swansont Posted October 12, 2009 Posted October 12, 2009 The bottom line is that if you conclude that energy is not conserved, then you have made a mistake in your calculations. It seems apparent that you have not measured this effect.
vacuodynamic Posted October 16, 2009 Author Posted October 16, 2009 To have a good understanding of the energy conservation you need to integrate the field density over all space... For this you need to take into account both the near and far field. Dear Klaynos, Of course, we have to integrate the field energy over all space, but what we are interesting is the energy different! For example, at some fixed (volume) boundary which far enough from the near field zone, we will get some amount of the far field radiated energy, say A. Then after reducing the spacing between the antennas, we will get another amount of the radiated energy, say B. According to the theory of directional transmission of radio system, we will found that A is bigger than B! Note that the radiated energy, B was included the reducing of transmission energy due to the mismatch between the input energy source and the antennas (due to the effect of changing of mutual inductance), but it is a minor part of the different between A and B! My research is closely related to antenna, and part of the research group I'm in deals with them in great depth. Would you please tell me some, how it relate to antenna? There is nothing new or interesting here. What is “nothing new or interest here”? Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged It seems apparent that you have not measured this effect. Dear swansont, What effect? The bottom line is that if you conclude that energy is not conserved, then you have made a mistake in your calculations. Pease do make clear that what I say that energy is not conserve was due to the (seeming disappear) part of the energy was used to cancel the internal stress in the pondering medium! It is the same thing as what was happened in the two-solenoid experiment. So in the whole system the total energy is conserve! Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com . Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedDear D H, Up to now, do you have any other questions about my “new idea” which was thought as “speculation or pseudoscience”? Would you please reconsider it again? Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com
swansont Posted October 16, 2009 Posted October 16, 2009 Pease do make clear that what I say that energy is not conserve was due to the (seeming disappear) part of the energy was used to cancel the internal stress in the pondering medium! It is the same thing as what was happened in the two-solenoid experiment. So in the whole system the total energy is conserve! Energy is conserved without the "pondering medium." There is no need for it. If you think energy is not conserved otherwise, you have done the calculation improperly.
vacuodynamic Posted October 20, 2009 Author Posted October 20, 2009 Energy is conserved without the "pondering medium." There is no need for it. Dear swansont, Why and how? If you think energy is not conserved otherwise, you have done the calculation improperly. Why? Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com .
Klaynos Posted October 20, 2009 Posted October 20, 2009 Dear swansont, Why and how? Why? Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com . Because of the time symmetry of the universe, if you want to say otherwise you need to disprove that. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedDear Klaynos, Of course, we have to integrate the field energy over all space, but what we are interesting is the energy different! For example, at some fixed (volume) boundary which far enough from the near field zone, we will get some amount of the far field radiated energy, say A. Then after reducing the spacing between the antennas, we will get another amount of the radiated energy, say B. According to the theory of directional transmission of radio system, we will found that A is bigger than B! There will either be an impedence effect in the antenna which will reduce the energy input, or there will be other losses, or the field energy will be the same when integrated over all space, or you've done something wrong. Note that the radiated energy, B was included the reducing of transmission energy due to the mismatch between the input energy source and the antennas (due to the effect of changing of mutual inductance), but it is a minor part of the different between A and B! Would you please tell me some, how it relate to antenna? Novel electromagnetic structures. What is “nothing new or interest here”? Sincerely, Nimit Because energy is conserved.
vacuodynamic Posted October 23, 2009 Author Posted October 23, 2009 Because of the time symmetry of the universe, if you want to say otherwise you need to disprove that. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Dear Klaynos, What we (me and swansont) are discussing is about the magnetic field energy created in the two-solenoid experiment! I am not quite sure what are you talking about? There will either be an impedence effect in the antenna which will reduce the energy input, or there will be other losses, or the field energy will be the same when integrated over all space, Would you please see what I have explained in the second paragraph of my post # 77? or you've done something wrong. I have calculated from the formula in the text books in which I referred to in my post # 72, how is it wrong? Novel electromagnetic structures. What is it and how it relates to antenna? Because energy is conserved. Yes, the total energy is conserved; please see my third answer above! Would you please also see what I have explained in the last paragraph of my post # 77 in which it was talking about magnetic field, while in this case is about electromagnetic field! By the way, to conclude the concept of the two-solenoid experiment and the two-antenna experiment we discussed, I will show the simplest experiment analogy i.e. an acoustic interference experiment as follow; In the diagram shown, was used to demonstrate the interference of sound waves. If the length of the two branches is “equal”, then what we got at the output is the “same level” of sound waves as the input. But if the two branches’ length is different with a halve wavelength of the sound wave, then ideally, the sound level at “the output is zero” due to the destructive interference of the waves from the two branches In conclusion, the total energy of the whole system is conserved, but the (seem) disappeared of the energy (in case of two branches’ length is different) which due to the destructive interference in the air medium, is the energy which was used to release the internal stress in the air medium! So we may say that it is an indirect prove for the existing of air medium. Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com
swansont Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 In conclusion, the total energy of the whole system is conserved, but the (seem) disappeared of the energy (in case of two branches’ length is different) which due to the destructive interference in the air medium, is the energy which was used to release the internal stress in the air medium! So we may say that it is an indirect prove for the existing of air medium. Air has internal stress?
