"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Energy. Bound energy.

Bound in what way?
You claim it changes merely by lifting a weight up by a mm.

In message , Ian
writes

"NT" wrote in message
...
On Sep 14, 10:43 pm, "alexander.keys1"
wrote:
There have been a lot of comments recently about the waste of energy
due to appliances being left on standby, and various gizmo's that are
on offer to turn them off automatically, or otherwise purporting to
save energy. What everybody seems to be forgetting is that an energy-
saving device comes with most UK socket outlets, it's called a
'switch', and when put into the 'off' position, power cosumption is
zero! None of my appliances, including computers, digital TV
receivers, etc. have come to harm through this practice, I always
switch off at the wall, back in the day when there were fewer
appliances this was standard procedure to avoid fire risk.


The phantom power issue is much over stated. In most cases it isn't
worth getting up to switch things off.


I think it depends on how old the appliance is. For example our old CRT
Sony television was using almost the same power on standby as it was
when turned on. The new LCD HD one uses just 1 watt on standby.

My new flatscreen uses 14W[1] in standby and between 80W and 150W in
use, the old CRT (c 1995) used around 2W in standby and 60-80W running.

[1] that's if there's someone in the room, if you leave the room empty
for some time and come back it's dropped to 1W

--
bof at bof dot me dot uk

In message , Richard Tobin
writes
In article ,
Paul Martin wrote:

0.6nkg = 600ng, which is definitely measurable. You can't use SI units
like that.

I don't see why not:

You have: 600ng
You want: nkg
* 0.6

In the past it was common to use "micro-micro-farads" for picofarads.

The Americans are somewhat bemused when we British call these 'puffs'.
--
Ian

In article ,
Paul Martin wrote:

0.6nkg = 600ng, which is definitely measurable. You can't use SI units
like that.

I don't see why not:

You have: 600ng
You want: nkg
* 0.6

In the past it was common to use "micro-micro-farads" for picofarads.

-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.

In article , Bof wrote:
My new flatscreen uses 14W[1] in standby and between 80W and 150W in
use, the old CRT (c 1995) used around 2W in standby and 60-80W running.

[1] that's if there's someone in the room, if you leave the room empty
for some time and come back it's dropped to 1W

That's creepy - a TV set that watches the viewers!

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

In article , J. P. Gilliver (John)
wrote:
Actually, lending to people who can't pay back is not as financially
daft as it sounds - AS LONG AS you are fairly certain that the price of
what they're borrowing to buy (in this case property) is going to
continue to rise, or at least not fall. Because: when they default, you
get what they _have_ managed to pay, plus the property back to sell.
Cruel and cynical, but lending to those who can't pay is not of itself
financially unsound: it's only lending on something that suddenly
_falls_ in value that is.

Wouldn't the very fact that everybody was doing this actually *cause* the
value to fall?

In other words, you can only make a gain without doing real work if it's
at the expense of others. If they're all doing it, nobody gains, because
there's nowhere for the increase in value to come from.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 18:23:48 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

Actually, lending to people who can't pay back is not as financially
daft as it sounds - AS LONG AS you are fairly certain that the price of
what they're borrowing to buy (in this case property) is going to
continue to rise, or at least not fall. Because: when they default, you
get what they _have_ managed to pay, plus the property back to sell.
Cruel and cynical, but lending to those who can't pay is not of itself
financially unsound: it's only lending on something that suddenly
_falls_ in value that is.

Or as happened in the sub-prime mortgage market in the US lending
more than the asset was ever going to be worth. That was the root
cause of the problem and the house of cards has collapsed when these,
effectively unsecured, loans became bad what 2, 3 years ago.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 17:46:22 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

I've heard it alleged that the biggest d(demand) by d(time) was at the
end of the 1966 international match,

That had TV Pickups of half time 260MW, full time 600MW.

This is small, even for the same period, other "TV pickups" were well
over 1000MW.

