Deleted Degrees of Freedom; the Rehabilitation of Physics (not revolution).

[Chet]

I already gave an answer on this: without looking back I think it was #37 and the argument here was so preposterous that it could be summarily dismissed. When I see such outright Beardenisms I know I am dealing with a crank.

I don't think it was #37 since I'm responding to your post #24. So, #37 must be from another thread...not this one.

[paul cotter]

Not post #37 but #37 in the list of wild ass speculations in the paper(the nonsense about a much greater energy surrounding a circuit than that which is measured in the circuit).

[Chet]

Nonsense. My math is not good enough to counter all the points raised here and life is too short anyway. I draw attention to #37: I can take out my latest bank statement and pencil in an extra 10million to the bottom line- does this make it real? All energy in a circuit can be easily and uniquely calculated and this argument is pure unadulterated Beardenism.

Let's see, let's begin with #37:

What is the Heaviside energy paradox?

Just the title alone is worth looking up ...

search ...

That leads to a paper ...
Gravitational Radiation: Maxwell-Heaviside Formulation

I've got some reading to do ...

[paul cotter]

Totally irrelevant. That paper simply explores the ANALOGY between gravitation and EM. Nowhere does it mention this fictitious "Heaviside energy paradox" in a circuit. There is no energy paradox in a circuit. That is just Beardenism, which is beneath contempt.

[Xena E]

I already gave an answer on this: without looking back I think it was #37 and the argument here was so preposterous that it could be summarily dismissed. When I see such outright Beardenisms I know I am dealing with a crank.

I don't think it was #37 since I'm responding to your post #24. So, #37 must be from another thread...not this one.

[paul cotter]

Equine apoplexy.

[Chet]

Totally irrelevant. That paper simply explores the ANALOGY between gravitation and EM. Nowhere does it mention this fictitious "Heaviside energy paradox" in a circuit. There is no energy paradox in a circuit. That is just Beardenism, which is beneath contempt.

You're right, again! There is no Heaviside energy paradox in a circuit. It's outside the circuit in its magnetic and dielectric fields.

But we don't need to go there, right? Since all we need is inside the circuit if we obey our duties of accountability to ensure we give the circuit everything it needs to cover its load/s plus a little bit extra to cover its losses.

From the paper:

This analogy motivates another area for future study. The Maxwell-Heaviside equations
for electromagnetism were fundamental to describing electromagnetic waves, electromag
netic radiation, and the quantization of charge which led to quantum electrodynamics. Since
gravitation can be formulated as a mirrored equivalent of the Maxwell-Heaviside equations,
can be described as a pair of gravitational and cogravitational waves, together simply called
a “gravitational” wave, and can also be shown to produce gravitational radiation, this would
suggest a quantum field theory of gravity may be possible.

[paul cotter]

It is not a matter of accountability, it is simple physics. The analogy between gravitation and EM is well known and understood and has been studied in detail. There is postulated to be a gravitomagnetic field, similar to how the electric field has an associated magnetic field but calculations show it to be quite weak and very hard to detect. No one yet has a consistent theory of quantum gravity. None of this, however, will give you free energy/overunity.

[Chet]

Nonsense. My math is not good enough to counter all the points raised here and life is too short anyway. I draw attention to #37: I can take out my latest bank statement and pencil in an extra 10million to the bottom line- does this make it real? All energy in a circuit can be easily and uniquely calculated and this argument is pure unadulterated Beardenism.

You're using sarcasm to show how easy it would be to "scam" (by way of "penciling in") the extra energy when, in fact, you know how technologically challenging it would be to extract (not scam) this extra potential from the modes which Dr. Wilhelm speaks of since -- those of us who are formally educated on this and related topics -- may be inclined to question its credibility. That certainly isn't me.

[Chet]

It is not a matter of accountability, it is simple physics. The analogy between gravitation and EM is well known and understood and has been studied in detail. There is postulated to be a gravitomagnetic field, similar to how the electric field has an associated magnetic field but calculations show it to be quite weak and very hard to detect. No one yet has a consistent theory of quantum gravity. None of this, however, will give you free energy/overunity.

Tell that to Marvin Cole Pieria (if you can find him).

[paul cotter]

Unmitigated rubbish. The reciprocal of reactance is susceptance and there is no such thing as "magneto dielectric waves". Do you have a masochistic nature?, everyone here is laughing at these absurd contentions and you seem incapable of learning. A sad waste of a human life.

[Chet]

Unmitigated rubbish. The reciprocal of reactance is susceptance and there is no such thing as "magneto dielectric waves". Do you have a masochistic nature?, everyone here is laughing at these absurd contentions and you seem incapable of learning. A sad waste of a human life.

There's nothing quite like arguing about what I did not say, is there?

The reciprocal of capacitive reactance is inductive reactance is what I was referring to....

[paul cotter]

The reciprocal of capacitive reactance is NOT inductive reactance. The reciprocal of either reactance is susceptance.