vacuodynamic Posted October 26, 2009 Author Posted October 26, 2009 Air has internal stress? Dear swansont, I am wondering how you are so easy forgetting that the longitudinal compressive stress and rarefaction in air is responsible for creating sound wave! What is than which you think it is the mechanism of sound wave? Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com
swansont Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 I don't think I've ever heard a sound wave in a gas referred to as a releasing of internal stress. It certainly doesn't require any energy input to "release" it.
vacuodynamic Posted October 29, 2009 Author Posted October 29, 2009 I don't think I've ever heard a sound wave in a gas referred to as a releasing of internal stress. It certainly doesn't require any energy input to "release" it. Dear swansont, Then, what is the mechanism of sound wave? And according to the diagram, where is the output sound wave energy gone? Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com
swansont Posted October 29, 2009 Posted October 29, 2009 Dear swansont, Then, what is the mechanism of sound wave? And according to the diagram, where is the output sound wave energy gone? Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com The mechanism,as you have already mentioned, is compression and rarefaction, producing a longitudinal wave. But you have to drive the system to do this; left on it's own and differences in pressure or density will dissipate. When you have the destructive interference, you are no longer coupling any additional energy into the system. It didn't "go" anywhere.
vacuodynamic Posted November 1, 2009 Author Posted November 1, 2009 The mechanism,as you have already mentioned, is compression and rarefaction, producing a longitudinal wave. Dear swansont, You just questioned in # 82 about the existing of internal stress in air, and in # 84 you also did not accept that sound wave involved with internal stress, but now you accept the mechanism of sound wave is compression and rarefaction! Now what is the compression and rarefaction in air, isn’t it the changing of the internal stress in air? But you have to drive the system to do this; left on it's own and differences in pressure or density will dissipate. Yes, we have to use an external force to start the oscillation of air’s internal stress (stress-strain action), but what you mean “difference in pressure or density will dissipate”, and dissipate to where? When you have the destructive interference, Would you please explain how the destructive interference in air works? you are no longer coupling any additional energy into the system. It didn't "go" anywhere. “Additional energy” of what? Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com
swansont Posted November 1, 2009 Posted November 1, 2009 “Additional energy” of what? The loudspeaker
vacuodynamic Posted November 4, 2009 Author Posted November 4, 2009 The loudspeaker Dear swansont, You are not answered all the questions which are related, so I assume that you are not understand the working process of the acoustic experiment shown in the diagram in the post # 81. Here we will repeat it again with more detail! In (a), the loudspeaker sent it sound wave energy into the pipe. For simplicity, we will consider only one complete cycle of the sound wave energy, say, X. The traveling of the sound wave propagates via air medium by its stress-strain action passing through both two branch pipe with equal energy of X/2. At the output the divided sound wave energy will combine to X energy again, so the total energy is conserved! In (b), the situation is the same as (a), the only difference is that at the output, the divided sound wave energy will combine to zero energy due to the familiar destructive interference. But the crucial point is how the destructive interference works in air medium? It is easy to visualize that one part of X/2 energy is contraction force, while the remaining part of X/2 energy is expanding force. When the two part of energy combine together, they cancel each other, then give the non-vibrate air medium! Anyway, in (b) case, the total energy is still conserved; the input energy was used to change the vibrate air medium back to its normal “calm” state. So we may say that this experiment is the indirect prove of the existing of air medium, isn’t it? Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com
swansont Posted November 4, 2009 Posted November 4, 2009 Anyway, in (b) case, the total energy is still conserved; the input energy was used to change the vibrate air medium back to its normal “calm” state. So we may say that this experiment is the indirect prove of the existing of air medium, isn’t it? In the (b) case you have a standing wave, but you still have compression and rarefaction — the air is not in it's "calm" state within the system; it's only at the output, where the interference is happening. You are not getting any energy out so you cannot be coupling any energy in.
