Electrostatic Induction

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Physics - Electromagnetic Forum » Electrostatic Induction

Page 4 of 6 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next

Author

Message

Timo A. Nieminen

Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 12:18 am

Guest

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Vince Morgan wrote:

Quote:

"Timo Nieminen" <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote:

There has been a very productive cycle running for a few centuries: theory
-> experiment -> theory -> experiment -> theory -> experiment, etc. To

If I may. This is not actualy the cycle that resulted in the making of
nuclear energy/bombs. Not at all. Initialy theory was develloped to
explain the weird results of some experiments, such as apparent
"transmutation" of elements.
[cut]
If one sees something that engenders curiosity, and closer inspection only
leads to further curiosity, and no explaination currently exists for the
phenomenon, a theory is required I beleive to make any real progress.
However, I can't see why incremental discovery cannot lead to incremental
devellopment of theory either. Dropping stones from a tower was to prove a
theory, but I would be certain that there were more than a few observations
made that lead to the theory in the first place. I don't know of any valid
theory that was purely and completely imaginative and had no basis in
previous observed phenomenon, or verified theory.

I don't mean to imply that it only starts from theory. The choice of
whether to type "theory" or "experiment" first is essentially random -
the cycle goes back to the palaeolithic. All I mean is that theory and
experiment feed on each other, nurture each other. Each one promotes the
other. How can you do useful experiments in a complete absence of theory?
How can you do useful theory in the complete absence of experiment?

The dumbed-down version of the scientific method is "observe,
deduce a hypothes from the observations, experimentally test, accept or
start again", which doesn't capture this interdependence at all. The
initial "observation" (perhaps a proper experiment) is guided by existing
theory, the "final" experiment testing the proposed hypothesis leads to
further theory. Perhaps most importantly, the hypothesis is not just
deduced from the observations (except in the wet dreams of Francis Bacon),
but can be an imaginative leap in the dark. Based on the observations or
previous theory, sure, but not _deduced_ from the observations. And
experiments are not solely to test theories. People try things, play
around, and get surprising results sometimes. When theory A suggests
experiment B might have an interesting result, experiment B is sometimes
done for its own sake, without caring about how well it tests theory A.

On a larger scale, there's an interesting interplay between basic and
applied research. On school of thought would have it that all you need is
basic research, and the technological applications will just drop out - if
string theory works, then we will automatically have working fusion
plants. The opposite school says we only need applied research, basic
research is useless. But basic and applied research are interdependent!
Consider applications of spectroscopy. How could one usefully use
spectroscopy without knowing about atoms and molecules - a theoretical
development from the 19th century? How far would the quantum theory of
atomic structure have gone without spectroscopy?

--
Timo

Vince Morgan

Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 1:13 am

Guest

"Timo A. Nieminen" <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.WNT.4.64.0712131401500.724@serene.st...

Quote:

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Vince Morgan wrote:
[snip]
On a larger scale, there's an interesting interplay between basic and
applied research. On school of thought would have it that all you need is
basic research, and the technological applications will just drop out - if
string theory works, then we will automatically have working fusion
plants. The opposite school says we only need applied research, basic
research is useless. But basic and applied research are interdependent!
Consider applications of spectroscopy. How could one usefully use
spectroscopy without knowing about atoms and molecules - a theoretical
development from the 19th century? How far would the quantum theory of
atomic structure have gone without spectroscopy?

Very good point. One complements the other, no doubt about it.

The point I was trying to make, and apparently missed, is that if an
observation seems to defy an existing widely held and apparently valid
theory then the observation should not be ignored. The theory may not be
brocken, it may simply be in need of further refinement.