Top so far is "4 July 1990 World Cup Semi-final (West Germany v
England) 2,800MW"

RH side bar
on:

http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Media...leases/30-6-06.
htm

All of the Top Ten are over 2GW.

http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Media...up/didyouknow/

Dinorwig is rated at 1800MW for up to 6hrs. So that record TV Pickup
needed another 1GW of capacity from somewhere.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 17:30:58 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:


As one who grew up (from about age 6, anyway) in Germany, I've always
found BS1363 connectors (the "13A" type), both plug and - especially -
socket, far too big - and having a switch on each socket an unnecessary
further complication. If you really want to "turn off at the socket",
you can take the plug out ...

Other countries use different ways of doing their house wiring ,they
have a different set of advantages and disadvantages, and the standard
of electrical installations varies greatly. I say no more.

The whole kit and caboodle of recent house wiring, Ring Main, 13A
mains sockets, 13A fused mains plugs, and appliance leads was
introduced to save copper during the early shortages after the war.

So they say.

In earlier times when in me mum's house we were only just getting used
to having one power socket per room a lot of appliances with quite a
high current drain (So called "Electric Fires") were sold without
switches, and switching off by pulling the plug out caused burnt
contacts in the 13A sockets.


(Other designs of plug don't lie in wait for your bare feet either ...)

That only happens cos you're pullin' the plugs out - Doh !

Derek.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
Norman Wells wrote:

According to my Dictionary of Science and Technology, which is the only
_definition_ that's been provided in this thread, it's 'the quantity of
matter in a body'. As such, it _is_ a measure of the number of
elementary particles. It cannot be otherwise.

Here you go, half a dozen other definitions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass

Did anybody address the question of just what is an elementary particle, and
what the mass of one is?

("there isn't such a thing" is entirely acceptable :-) )

J. P. Gilliver (John) said the following on 20/09/2009 17:52:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes:

[lots of really good stuff - basically, nuclear is a lot better than
it's made out to be - snipped]

WE don't need to use any wind. Its an appalingly inefficient way to
generate usable power. It has no real justification beyond seeming to
the naive, to be a green solution to a real problem. In reality its no
solution at all, but it gets the greenies of peoples backs whilst they
work on real solutions.

I think that's a _bit_ harsh. Sure, in terms of setup energy costs (e.
g. making the concrete), as well as running efficiencies, it's not
great; however, since it is in effect free, I don't think it should be
dismissed. (Especially if the return-on-investment time can be reduced,
as suggested in some article about a new - Chinese, of course - design
someone posted a link to here has any validity; I think ROI time is the
big killer of wind power at the moment.)

I wonder if that's related to the Brit who went abroad with a mains
power saving device and the Chinese are building it? It was all part
of a documentary about Brits in China which was shown I think sometime
last year.

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


I didn't postulate the theory: It's not down to me to prove or refute
it. I am merely stating what the theory *says*.

Go on then show me how it works with the hydro electric problem I set
earlier.
You should find it easy.



I already did.

Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Bill Wright wrote:

OK how does a clock spring store energy without *any*
atomic/sub-atomic effects?

Because it's springy, stupid.

And how does it get to be that way without reference to its
molecular constituents?

Intra-molecular conformation for one thing. If, for example, you
have two long molecules that are intertwined, it will take some
force to separate them. That's nothing to do with the molecules
themselves but their physical arrangement or conformation.

Ah, so its not about the lumps, its about the connections. And what,
pray, are the connections 'made of'?

What holds the atoms in this arrangement? why don't they wander off
independently?

Friction, shape, conformation, and lack of desire to be adventurous.

Iron and steels vary in
their springiness because of their crystalline structures. What
you're observing are physical, macro effects.


And how come they take up crystalline forms?

Everyone should have a hobby.


Is that really the best you can do?

Norman Wells wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
Well, I've proved one thing today to my satisfaction at least: Norman
just doesn't know when he's just been disproved. It's like arguing
against a devout religious belief - a complete waste of time.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dictionary

dictionary

No mention anywhere of 'define', 'definition', or any variant of the
word.


You've never heard of the expression 'dictionary definition' then?

I have heard it as often as I have heard the term 'scientifically
proven'. Usually used by the same sort of people

Both are arrant lies, but there you go. Nowt as queer as folk.

Stuart Noble wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:

See Godel. you can split the world into related bits, and design a
system, that is self consistent, but as to whether the initial
splitting is meaningful..no one can say.

You're not a Jehovah's Witness are you?

