Rock Port, Missouri - The First 100% Wind Powered City

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

It might suggest your diagram reflects your point.

Hmmm....."might suggest"
So maybe you can also cite where the diagram is, or may be, flawed or incomplete?

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Nope. Not mine. Just simple physics.
Where exactly is the physics flawed?

Your use of the physics is flawed in relation to its application of determination.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Your use of the physics is flawed in relation to its application of determination.

Precisely how?

[Besoeker]

So exactly where is the physics flawed?
Your move, Sunshine.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

So exactly where is the physics flawed?
Your move, Sunshine.

Your application of it is flawed. You have used it inappropriately. You have not proved the case. Your argument is not credible and nobody will back it, except yourself. I have already explained, why. Energy is everywhere and always exists, cant be created nor destroyed and is always present and instantaneous. If you can't understand that, then there is little hope for you seeing any further and the rest is a waste of time.

[spadlet]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Your application of it is flawed. You have used it inappropriately. You have not proved the case. Your argument is not credible and nobody will back it, except yourself. I have already explained, why. Energy is everywhere and always exists, cant be created nor destroyed and is always present and instantaneous. If you can't understand that, then there is little hope for you seeing any further and the rest is a waste of time.

Energy is the conecpt that has evolved to explain how things change over time. The potential for things to change is always there but if you consider an individual situation it may be static (an apple may stay on the tree, a person may stand still etc). Cattegories of energy that measure the potential for things to happen have been deffined. An example is gravitational potential energy which measures the potential of an object to move towards the centre of the Earth due to the Earth's gravitational field. Other cattegories of energy have been deffined to measure the porcess of change. An example of this is kinetic energy which measures the movement of an object.

Changes can be modeled and calculated using the concept of energy conversion. So when somethng falls off a building, the graviatiational potentnial energy is converted to kinetic energy. This process is a time dependant process i.e. the higher the object, the longer it takes to fall and the greater it's speed when it hits the floor.

The First Law of Thermodynaimcs which states 'energy cannot be created or destroyed' has been developed through attempts to explain systems. The thermodynamic deffinition of a closed system is 'a collection of matter enclosed within prescribed boundaries'. When working on a problem a person defines the boundaries to their system. Everything which is not within the system is given the term 'surroundings'. The surrounding are thus the rest of the universe.

The First Law of Thermodynamics means that any increase of energy within the system must come from a recognisable source in the surroundings and any decrease in energy within the system must be lost to the surroundings in a recognisable way. It does not deffine the total energy in the entire universe, especially not at any specific point in time because humans do not have the ability to measure or account for all of the energy in the entire universe at the moment.

Does this make sense and do you agree with it so far?

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by spadlet

Energy is the conecpt that has evolved to explain how things change over time. The potential for things to change is always there but if you consider an individual situation it may be static (an apple may stay on the tree, a person may stand still etc). Cattegories of energy that measure the potential for things to happen have been deffined. An example is gravitational potential energy which measures the potential of an object to move towards the centre of the Earth due to the Earth's gravitational field. Other cattegories of energy have been deffined to measure the porcess of change. An example of this is kinetic energy which measures the movement of an object.

Changes can be modeled and calculated using the concept of energy conversion. So when somethng falls off a building, the graviatiational potentnial energy is converted to kinetic energy. This process is a time dependant process i.e. the higher the object, the longer it takes to fall and the greater it's speed when it hits the floor.

The First Law of Thermodynaimcs which states 'energy cannot be created or destroyed' has been developed through attempts to explain systems. The thermodynamic deffinition of a closed system is 'a collection of matter enclosed within prescribed boundaries'. When working on a problem a person defines the boundaries to their system. Everything which is not within the system is given the term 'surroundings'. The surrounding are thus the rest of the universe.

The First Law of Thermodynamics means that any increase of energy within the system must come from a recognisable source in the surroundings and any decrease in energy within the system must be lost to the surroundings in a recognisable way. It does not deffine the total energy in the entire universe, especially not at any specific point in time because humans do not have the ability to measure or account for all of the energy in the entire universe at the moment.

Does this make sense and do you agree with it so far?

Of course. Energy is ever present in varying forms and states.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Your application of it is flawed. You have used it inappropriately.

And yet you have not cited a single specific flaw, and not a single instance of where it doesn't work.

Sunshine, I don’t quite know where to go from here.
I have cited that fundamental equation:
Energy = Power x time
You seem to have no dispute with that, despite the fact that it precludes instantaneous energy. It is simple, elegant, and complete – and it works.

You have sought to question the definition of “instantaneous” in your later posts despite the fact that you, yourself defined it “momentary” and, based on your posts prior to that, you accepted that it does not require the passage of time. You defined it thus, yet you saw fit to question it later.*

*“thus to the case in question about what's viewed as being instantaneous.”

I have given you examples and detailed data on generator output including waveforms showing the actual relationship between power and energy. You dismiss it as just a pretty picture, presumably because you don’t actually understand it, and yet can cite no fault with that data.

More than once I have invited you to post any flaw in any of that. Yet, you have not done so.
You have denigrated my expert knowledge on the subject which I have provided honestly, and in good faith. That’s fine. But it is clearly not your area of expertise and you have not found another expert I this field who has challenged let alone contradicted any part of that knowledge.

So, isn’t it about time for you to put up some solid facts, something more than just your opinion as a layman, if you wish to seriously refute the well-established physics?

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

And yet you have not cited a single specific flaw, and not a single instance of where it doesn't work.

Sunshine, I don’t quite know where to go from here.
I have cited that fundamental equation:
Energy = Power x time
You seem to have no dispute with that, despite the fact that it precludes instantaneous energy. It is simple, elegant, and complete – and it works.

You have sought to question the definition of “instantaneous” in your later posts despite the fact that you, yourself defined it “momentary” and, based on your posts prior to that, you accepted that it does not require the passage of time. You defined it thus, yet you saw fit to question it later.*

*“thus to the case in question about what's viewed as being instantaneous.”

I have given you examples and detailed data on generator output including waveforms showing the actual relationship between power and energy. You dismiss it as just a pretty picture, presumably because you don’t actually understand it, and yet can cite no fault with that data.

More than once I have invited you to post any flaw in any of that. Yet, you have not done so.
You have denigrated my expert knowledge on the subject which I have provided honestly, and in good faith. That’s fine. But it is clearly not your area of expertise and you have not found another expert I this field who has challenged let alone contradicted any part of that knowledge.

So, isn’t it about time for you to put up some solid facts, something more than just your opinion as a layman, if you wish to seriously refute the well-established physics?

As I said before on several occasions, it's your use of the physics that's misleading. You have given nothing but your own view. You have not presented appropriately relevant facts to support your claims. Take it or leave it your choice. There is no good reason to believe you above anyone else. You have failed to make a case as it's not provable by your example. Energy's always there and instantaneous.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

As I said before on several occasions, it's your use of the physics that's misleading.

Finegood. Cite a single specific instance where it is flawed, where it gives incorrect results.
A single specific instance, just one, where it doesn't work.