We have flight today because there were men about the earth who did not
trust the views of highly respected scientific authorities of the time.
When I was a boy I visited a technology museum in Sydney Australia. There
before me in a glass case was correspondence between Lawrance Hargrave and
the Wright brothers, prior to the advent of the Kityhawk, some of which I
read. Hargraves was by all intents a scientist and inventor who did
publish. It was he who devised the curved leading edge, and his invention
of the box kite arrangement was utilised in the earliest aircraft, almost
exclusively. However, it took bicycle builders to build a working device.
The pursuit was achieved by men who believed it could be done. Hargrave
would not be convinced otherwise. We are more sophisticated today however
and we know there won't be anymore Wright brothers, or another Hargrave. Or
will there?

Don Kelly

Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:49 am

Guest

----------------------------
"Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4760bf32$0$29339$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

Quote:

"Timo A. Nieminen" <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.WNT.4.64.0712131401500.724@serene.st...
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Vince Morgan wrote:
[snip]
On a larger scale, there's an interesting interplay between basic and
applied research. On school of thought would have it that all you need is
basic research, and the technological applications will just drop out -
if
string theory works, then we will automatically have working fusion
plants. The opposite school says we only need applied research, basic
research is useless. But basic and applied research are interdependent!
Consider applications of spectroscopy. How could one usefully use
spectroscopy without knowing about atoms and molecules - a theoretical
development from the 19th century? How far would the quantum theory of
atomic structure have gone without spectroscopy?

Very good point. One complements the other, no doubt about it.
The point I was trying to make, and apparently missed, is that if an
observation seems to defy an existing widely held and apparently valid
theory then the observation should not be ignored. The theory may not be
brocken, it may simply be in need of further refinement.

We have flight today because there were men about the earth who did not
trust the views of highly respected scientific authorities of the time.
When I was a boy I visited a technology museum in Sydney Australia. There
before me in a glass case was correspondence between Lawrance Hargrave and
the Wright brothers, prior to the advent of the Kityhawk, some of which I
read. Hargraves was by all intents a scientist and inventor who did
publish. It was he who devised the curved leading edge, and his invention
of the box kite arrangement was utilised in the earliest aircraft, almost
exclusively. However, it took bicycle builders to build a working device.
The pursuit was achieved by men who believed it could be done. Hargrave
would not be convinced otherwise. We are more sophisticated today however
and we know there won't be anymore Wright brothers, or another Hargrave.
Or
will there?

----------------
Flight was seen as something that was possible and there was irrefutable
evidence that it was possible- birds. So first attempts were made to come up
with wing flapping machines and eventually gliders. Airfoil design was crude
but improved as time went on- Bernoulli had something to do with that. The
fact that man couldn't fly was simply that there was a serious power/weight
problem-not a lack of understanding. Basic research coupled with applied
research led to a power source which was able to overcome its weight. Hence
what the Wrights did was based on a multitude of ideas and developments
which were founded on "known science" There was no sudden, new, physical
principle involved but an application of a lot of theoretical and applied
research that made it possible. The Wrights tried the relatively new IC
engine and it was adequate. Note that there was also a lot of past theory in
the airfoil (as well as practical theory) Note that the propeller was also
extremely important as a flat board doesn't do the trick. However, screw
propellors for ships had alreaduy existed as well as the earliest steam
turbines- all using the same principles so there was a procession of past
development ,step by step, culminating in that first flight. If it didn't
happen at Kittyhawk, it would have happened elsewhere- possibly within the
year -because the developments of the past made it possible. Your example is
not a good one to support your point. Yes there will be more Wrights or
Hargraves as well as others who will make larger leaps.

Now, if an observation "appears" to lead to a conclusion that is
unsupported, then your point that it should be investigated is correct. If
it is true, you are also right that the theory has failed and there is a
need to know "why?" This will require, at a minimum a change in the theory.
This process of testing a theory is something that goes on all the time. No
scientist writes a theory in stone (in the late 1800's and early 1900's
there was this tendency to assume that "all is known" ).

However, there are caveats: "appearing" is just that. Too often the
"appearing" is hype or press conferences, dramatic videos, or even patents
that somehow get by scrutiny of the relatively unsophisticated and
overworked patent clerks, or, as is often the case,inappropriate
metering-often done with great sincerity but inadequate skills and
equipment. Along with this is a great deal of paranoia and unwillingness to
have proper tests made. Do you wonder why there is a great deal of
skepticism, particularly when the weight of evidence is otherwise?