A bit of a cheek, but what are your academic credentials, Norman? Just
out of interest, not being sarcastic here.

He has a failed O level in politics and media studies.

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Energy. Bound energy.

Bound in what way?
You claim it changes merely by lifting a weight up by a mm.



Well if it wasn't bound, it would wander off wouldn't it?

Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Engineering, Cambridge.

NatSci/CompSci, Cambridge.


Hi. Paul Martin is a common name but...Hmm.

...and playing Devil's Advocate to elicit a clearer explanation from
all parties.

Reality is more complex than the headline of "E=mc^2", of course.

Of course it is.

IOSTR that some mathematician calculated that to model the universe
exactly would take a storage system....as big as the universe. All
theories are simplifications. Science rest on the Godelianly unprovable
assumption that even it the state diagram of the universe is as big as
the universe, the rules for its transformations are much smaller.

The argument has never been whether Eisntein's theory was the end of all
theories, it has been about whether or not it implies mass change with
energy content of a non nuclear sort.

John Rumm wrote:
Paul Martin wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Engineering, Cambridge.

NatSci/CompSci, Cambridge.

Engineering / Computer Systems, EIHE (now Anglia Ruskin).

....and playing Devil's Advocate to elicit a clearer explanation from
all parties.

Reality is more complex than the headline of "E=mc^2", of course.

Don't start reading too much about quantum mechanics then, they soon
start arguing there is no reality! ;-)


Anyone who spent enough college time in the late 60's knew that long
before ;-)

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes:

[lots of really good stuff - basically, nuclear is a lot better than
it's made out to be - snipped]

WE don't need to use any wind. Its an appalingly inefficient way to
generate usable power. It has no real justification beyond seeming to
the naive, to be a green solution to a real problem. In reality its no
solution at all, but it gets the greenies of peoples backs whilst they
work on real solutions.

I think that's a _bit_ harsh. Sure, in terms of setup energy costs (e.
g. making the concrete), as well as running efficiencies, it's not
great; however, since it is in effect free,

It isn't. It takes a lot more man hours to manage and keep the bloody
things doing anything useful than it does to mine and refine Uranium.

I don't think it should be
dismissed. (Especially if the return-on-investment time can be reduced,
as suggested in some article about a new - Chinese, of course - design
someone posted a link to here has any validity; I think ROI time is the
big killer of wind power at the moment.)

ROI is critically dependent on the interest rate you borrow the cash at.

For both nuclear and wind, with wind being slightly less so, since it
has far higher ongoing costs than nuclear.

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes:
[]
If Darwinian survival consists in being a Vicki Carr, then that's what
we will be like.

Sadly, the BNP are supported by the Vicki Carrs of this world. Now if
[]
I'm unfamiliar with this expression: to me, Vicki (sp?) Carr was a torch
singer of whom my mother was fond, so I don't get the connection.

Million apologies. Vicki POLLARD.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3HfCTz74UQ

Clive George wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
Norman Wells wrote:

According to my Dictionary of Science and Technology, which is the only
_definition_ that's been provided in this thread, it's 'the quantity of
matter in a body'. As such, it _is_ a measure of the number of
elementary particles. It cannot be otherwise.
Here you go, half a dozen other definitions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass

Did anybody address the question of just what is an elementary particle, and
what the mass of one is?

Oh, I think there about a thousand scientists and mathematicians working
on that right now..

("there isn't such a thing" is entirely acceptable :-) )


And is fairly true.

In article , Java Jive
wrote:
Norman Trolls has posted over 100 messages in this thread wearisomely
repeating points that have already been refuted multiple times to
everyone else's satisfaction. You can see in the snipped quote from my
earlier post which I've re-inserted that even in this simplest, most
unarguable case, he simply refuses to accept that he is in the wrong.

It is now obvious that he is deliberately trolling. I suggest that
everyone else plonks him and gets on with the rest of their lives.

I was looking forwards to seeing how he got on with the later chapters of
Misner Thorne and Wheeler! Took me over a year to get throught it. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


I didn't postulate the theory: It's not down to me to prove or refute
it. I am merely stating what the theory *says*.

Go on then show me how it works with the hydro electric problem I set
earlier.
You should find it easy.



I already did.

