One is changing and one isn't. Therefore, one creates "just" a (static) magnetic field. The other generates a (changing) magnetic field and therefore also electromagnetic radiation. This has been explained multiple times already. It is actually really hard to find an analogy for the behaviour of magnetic fields (or at least, I couldn't come up with one!) We often use things like water flowing through a pipe as an analogy to electricity. So the rate of flow is current; the width of the pipe is resistance (actually, conductance, as a smaller pipe means tiger resistance) and the pressure of the water is voltage. You also model a capacitor quite easily this way. I'm not sure if it is easy to describe an inductor using this analogy. And that is because the magnetic field behaves slightly oddly (because its behaviour is so much about changes, rather than the steady state.) So, your pebble analogy generating waves is wrong. You need an analogy where waves would only be generated if the rate of pebbles changes. The steady dropping of pebbles would just set the water level. As you have been told many times, there is energy associated with the magnetic field. But it isn't "going" anywhere. On the other hand, electromagnetic radiation carries energy away from the source.

There is no basis for believing that. For one thing “Brussels” is a democratic organisation run by elected representatives of the member states. Also, those member states all have a veto of changes like that. You will, I hope, forgive me if I believe the experts in multiple industries rather than some random guy on the Internet. I know Michael Gove said we don’t need experts but, you know what, he’s wrong. It’s just an attempt to encourage people to think that their gut feeling and emotions are just as valid as knowledge, data and analysis. I would hope no one on a science forum, in particular, falls for that sort of populist demagoguery. So, take farming for example. The govt has said that they will set import tariffs to zero to avoid the price of food going up. But, because of good old WTO rules, that will apply to imports from everywhere. This means imported lamb, for example, will be more competitive. And British farmers, who now export tariff-free to the EU and several other countries (because of trade deals) will suddenly face tariffs of 20%, 40% and even as much as 70% on some goods (from memory, so it may not be quite that high). The same is true for many other industries. Then there are the extra costs and time for bureaucracy. A lot of workers will lose a good part of their work and income. Musicians are typical: they often get work at short notice. “Hey Bob, can you come and play in Paris next week?” ”I’d love to but I’m not sure I can get a visa in time.” ”Oh never mind. We will get someone from one of the 27 EU countries instead” And so it goes. Millions died. But I’m glad you survived and enjoyed the experience