Strange

I think that was my fault - a side effect of merging in the post from coffeesippin (that also changed the title - hey, I’m new here, ok!) i’ll Move it back. I’ll fix that, as well when I’m not on my phone.

coffeesippin has finally tested our patience too far and is banned permanently.

How did you measure both voltage and current at the same time? (Talk about blood from a stone...) Of course not. So I am trying to understand what you measured and how so we can come up with a better idea of what has gone wrong. I don't know what the OP means by "cabinet" (I assumed a cupboard/closet, but that sounds weird now I think about it.) If it is a small box, then it could affect the temperature rise of the LED, coil, batteries, meter ... So @DARK0717 what is this "cabinet" of which you speak? There shouldn't be any switching transients. But god only knows what else the OP hasn't told us yet...

But that is not quite the same as a DC current through an inductor and an LED. Not with a static current. You didn't measure them at the same time, did you? (I can't be sure because you refuse to clearly describe what you did. And you cannot answer simple questions.)

And both gas or liquid fuel can be used for either cooking or blowtorches. Gas tends to burn more cleanly and so won't taint food as much. Most liquid fuels are a mixture of many different compounds and can produce smoke and half-combusted compounds if not burnt carefully. These could make the food taste odd or even be toxic. And then there is LPG which is a liquid and a gas!

! Moderator Note @coffeesippin As this has already been mentioned in this thread (and seems very relevant) I have merged your post into it. Annoyingly, that deleted the original title. I have had to guess what it was.

Did you measure 3V? Did you measure 6V? (I still find that implausible?) Presumably you had to take the meter out of the circuit where it was measuring current, so you could measure the voltage instead. Is that correct?

Did you measure this? I don't believe that.

Well, I suppose it is. Depending on what you mean by "observation". When we "replay" memories, they stimulate the same parts of the brain as the original sensations.

You suffer from a real problem with detail. Why did you add "all" to the definition? This turns your question into a straw man argument. But, yes, your statement was offensively misogynistic. Nope. If you "mentioned" god, I doubt anyone would care. But a 100 word diatribe about what you believe and how evil everyone else is, does rather sound like preaching. Irrelevant. It is still against the rules. (But, yes, words do hurt.)

I didn't ask you why. I just asked you a few details about measurements, etc. The type of coil won't make any difference in a DC circuit. The resistance is the only significant factor. (Unless it is near a high voltage AC line and picking up some extra current that way.) The decrease with the coil is probably due to the resistance of the coil. Have you measured the resistance of the coil? Does the current increase over time both with and without the coil in the circuit? What type of batteries (zinc-carbon, alkaline, NiMH, etc)? Are they used or unused before this? (Your "nearly dead" comment was confusing.) If they are old, are they past their expiry data? What is the voltage output of the batteries? When in the circuit and when out of the circuit? You must be if you are measuring current? (As you don't have a standard resistance to measure the voltage across.)

But that is not what you said. You repeatedly said it was just the battery and the LED. I can't see how the coil would change things much. A coil will just act as a resistance to a DC current. So, unless there is enough current to warm it slightly and reduce its resistance, I can't see it being relevant. Or the ambient temperature changed enough to change its resistance. Have you measured the resistance of the coil? Or its temperature? The presence of the coil might explain why the LED didn't just breakdown immediately, which I would expect from a 3V supply. Or it might be there is a current limiter in the LED. Did you measure the voltage of the batteries before you started? Have you measure it now? Both under the load (LED) and no load? What do you mean "the test"? Just repeatedly measuring the current with the same battery and LED? Or with new sets of batteries? It just keeps on increasing? What is it up to now? A couple of hundred amps? Presumably you also have the ammeter in series with the LED and the coil. Again, not sure how that could be significant. Is it a digital meter? (I assume it is from the 7.50 and 39.44 figures.) Good points. I particular like the suggestion of the LED warming. I don't know how the internal resistance changes for different types of batteries. I think that for most, it increases as the battery runs down. I imagine there could be complex reactions where batteries that have been stored a long time increase their internal resistance as crystals grow (or something!) which then drops when they are used. Just guessing now, though. @DARK0717 what type of batteries are these? When you say "they are almost dead by now as they've been stocked for more or less a year" do you mean they were new and have just been left in a drawer. (Do they have expiry date on?) Or they have been used and so discharged? Some types of batteries will self discharge quite quickly others will hold their charge better.

No. This is your paranoia. It is quite OK to mention god or religion. Even in discussions of science. If you can't see the difference between that and repeatedly dragging threads off topic with your rants about religion, then there is probably no hope for you. Except in this case, it is entirely in your imagination. And it is an insulting attitude. To use misogyny when trying to claim you are not being insulting is self-defeating. Arguably. But a discussion about whether he forced the hand of the Romans in order to be martyred, while interesting, would be off topic! So let's not.

1. You didn't "explain", you invented. 2. This sentence is appalling. If you can't see how insulting it is you need to reconsider your attitudes. (Take some time off for meditation and prayer.)