To me, "appearing" involves some actual testing that gives solid evidence
that something unexplainable by present knowledge is going on. Anything less
is fluff. Look at what a good magician or hawker at a fair can do.
Appearances are their stock in trade.

Don Kelly dhky@shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer

Timo A. Nieminen

Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 4:06 am

Guest

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Vince Morgan wrote:

Quote:

Exactly. This is the most important input of the "experiment" side into
the equation. The big breakthroughs come from anomalies, the experimental
results that break/stretch existing theory.

If experiment only confirms existing theory, how can it drive the
development of theory?

Quote:

We have flight today because there were men about the earth who did not
trust the views of highly respected scientific authorities of the time.

Not exactly. Kelvin's statement can be translated quite reasonably as "we
need powerplants lighter per unit power than steam engines before we can
build useful aeroplanes". A very correct statement, even.

A lot of the "X went against authority and won!" stuff out there is just
myth. Consider Columbus - he was plain wrong. "I can sail from Europe to
China in 4 (or 6) weeks." 6 weeks and he got as far as America. Columbus
was lucky, even if wrong.

Quote:

We are more sophisticated today however
and we know there won't be anymore Wright brothers, or another Hargrave. Or
will there?

When cutting-edge technology takes too much money/technology to build,
then innovation requires big money or knowledge. Still, there will be
innovation that only requires the knowledge part, not the money part.
There will be Wright brothers to come. They might not give us fusion, but
still worthwhile stuff.

--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html

Vince Morgan

Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 5:49 am

Guest

"Don Kelly" <dhky@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Hu58j.4135$ox1.3507@pd7urf3no...

Quote:

----------------------------
"Vince Morgan" <vinharAtHereoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4760bf32$0$29339$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
[snip]
Very good point. One complements the other, no doubt about it.
The point I was trying to make, and apparently missed, is that if an
observation seems to defy an existing widely held and apparently valid
theory then the observation should not be ignored. The theory may not
be
brocken, it may simply be in need of further refinement.

We have flight today because there were men about the earth who did not
trust the views of highly respected scientific authorities of the time.
When I was a boy I visited a technology museum in Sydney Australia.
There
before me in a glass case was correspondence between Lawrance Hargrave
and
the Wright brothers, prior to the advent of the Kityhawk, some of which
I
read. Hargraves was by all intents a scientist and inventor who did
publish. It was he who devised the curved leading edge, and his
invention
of the box kite arrangement was utilised in the earliest aircraft,
almost
exclusively. However, it took bicycle builders to build a working
device.
The pursuit was achieved by men who believed it could be done. Hargrave
would not be convinced otherwise. We are more sophisticated today
however
and we know there won't be anymore Wright brothers, or another Hargrave.
Or
will there?

----------------
Flight was seen as something that was possible and there was irrefutable
evidence that it was possible- birds. So first attempts were made to come
up

Yes, I have to agree. There are no organisms (that I know of) that derive
their energy from an unknown source. So with regard to the topic at hand
there is no corresponding natural process that indicates such a possibility.
Very good point.
And it was not a sudden "discovery" and your point is well made.
That was a very bad analogy, in fact it simply wasn't.

Quote:

Now, if an observation "appears" to lead to a conclusion that is
unsupported, then your point that it should be investigated is correct. If
it is true, you are also right that the theory has failed and there is a
need to know "why?" This will require, at a minimum a change in the
theory.
This process of testing a theory is something that goes on all the time.
No
scientist writes a theory in stone (in the late 1800's and early 1900's
there was this tendency to assume that "all is known" ).

Yes, that was the period that I find most interesting when it comes to the

notion of "absolute" knowledge.

