Re: permanent magnet motor

In sci.physics, jmfbahciv@xxxxxxx
<jmfbahciv@xxxxxxx>
wrote
on Mon, 19 Feb 07 14:58:32 GMT
<ercduo$8qk_010@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
In article <aiema4-t5v.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In sci.physics, jmfbahciv@xxxxxxx
<jmfbahciv@xxxxxxx>
wrote
on Sun, 18 Feb 07 14:06:38 GMT
<er9mhe$8qk_004@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
In article <lpWBh.1$25.144@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
mmeron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
In article <1171795023.888104.36220@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Eric
Gisse" <jowr.pi@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
On Feb 18, 12:06 am, mme...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
In article <1171789243.402497.271...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Eric
Gisse" <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

On Feb 17, 9:31 pm, "gdewi...@xxxxxxxxx" <gdewi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[...]

The Lorentz Force law absolutely denies magnetic forces doing work. I
have told you this over and over - the force is perpendicular to the
direction of movement so work is not done. Yet you refuse to
understand, and instead quote things that are irrelevant.

Nobody gives a *** about Lord Kelvin. He was wrong,

In what way he was wrong?

About heavier-than-air flying machines being an impossibility.

He didn't say this. What he said is "there is no existing combination
of power plants and materials to make heavier than air flyin machines
possible". This is a statement about technology, ***not*** scientific
limitations and was pretty much true (give or take couple years of
development) at the time it was uttered. Anybody who is not a *total
moron* should realize that Lord Kelvin (and other scientists of his
time) knew that birds are flying and are heavier than air, thus
heavier than air flight is not impossible in principle. Now, when the
statement was picked on by the fucking morons of the news media and
trancribed for the benefit of the general population, the fine
distinction between scientific and technological impossibility was
dropped (we don't expect the fucking morons of the news media to
comprehend such, now do we?). But the distinction was there.

I wonder when the first paper airplane was made.

/BAH

Ask and ye shall receive... :-)

http://paperplane.org/History/history.html

suggests Chinese kites.

Heh. Kites never crossed my mind when I asked :-). Thanks.

Ditto here, although it's logical in retrospect.


The American variant, however,
may have waited until 1930 with Jack Northrup producing
paper models, though others suggest that they predate even
the Wrights. I'll admit to some curiosity as to what the
early Egyptians (?) used for trash cans; unfortunately
Google wasn't quite as cooperative in answering questions
regarding such. (One envisions something akin to a clay
chamber pot, which could later burn the paper waste.

Have you tried looking for their toilets?

A quick Google coughed up

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/egypt/dailylife/housing.htm

which suggests limestone toilets, with sewage disposed in pits in the
streets, for the wealthy; presumably the poor had cruder means.

(The article doesn't mention what happens with the stuff in the pits.)

The modern flush toilet, of course, has a rather tangled
history, but wasn't popular until the late 18th century
(though John Harington lived in the mid-16th to early
17th and designed a device for the Queen, said device did
not become popular until Alexander Cummings patented his
device in 1775).



However, that's just a guess on my part.)

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

also suggests Chinese kites, and suggests 1909, though
also mentions George Cayley in the early 1800s, though
he used linen.

Oh, cloth. I hadn't thought of that either.

/BAH



--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
New Technology? Not There. No Thanks.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

.

Quantcast