"He's just this guy, you know" (Hitchhiker's Guide reference). He is in Australia, according to his profile. I assume his username is based on his initials. He has no relationship as far as I know to any of the mods. He is (I think he has said) a little younger than you - I cannot remember now if he is older or younger than me. Maybe a year or two older, I think. (This is all based on information disclosed on the forum; not anything visible only to moderators.) Either because he doesn't get reported (or noticed by a mod) or because the reports have no substance. He has had no formal warnings but he has been the target of modnotes in threads that have got heated.

I think it does really. If reality doesn't make sense to you, then surely that has to be a sign of madness!

! Moderator Note You are just asking for more trouble by posting this. Locked pending moderator discussion.

Yes you did. The responses you get from moderators (usually prompter's by complaints from members) are entirely due to your behaviour. Fix that and the problem goes away. And by "fix that" I mean start following the rules. The only reason you posted that was to try and justify your previous irrelevant little rant about god and love. I fear your time may be short if you insist on carrying on like this.

What is absurd about that? It is very important to distinguish science from the opinions of scientists (which are just as likely to be sensible or crazy as anyone else’s views). You just can’t stop, can you.

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. Please read the rules of the forum and the extra rules that apply to the Speculations forum. In particular the need to provide evidence.

I just tried that. All the results I saw were either using proof in the mathematical sense or it was in the phrase "proof of concept". I didn't see any where the word proof was used as an alternative to evidence. So can you provide an example of what you are talking about. (Should be easy if there are so many.)

Link doesn't work. But I assume, from the question, that it is an example of pareidolia From: https://tn.com.ar/salud/lo-ultimo/que-es-la-pareidolia-cuando-el-cerebro-ve-cosas-que-no-existen_837325 http://justsomething.co/34-hilarious-examples-of-pareidolia-seeing-faces-in-everyday-objects/

Whether individuals here can describe the evidence or not is irrelevant. (I could. It is my job to do things like that. But it is not worth wasting my time with someone like you.) What is important is that evidence exists and has been replicated, reproduced and reviewed. You can keep denying the evidence exists but you are either dishonest or wilfully ignorant. But none of those will be based on peer reviewed science. If you think videos by crackpots have the same weight as science then you may be in the wrong place. No. You have made multiple specific claims about climate change and about climate science. I think most of these are lies. I see no reason to take any of your arguments seriously unless you provide evidence for them. For example: "Why are million year old fossils scientifically relevant and only the last 150 years of temp matters, because the statement that climate is changing faster now is NOT scientific until the past is evaluated" - Please provide evidence that climate science only looks at the last 150 years. "If the temp dropped enough to cover all of Canada and half of America, this denotes massive climate change." - Please provide evidence that this is relevant today. "So why do scientist want the climate to stop changing" - Please provide evidence that scientists want climate to stop changing "What is gradual about glaciers covering two thirds of north America melting, or those glaciers forming due to massive temp drops?" - Please provide evidence that this was not gradual. Please provide evidence of "massive" temperature drops. "Also the rate of change now is far less then when the entire earth was ice covered, or from when this ice melted. " - Please provide evidence that the change was faster than now. Please provide evidence that the causes are the same. " In a court one must both detail not just the evidence, but how it was gathered, none of that has happened. " - Please provide evidence that scientists do not describe their methodologies. "But since all scientist agree" - Please provide evidence that "all scientists agree" "You can prove this wrong with evidence that massive climate changes did not happen before humans. " - Please provide evidence that anyone has claimed that climate change did not happen before humans. "Now explain how the single thousands of feet thick glacier that covered most of North America melted without human help?" - You are the only one claiming that it melted without human help. So it is up to you to explain that. And provide evidence "I give precise answers" - Please provide one example of a precise answer from you Are you being deliberately dishonest? Different things: Religion is not based on evidence. Science is. Religion does not work (in a practical sense). Science does. Religion demands unquestioning belief. Science always questions, tests and probes. (Both religion and science can be emotionally satisfying, so they have that in common)

Most of the companies in that industry are actively researching and investing in alternative fuel technologies (its not like they don't know there is a crisis). Killing those companies would remove a large amount of funding for that research. It would also cause chaos with empty supermarket shelves, shortages of medicines, etc. It might be sensible to incentivise them (and other companies) to move quicker, but shutting them down is not practical.

Nope. YOU have made specific claims in this thread. I don't believe them. So it is up to YOU to provide evidence for those claims. There is a high-level summary of some of the evidence here: https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/climate-change-evidence-causes.pdf Note that it is about 30 pages and only touches on some of the types of evidence. So, as I say, providing evidence in a forum post is not practical. This is a report put together by hundreds of experts (*) on the current state of the science and the potential impacts on the USA. I think it is about 1,000 pages in total. So feel free to come back with questions after you have read it: Volume 1 (the science): https://science2017.globalchange.gov Volume 2 (impact assessment): https://nca2018.globalchange.gov And then there is: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2995507/ https://skepticalscience.com/evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm https://climatechange.insightconferences.com/events-list/evidence-of-climate-changes http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/guides/457000/457037/html/ https://www.ipcc.ch/data/ And so on and so on But perhaps you think that all of these experts from different countries, universities, political beliefs, religions, sciences, etc are all in some massive conspiracy to trick you. If so, this might be more up your street: BBC R4 "A History of Delusions"