Quote:

However, there are caveats: "appearing" is just that. Too often the
"appearing" is hype or press conferences, dramatic videos, or even
patents
that somehow get by scrutiny of the relatively unsophisticated and
overworked patent clerks, or, as is often the case,inappropriate
metering-often done with great sincerity but inadequate skills and
equipment. Along with this is a great deal of paranoia and unwillingness
to
have proper tests made. Do you wonder why there is a great deal of
skepticism, particularly when the weight of evidence is otherwise?

Not at all. Science is a discipline, and as such one should carry it out

accordingly. I beleive that scientific laws help prevent the beating of
paths that lead where a well paved road already goes. They present clear
and concise direction to those wishing to learn science. They not only have
a rightfull place in science, but they are in fact very powerfull tools.

However, I could name a couple of devices/machines that not only appear to
break at least one of these rules, but at the same time seem to offer the
science required to understand them, and yet there appears to be no interest
in them. I can give specific examples, but as silly as it might sound, I'm
a little reluctant to do so here. Call me just a "tad" paranoid.

I did describe an invention here in this topic, with some reluctance,
expecting who knows what. However, I have been quite surprised no has
commented on it.

Quote:

To me, "appearing" involves some actual testing that gives solid evidence
that something unexplainable by present knowledge is going on. Anything
less
is fluff. Look at what a good magician or hawker at a fair can do.
Appearances are their stock in trade.

I agree, and anything less would be raw naivety. To consider something
real, the above must apply. And I know this is a difficult topic, moreso
because of the idiocy of some claims and supposed discoveries. It is a field
ripe for harvest by those who see an easy profit in the gullible. However,
I can't agree that all is well in this regard. In fact, I know it's not,
but will not elaborate for my own reasons. And that is most certainly not
meant to cast the "conspiracy" shadow over my statement or others. In a
world at peace with itself, devoid of those hungering for power and control
and the means to impose their own will on the rest of us it realy would be a
simple matter. But, that is not the world we live in Don. It realy isn't.
If it were we could all confidently ask "Where is it then?" and that alone
would suffice.

Solid evidence may not be so readily available as you, and I both, would
like it to be. However, a previous poster has mentioned his own experience,
and I have seen almost exactly what he described before. So the reasons for
a lack of evidence, may, just may, be as has been previously suggested here.

The number of visits I have done to the patent office, prior to being able
to access them online, is not a few. It is true that if you are looking
into certain areas you can be assured of being offered help by an examiner.
This I have experienced often enough. Ordinary topics of little
sociopolitical impact do not attract such "assistance" in my limited
experience. The last one I was involved with was an improved intake design
for a scram jet. The attorney advised us just prior to formulating the
claim, that if the military thought it was of national interest to keep same
secret it would virtualy be confiscated, and perhaps without compensation.
He then took us to the very next room and showed us a safe, it was where
they kept these documents for the military. This was in Sydney Australia,
and I could name the attorney. The application was not pursued for reasons
not related to any of this.

Highest regards,
Vince

Vince Morgan

Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 6:04 am

Guest

"Timo A. Nieminen" <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.WNT.4.64.0712131700280.1252@serene.st...

Quote:

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Vince Morgan wrote:

"Timo A. Nieminen" <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.WNT.4.64.0712131401500.724@serene.st...
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Vince Morgan wrote:
[snip]
We have flight today because there were men about the earth who did not
trust the views of highly respected scientific authorities of the time.

Not exactly. Kelvin's statement can be translated quite reasonably as "we
need powerplants lighter per unit power than steam engines before we can
build useful aeroplanes". A very correct statement, even.

That is fair and certainly reasonable, and I won't try to argue with it. I
was parroting others without realizing where I had gone I think.

Quote:

A lot of the "X went against authority and won!" stuff out there is just
myth.

Yep, can't disagree with that either.

Quote:

Consider Columbus - he was plain wrong. "I can sail from Europe to
China in 4 (or 6) weeks." 6 weeks and he got as far as America. Columbus
was lucky, even if wrong.

I didn't know he said that.

Quote:

I believe you are right here also, and the thought is encouraging. There is
room for discovery without huge financial backing, but I wish they would
give me some anyway :)

Regards,
Vince

Autymn D. C.