vacuodynamic Posted November 6, 2009 Author Posted November 6, 2009 In the (b) case you have a standing wave, . Dear swansont, It is NOT a “standing wave”. It is a traveling wave! Standing wave means wave which is oscillating back and forth, while a traveling wave is one-way propagation (from source to receiver). but you still have compression and rarefaction — the air is not in it's "calm" state within the system; it's only at the output, where the interference is happening. . No, it does not have any persistence of compression and rarefaction when the input wave is passed! It is easy to see just one single input sound wave, when the wave is traveling pass from the main input pipe into the branch pipes, the air in the main pipe is calm to the normal state. Even in the two branch pipes, when the divided wave is passed to the output main pipe, it leaved the calm air behind. Finally, at the output main pipe, when the compression from one side meets the rarefaction from another side, they cancel each other in to the calm state, i.e. the input energy disappears! You are not getting any energy out so you cannot be coupling any energy in. We can not get any energy out because it was used to calm down the air state in the output main pipe , NOT the persistence of compression and rarefaction in the system! Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com
liarliarpof Posted November 6, 2009 Posted November 6, 2009 Bear in mind that Einstein's original intent was not to 'work' space nor time like a taffy pull. He simply picked up the problem of resolving the Michelson-Morley results with the fact that Maxwell's Equations did not obey Galilean Transformations. After all, the title of the 1905 paper was, "On The Motion of Electrodynamic Bodies". It is not as if he had an agenda, for Einstein's results surprised even himself!
vacuodynamic Posted November 9, 2009 Author Posted November 9, 2009 Dear D H, Where are you? Up to now, do you have any other questions about my “new idea” which was thought as “speculation or pseudoscience”? Would you please reconsider it again? Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com
vacuodynamic Posted November 15, 2009 Author Posted November 15, 2009 Dear D H, Where are you? Up to now, do you have any other questions about my “new idea” which was thought as “speculation or pseudoscience”? Would you please reconsider it again? Dear Modulators and friends, Up to now, I am not quite sure what should I going to do, does anyone has any suggestion? Thanks in advance! Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com
swansont Posted November 15, 2009 Posted November 15, 2009 I think you've worn everyone out with your stubbornness in the face of constructive/professional criticism.
vacuodynamic Posted November 18, 2009 Author Posted November 18, 2009 I think you've worn everyone out with your stubbornness in the face of constructive/professional criticism. Dear swansont, Indeed, I am not quite clear about your word, would you please explain in detail, is it right or wrong, polite or impolite, or anything else? Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com
swansont Posted November 18, 2009 Posted November 18, 2009 I used 16 words. Did you mean stubbornness? It means determined not to change one's mind I think it's right. It was as polite as I was able to be under the circumstances.
vacuodynamic Posted November 21, 2009 Author Posted November 21, 2009 (edited) ............ Until you produce some sort of plausible argument and preferably evidence for this idea of yours, this idea of yours is speculation or pseudoscience. Thread moved to Pseudoscience and Speculation.[/red] Dear Friends, While waiting for the answer from D H, I will talk about the consequence of the new idea of the existence of a new kind of ether (which I called it as vacuum medium) upon Maxwell electromagnetic field theory! For someone who familiar with Maxwell electromagnetic field theory would know that when James Clerk Maxwell first created the electromagnetic field theory, he also invented a mechanical model of elastic solid (ether) called a granular model of space for its philosophical concept. But after Einstein had created special theory of relativity (STR) which no need the ether concept, then people have ignored the proposed model and only the equations were used until now. This seems to be alright, but something badly followed, i.e. the problem of how electromagnetic wave was created and propagate! In the next post, I will show scientifically how “vacuum medium” could solve the mentioned problem. Further more, the new concept will also solve the existing problems in the conventional theory. Sincerely, Nimit ------------------- http://www.vacuum-mechanics.com Edited November 21, 2009 by vacuodynamic
Klaynos Posted November 21, 2009 Posted November 21, 2009 In the classical field theory of electromagnetism there is no requirement for a medium. Propagation is well understood within it (self bootstrapping), as is absorption/emission to a certain extent before the need to discuss quantum effects., this is why most people who study novel EM devices only ever deal with classical theories.
Recommended Posts