[Chet]

The reciprocal of capacitive reactance is NOT inductive reactance. The reciprocal of either reactance is susceptance. -- Bing search

The reciprocal of capacitive reactance, known as susceptance, is indeed the reciprocal of inductive reactance. This relationship is fundamental in electrical engineering and is used to analyze AC circuits. The susceptance (B) is the imaginary part of admittance (Y = G + jB), where G is conductance and X is reactance. In the context of capacitive circuits, susceptance is a measure of the circuit's ability to pass current, and it is inversely related to the capacitive reactance (X_C). As the frequency of the AC increases, the capacitive reactance decreases, leading to a higher susceptance value. This relationship is crucial for understanding the behavior of capacitors in AC circuits and is used in various applications, including filters and oscillators.

[paul cotter]

Read that quote: susceptance is the reciprocal of either capacitive or inductive reactance. That does not make inductive reactance the reciprocal of capacitive reactance, which is what you were claiming.

[SteveThackery]

The reciprocal of capacitive reactance, known as susceptance, is indeed the reciprocal of inductive reactance.

Chet seems to think he has scored a point here, but that quote says the reciprocal of both types of reactance is susceptance, which is exactly what Paul said.

But in any case it's another AI input.

Chet: will you please stop posting fucking AI text! I've told you before, if we want to argue with an AI we can do that perfectly well without going through you. Post your own words. And if you don't know enough to make a sensible comment, then DON'T FUCKING POST.

No, I am not being harsh or unfair. The normal protocol on this forum, and most others, is to post only when you have something to contribute. Not when you are out of your depth and have asked AI for an answer.

Of course it is sometimes of interest to quote an AI source (as with any other source), but not in the way you use it. AI is not a substitute for your own brain.

[Xena E]

Read that quote: susceptance is the reciprocal of either capacitive or inductive reactance. That does not make inductive reactance the reciprocal of capacitive reactance, which is what you were claiming.

Definitely, X_L ≠ X_C and B_L ≠ B_C or B_L ≠ X_C and X_L ≠ B_C
I think your mate Chet is just being a time vampire now Paul, if he wants to waste his life with this tripe, let him, don't waste yours... 

[paul cotter]

I agree, Xena, it is a waste of my time but as Steve and I both agreed gross error should not be allowed to stand unchallenged.

[Xena E]

I agree, Xena, it is a waste of my time but as Steve and I both agreed gross error should not be allowed to stand unchallenged.

Well, I used to think that way, and it's great fun to play but ultimately there's so much ignorance out there it's a numbers game in the end.

There will always be new converts to this crapism because real science is boring to the average Joe, people want to believe in overunity, they want to believe in conspiracy theories, they want to believe that they will one day win the lottery, and live forever. That's what these charlatans are selling and that's what stupid people lap up, they want a dream, not reality.

Keep having a pop at these twats by all means, but don't loose sleep over it.

[SteveThackery]

I agree, Xena, it is a waste of my time but as Steve and I both agreed gross error should not be allowed to stand unchallenged.

I see where @Xena E is coming from: there's an unlimited supply of people like Chet, and a large number of new converts to all this unscientific bullshit every day. Unscience is like a religion - people want to believe. They need to.

I'm contemplating a different approach. "Dodgy Technology" is where our band of nutjobs and bullshitters post shit. Indeed, the very existence of "Dodgy Technology" invites it. Maybe - in this specific section of the forum only - we should let the nonsense go through unchallenged. After all, the title is a pretty good "caveat emptor" for forum users.

I still think we should all observe scientific principles in the rest of the forum, and police each other when we think someone is arguing unscientifically or saying stuff that's just wrong. The EEVBlog forum is a treasure chest of science and technology; it's a tremendous asset to its users - new and old - but it needs a degree of vigilance to keep it that way.

What do you all think? Stay vigilant everywhere else in the forum, but in "Dodgy Technology" only, let the kids have the run of the place. Obviously we can argue if we wish (it's often good fun), but without any feeling of obligation to correct all the nonsense.

Comments welcome!

[paul cotter]

Hi Steve. I have a devious sense of humour and I find many of these outlandish claims to be quite hilarious. Having got my enjoyment I then feel compelled to correct the errors- as long as I am alive I think I will continue.

[Chet]

[paul cotter]

"One of the most intensely unhinged crackpots to have walked the surface of the earth"  Thanks to the encyclopaedia of American loons. I believe even Dollard has said he does not accept "Bedini Bearden bullshit".

[SteveThackery]

Hi Steve. I have a devious sense of humour and I find many of these outlandish claims to be quite hilarious. Having got my enjoyment I then feel compelled to correct the errors- as long as I am alive I think I will continue.

Truth be told, that applies to me as well: I'll struggle to keep my mouth shut! Perhaps I'll indulge myself occasionally....

[paul cotter]

We will just soldier on, then. We are not the only members who enjoy nonsense, "fourfathom" is another connoisseur.