Re: There's work, and then there's work

[David Rutherford <drutherford@SOFTCOM.NET>]

Bob LaMontagne wrote:
> David Rutherford wrote:
>
> > Let me try another approach. Do you agree that the temperature rise,
> > outside the resistor, is due _only_ to the transverse component of the
> > velocity of the particles (disregarding the mass, etc.) in the resistor?
> > If your answer is yes, you must also agree that there is energy, due to
> > the longitudinal component of the velocity, that is _not_ being
> > accounted for in the calorimeter experiment. If your answer is no, then
> > please explain how a hypothetical particle with _only_ a longitudinal
> > velocity would cause a heat rise in the environment outside the
> > resistor. If it doesn't cause a heat rise, then its energy is not being
> > accounted for in the calorimeter experiment.
>
> This will be my last response to this thread - we've taxed everyone's patience to the
> limit. The temperature rise is due to the fact that when the electron current flows
> through the resistor it follows a path that has a change in potential. Normally, this
> would accelerate the electrons. We know they are not accelerated because the current into
> the resistor is the same as that coming out (steady state basically). So, instead of the
> iV showing up as electron Kinetic energy it instead shows up as an increase in the
> temperature of the water in the calorimeter. No hypothetical particles needed -
> longitudinal or transverse!

This is just about the response I figured you would give. When pinned
down and asked to answer specific, simple questions that would expose
your unwilligness to look at (or admit) what is actually being measured,
in the two
experiments, you decline to answer them. You know that a particle
travelling parallel to the walls of the resistor will transfer _none_ of
its energy to the walls of the resistor, thus, it will cause no heating
of the water in the calorimeter and its kinetic energy will not be
accounted for in the calorimetric experiment. That means that the
kinetic energy due to the longitudinal components of the velocities of
all of the randomly moving particles is unaccounted for in the
calorimetric experiment. Since longitudinal motion is just as likely,
statistically, as transverse motion, _half_ of the kinetic energy of the
particles goes unaccounted for in the calorimetric experiment.

You also know that a particle travelling parallel to an imaginary
surface perpendicular to direction of the current does not pass through
that surface and is, therefore, not accounted for in the measurement of
the current. That means that its kinetic energy is not accounted for in
the current experiment. Therefore, the kinetic energy due to the
transverse components of the velocities of all of the randomly moving
particles is unaccounted for in the current experiment. Thus, for the
reason I gave above, _half_ of the kinetic energy of the particles,
also, goes unaccounted for in the current experiment.

You can't argue with anything I've said, here, and you know it, that's
why you didn't answer my questions. I used to have alot of respect and
admiration for physicists, but no more. I now know that you are not
interested in finding the truths of the universe; you are interested
only in perpetuating the status quo at any cost, even if it means
ignoring the truth. I only wish the rest of the world knew what a joke
you guys are.

--
Dave Rutherford
"New Transformation Equations and the Electric Field Four-vector"
http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/newtransform.pdf

Applications:
"4/3 Problem Resolution"
http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/elecmass.pdf
"Action-reaction Paradox Resolution"
http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/actreact.pdf
"Energy Density Correction"
http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/enerdens.pdf
"Proposed Quantum Mechanical Connection"
http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/quantum.pdf