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:23 pm

Guest

A student is not a they. There is no "truth" either.

Autymn D. C.

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:28 pm

Guest

Crap is a noun. And it's a completely-redundant Latin word for chaff.

Autymn D. C.

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:31 pm

Guest

Zillard -> Szilard

Nothing is infinite.

Autymn D. C.

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:34 pm

Guest

WthF does "brocken" mean?

anymore -> any more -> any manier

Autymn D. C.

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:38 pm

Guest

-full -> -ful

Autymn D. C.

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:53 pm

Guest

it's -> its
devine -> divine
beleive -> believe
reconsile -> reconcilire
truth -> truthe
principals -> principula

Vince ("Vynss"), shut the hell up with your babbling. History and
pòlitics don't belong on sci. newsgroups. See my vertical and
cardinal perpetual wheels on Maxwells_Demon and free_energy@eGroups.

-Aut

Autymn D. C.

Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 5:06 pm

Guest

On Dec 8, 6:52 pm, "Don Kelly" <d...@shaw.ca> wrote:

Quote:

My support is accumulated information/experience over the years and the
fact that conservation of energy has not failed yet. Could it fail-
certainly the possibility exists but waving magnets or electric charges
around doesn't do it. There could be some untapped source out there but
saying that such a source exists doesn't count.
However, the proof is dependent on the claimant and so far no claimant has
come up with any proof.

You don't read my posts here or elsewhere. See my free_energy@eGroups
posts: my "Refutation of Thermodynamic Laws" treatise of mathematic
froproofs, and thermòkemic and nuclear withbewrayreds and froproofs of
each of the laws; my citation of anòmalic enthalpic and entròpic data
wherein, and those for watter and a superunital transmission spectrum
in another post. Conservation always fails; nobody bothers to meter
all and any sustems for energy at whole precision. Finite precision
means the conservation of any property is always breached; there are
no loft-tiht experiments which show otherwise, thas the conservations
hold for any good fitt of experiments. Thas nobody looks for
violations in them stands against your right to usan them as positive
proof for the laws.

O yeah, in another post I told about my lab experiment thas broke the
conservation of momentum for inelastic collisions.

Quote:

Suppose that there is a "free energy" device which somehow sucks in some
energy source that we don't know about- and an energy source that only
appears to operate in that particular device. The argument has been
presented (by others) that if the energy our from a device is greater than
the input energy, then there is an increase in total energy in the system -
some will be radiated but the rest is going to end up as heat- more than is
the situation now and also self perpetuating. Whether I believe this or not,

free energy <-> stolen energy

-Aut

Benj

Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 3:41 am

Guest

On Dec 14, 10:06 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Quote:

free energy <-> stolen energy

-Aut

Totally False! God provides all the energy anyone could ever need and
gives it freely. You can't steal something that is given to you!

Don Kelly

Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 7:46 pm

Guest

----------------------------
"Autymn D. C." <lysdexia@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:9412cbc8-8edf-4c38-8d15-440294a55cb4@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 8, 6:52 pm, "Don Kelly" <d...@shaw.ca> wrote:

Quote:

My support is accumulated information/experience over the years and
the.....

You don't read my posts here or elsewhere. See my posts:
free_energy@eGroups
my "Refutation of Thermodynamic Laws" treatise of mathematic
froproofs, and thermòkemic and nuclear withbewrayreds and

--------snipped----------

-Aut
-----
I haven't seen free_energy@eGroups because my machine sees it as an e-mail
address to which I could post if I cared to. I don't care to do so-in either
normal English or in Autymn-crap (crap being used legitimately as a noun- in
this case it refers to meaningless verbal diarrhoea).

However, to be fair, I have seen some of your posts (and circular self
references) - that's why I am now ignoring them as well as the meaningless
gobbledegook that you have written and I have excised.

have a good day,
--

Don Kelly dhky@shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer

Page 4 of 6 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Mon Sep 08, 2008 3:35 am Science Forum Index