No you have not, go on explain it.
Just admit that your claim that all energy storage increases mass is wrong.
Either that or explain why the hotter water (with the higher relativistic
mass) is at the bottom after releasing energy and how that fits with your
claim.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

ROI is critically dependent on the interest rate you borrow the cash at.

For both nuclear and wind, with wind being slightly less so, since it has
far higher ongoing costs than nuclear.

ROI is not critical if its to fight GW.
What is critical is that it saves CO2.
Wind power saves little, if any, CO2 over its expected life.
There is no issue with wind power, it just doesn't do what is required as a
solution to GW.

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


I didn't postulate the theory: It's not down to me to prove or
refute it. I am merely stating what the theory *says*.

Go on then show me how it works with the hydro electric problem I set
earlier.
You should find it easy.



I already did.

No you have not, go on explain it.
Just admit that your claim that all energy storage increases mass is wrong.
Either that or explain why the hotter water (with the higher
relativistic mass) is at the bottom after releasing energy and how that
fits with your claim.
Dennis, I cant even understand why you think your question means
anything. I thought you were joking.


Is it so hard to grasp that the water at the bottom is fractionally
lighter because its lost energy, but fractionally slightly less light
because SOME of its potential energy is retained as heat energy?

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 01:51:24 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

He has a failed O level in politics and media studies.

That's a bit unfair on media studies students at least they aren't
stuck in the last century even if they are a thick as two short
planks.

--
Cheers
Dave.

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

ROI is critically dependent on the interest rate you borrow the cash at.

For both nuclear and wind, with wind being slightly less so, since it
has far higher ongoing costs than nuclear.

ROI is not critical if its to fight GW.
What is critical is that it saves CO2.
Wind power saves little, if any, CO2 over its expected life.
There is no issue with wind power, it just doesn't do what is required
as a solution to GW.

If you examine WHY the ROI is important, it becomes clear.

Cost are, across the world, labour costs. So if something is expensive,
its because more people are employed to process raw materials to make
it, or because someone ios making a lot of money as profit.

As we have seen in this thread, people who actually understand science
and technology are very rare, so we might not even have enough skilled
people to erect the windmills.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

8


Is it so hard to grasp that the water at the bottom is fractionally
lighter because its lost energy, but fractionally slightly less light
because SOME of its potential energy is retained as heat energy?


Waffle.

So now you are claiming that the potential energy in the water at the top is
in real mass?
It can't be in relativistic energy as the water at the top is colder and
hence stuff is moving more slowly.
Just where is this energy if its not relativistic? More water at the top?

Just admit you don't have a clue.

In message en.co.uk,
Roderick Stewart writes
In article , Bof wrote:
My new flatscreen uses 14W[1] in standby and between 80W and 150W in
use, the old CRT (c 1995) used around 2W in standby and 60-80W running.

[1] that's if there's someone in the room, if you leave the room empty
for some time and come back it's dropped to 1W

That's creepy - a TV set that watches the viewers!

It is.

The other thing that was spooky was that when the TV was using around
150W, if I went up to the TV to take a closer look at the meter the
power dropped to around 80W like the TV was feeling guilty about its
consumption. Put that down to me blocking the ambient light from its
sensor.

--
bof at bof dot me dot uk

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

8


Is it so hard to grasp that the water at the bottom is fractionally
lighter because its lost energy, but fractionally slightly less light
because SOME of its potential energy is retained as heat energy?


Waffle.

So now you are claiming that the potential energy in the water at the
top is in real mass?

No, I am saying that is what Einstein's theories say.

It can't be in relativistic energy as the water at the top is colder and
hence stuff is moving more slowly.

There is no such thing as relativistic energy. There is only energy, of
which mass is an aspect.


Just where is this energy if its not relativistic? More water at the top?


In the mas of the water molecules.

Just admit you don't have a clue.

Why? Its not me that doesn't understand the implications of relativity
in the slightest.

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 01:51:24 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

He has a failed O level in politics and media studies.

That's a bit unfair on media studies students at least they aren't
stuck in the last century even if they are a thick as two short
planks.

No, I agree. They are stuck in the middle ages, instead.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

8


Is it so hard to grasp that the water at the bottom is fractionally
lighter because its lost energy, but fractionally slightly less light
because SOME of its potential energy is retained as heat energy?


