Mageth

"Compression" can be a bit confusing. The force (pressure) is still "there", but it's no longer compressing (decreasing in volume in a rock or liquid, or in the case of pressurizing gas in a cylinder increasing in mass, with its corresponding molecular effects). That's why they call it "compressed gas" and not "compressing gas", I reckon. It still pressurized but is no longer being compressed.

NOGO

Is this backtracking or what?

Energy is being put into the system the same way you need energy to bend wires. There is no question about this.

The problem is that you claim that the mere presence of pressure on something continously increase its temperature.

We are not talking here about the great mysteries of life on earth. We are talking about well studied and understood physics.

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

Corwin

A constant input of energy, (from whatever source) is required for as long as that force is applied. In the spring that energy comes from the chemical bonds between the molecules that make up the spring, as well as the structure of the spring itself. In the case of a human pushing against a stationary wall, chemical energy from food is used in the muscles.

Mageth

The energy doesn't just 'go away' simply because the solid object won't compress anymore. That energy is still there

Try this in a machine shop with a block of steel and a press. After the block of steel has been maximally compressed, if you continue increasing pressure, what heats up? The press; not the steel. AND this is because of the energy being used (electricity) in the press, not because of the pressure increase. The press is continuing to work and generates heat from that continued work. If you stop the press (locking it down so that it maintains the pressure being applied to the steel), the press stops generating heat from all the work it [was] doing and eventually cools down. The steel "pushing back" on the press does not generate heat.

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

Mageth

We are not talking here about the great mysteries of life on earth. We are talking about well studied and understood physics.

That's why it took a novice like me less than 5 minutes to grasp it, even though I've forgotten most of what I learned in college physics.

NOGO

Tronvillain, you were right.

No chemical energy is used by the spring to maintain the force it exerts when extended or compressed.

Now what do you mean by the structure of the spring itself? Please explain.

NOGO

Suppose you take a spring nail down at one end then stretch it and nail it down at the other end.
Both nails will feel a force.

If the spring does not deteriorate due to rust or other agents the force will be there forever.

Please tell us how much energy is being consumed in such a system.

My answer is zero.

GunnerJ

In Corwin's world, "pseudoscience" involves asking for a modicum of evidence to support an incredible claim. "Science," to him, is assuming that whatever unobserved thing you need to make a crackpot theory work actually exists because no one can prove it doesn't, without your even providing indirect evidence of it. Amazing.

BTW, tron, I'm not sure I follow you. I'd like to point out that I'm a novice, and like Mageth, I'm willing to admit a fault- I don't take my ideas so seriously that despite repeated refutations, I will continue to hold to them. My original statement was just my impression of what Corwin was trying to say.

tronvillain

I'll try to be a little clearer:

1)For a rock to crush an object beneath it, it has to occupy space formerly occupied by that object.

2)For a rock to occupy space formerly occupied by an object beneath it, the rock must be lower than it was before it occupied that space.

3)For a rock to be lower than it was, the rock has to have less gravitational potential energy than it had before.

Now, the most obvious way to crush an object to crush an object is to lift it, in which case some of the gravitational potential energy given the rock by lifting it will be used to crush the object. The less obvious was is to tip it over, but this will still involve an overall decrease in gravitational potential energy.

I hope that clears things up. It's possible that none of this is news to you and this confusion is just an artifact of the words we're using to attempt to explain our understanding of the concepts.

Deimos

In the name of Zeus, is this 'discussion' still going on.

Corwin, please, if you will, answer me this:

Suppose I have an ionised atom suspended between two charged plates such that the gravitational attraction on the ion is balanced by the electrostatic force. The whole system is in static equilibrium.

Clearly we have the gravitational force acting on the ion and the electrostatic force acting on the ion. Now according to you, the Corwin Mechanism supplies energy to the ion by virtue of the force(s) acting on it. Leaving the gravitational force aside for the moment, how does the electric field supply energy to this particle and how does this energy manifest itself?

Awaiting your response with great anticipation .

[ March 11, 2002: Message edited by: Deimos ]</p>