Waffle.

So now you are claiming that the potential energy in the water at the top
is in real mass?

No, I am saying that is what Einstein's theories say.

And I am saying it doesn't apply.

It can't be in relativistic energy as the water at the top is colder and
hence stuff is moving more slowly.

There is no such thing as relativistic energy. There is only energy, of
which mass is an aspect.


Just where is this energy if its not relativistic? More water at the top?


In the mas of the water molecules.

How?
They are moving slower in the one you claim has more mass.
E=mc2 says they have less energy.


Just admit you don't have a clue.

Why? Its not me that doesn't understand the implications of relativity in
the slightest.

Go on then explain why when E=mc2 says you are wrong you still disagree?

dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

8


Is it so hard to grasp that the water at the bottom is fractionally
lighter because its lost energy, but fractionally slightly less
light because SOME of its potential energy is retained as heat energy?


Waffle.

So now you are claiming that the potential energy in the water at the
top is in real mass?

No, I am saying that is what Einstein's theories say.

And I am saying it doesn't apply.

It can't be in relativistic energy as the water at the top is colder
and hence stuff is moving more slowly.

There is no such thing as relativistic energy. There is only energy,
of which mass is an aspect.


Just where is this energy if its not relativistic? More water at the
top?


In the mas of the water molecules.

How?
They are moving slower in the one you claim has more mass.
E=mc2 says they have less energy.


Just admit you don't have a clue.

Why? Its not me that doesn't understand the implications of relativity
in the slightest.

Go on then explain why when E=mc2 says you are wrong you still disagree?

because E=mC^2 says I am right.

energy has mass.

There are more ways of storing energy than binding it to kinetic energy
of molecules.

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:55:56 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

but still no-one will state the definition _they_ use of something so basic and
fundamental as 'mass'.

This definition has been repeated in different forms numerous times, but
you are such a troll that you refuse to accept that is what the accepted
defintion of mass is.

For example, on Friday, September 18th, 2009 at 17:35:42 +0000 (UTC)
in message ,

"Mass is the quantity of inertia possessed by an object."

Yet you continue to use the defintion for amount of substance as the
definition of mass.

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:31:00 +0100, Norman Wells trolled:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

What holds the atoms in this arrangement? why don't they wander off
independently?

Friction, shape, conformation, and lack of desire to be adventurous.


And how come they take up crystalline forms?

Everyone should have a hobby.


What further proof is needed that Norman Wells has no intention of
serious discussion?


___________________________
/| /| | |
||__|| | Please don't |
/ O O\__ feed |
/ \ the trolls |
/ \ \ |
/ _ \ \ ----------------------
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | __||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | /| | --|
| | |// |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ // |
/ _ \\ _ // | /
* / \_ /- | - | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


There are more ways of storing energy than binding it to kinetic energy of
molecules.

go on then which one are you going for now?

On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 01:59:11 +0100, The Natural Philosopher pondered:

Paul Martin is a common name but...

Even Prime Ministers have been named Paul Martin.

http://img17.imageshack.US/img17/711/martinpauljan21web9ne.jpg

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:20:53 +0000, Paul Murray wrote:

One often-misinterpreted aspect of the energy-mass unification is that a
system's mass increases as the system approaches the speed of light.
This is not correct.

How does this fit with the relationship

m = m0 / sqrt [ 1 - (v/c)^2 ]

J G Miller wrote:
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:20:53 +0000, Paul Murray wrote:

One often-misinterpreted aspect of the energy-mass unification is that a
system's mass increases as the system approaches the speed of light.
This is not correct.

How does this fit with the relationship

m = m0 / sqrt [ 1 - (v/c)^2 ]


So the Cambridge and Imperial College men now seem to be saying that
neither has a clue. Makes the rest of us feel better I suppose.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...

No you have not, go on explain it.
Just admit that your claim that all energy storage increases mass is
wrong.
Either that or explain why the hotter water (with the higher relativistic
mass) is at the bottom after releasing energy and how that fits with your
claim.

Do you have any idea at all how little idea you have about what's going on
here?

Hint : Mass != Density. Another hint : The mass changes people are talking
about here are _tiny_.