THE WASP-18b & Space Probes Mysteries

Because electromagnets are another method of creating a force which uses energy. If you had permanent magnets, you could circle the particles endlessly without using energy at all, because permanent magnets can excert a force without using energy.
Click to expand...

Do you know how ferro magnetism emerges ?

There is no power needed in an ideal losseless system to keep charged particles orbiting in a magnetic field
Click to expand...

So why use 220-300MW, why not just you car battery?
I mean you need no energy except to the coffe machine the magnet etc... but not to keep the particles in orbit... (!) ?
 
Bjarne said:
Do you know how ferro magnetism emerges ?
Click to expand...
Yes

Bjarne said:
So why use 220-300MW, why not just you car battery?
I mean you need no energy except to the coffe machine the magnet etc... but not to keep the particles in orbit... (!) ?
Click to expand...
Are you really that ignorant?
Or can you really not read simple sentences?

Superconducting magnets need power to produce magnetic fields. They are basically big coils of superconducting wire. You run electricty through them to produce magnetic fields.
A superconducting magnet is an electromagnet that is built using coils of superconducting wire. They must be cooled to cryogenic temperatures during operation. Their advantages are that they can produce stronger magnetic fields than ordinary iron-core electromagnets, and can be cheaper to operate, since no power is lost to ohmic resistance in the windings
Click to expand...

Superconducting magnets need power to be keep cold enough to superconduct.

And there are a lot of them at the LHC
The collider tunnel contains two adjacent parallel beam pipes that intersect at four points, each containing a proton beam, which travel in opposite directions around the ring. Some 1,232 dipole magnets keep the beams on their circular path, while an additional 392 quadrupole magnets are used to keep the beams focused, in order to maximize the chances of interaction between the particles in the four intersection points, where the two beams will cross. In total, over 1,600 superconducting magnets are installed, with most weighing over 27 tonnes. Approximately 96 tonnes of liquid helium is needed to keep the magnets at their operating temperature of 1.9 K (−271.25 °C), making the LHC the largest cryogenic facility in the world at liquid helium temperature.
Click to expand...
(emphasis added)
 
Or can you really not read simple sentences?
Click to expand...

We don't know what a magnetic field really is, exactly like the cow on the top on the iceberg does not know what a iceberg is.

And we do not know why particles are moving in a magnetic field, or why the speed is like it is, and a lot more.
 
PS
Think about a transformer, the more the electrons moves through the cable, (around and inside the of magnetic field) - the more you pay.

Do you believe that this principle is an exception for a accelerator?

I mean it's not free of energy to keep the particles circulating

So what do you think the 220 – 300 MW mainly is used for ?

For me there is no doubt…
 
Bjarne said:
We don't know what a magnetic field really is, exactly like the cow on the top on the iceberg does not know what a iceberg is.

And we do not know why particles are moving in a magnetic field, or why the speed is like it is, and a lot more.
Click to expand...
That is so ignorant yet again Bjarne.
We know why particles are moving in a magnetic field.
We know why the speed is like it is.
The fact that you do know know is just your problem.
 
Bjarne said:
We don't know what a magnetic field really is, exactly like the cow on the top on the iceberg does not know what a iceberg is.

And we do not know why particles are moving in a magnetic field, or why the speed is like it is, and a lot more.
Click to expand...

Who do you mean by "we"?
 
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his two threads

To remind lurkers of the abysmal lack of knowledge that Bjarne has of physics:
The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his two threads include:
  1. "Bended space is Contracted Space"
    Curved space is not contracted space
    First Asked 11 November 2009
  2. Physical quantities can be arbitrarily assigned units of measurement, e.g. an equation that returns numbers (no units) can be given units of m/s^2 or coulombs or kilograms just because Bjarne wants it to return acceleration or charge or mass.
  3. Anything Bjarne states is right even if there is experimental evidence that shows that it is wrong.
  4. Energy is not conserved in Bjarne's universe!
    First asked 26 November 2009
  5. Can Bjarne understand that the force of gravity is not constant within a solid sphere?
    First asked 26 October 2009
  6. Can Bjarne understand the physics behind orbital resonances?
    First asked 3 December 2009
    So far the answer is no :eye-poppi!
  7. Does Bjarne understand orbital mechanics?
    First asked 3 December 2009.
    So far the answer is no :eye-poppi!
  8. Can Bjarne understand that energy is not a force and cannot "equalize" a force?
    First asked 9 December 2009

    You can expend energy to create a force to equalize a force as a hovering helicopter does. But the simple facts are:
    • Forces are vectors but energy is a number.
    • The SI units of force are Newtons but the SI units of energy is Joules.
And the questions he he cannot answer (basically about units of measurement):
The conclusion is that he is is in the lowest tier of the many internet cranks that we see . The only guy I know of who is "crankier" is TimeCube guy.
 
Why particle accelerators disprove Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance"

And this is the reason for the recent posts displaying more of Bjarne's ignorance.
(Hey Bjarne - superconducting magnets need electricity to produce magnetic fields. Wow what a surprise!)

There are energy losses in the operation of particle accelerators, especially circular ones like the LHC. The known laws of physics tell us what these energy losses are. The accelerator is designed to work with these known energy losses. They are compensated for in the RF system.

Scientists know the exact energy losses. The energy that the RF system has to put into a stored beam is the exact energy loss due to the motion of the particles in the beam.

Then you run the accelerator and it works.

Accelerators do not have double* their budgeted electricity cost
To accelerate the particles you use electricity.
Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance" means that more electricity is used that is designed or budgeted for. Somebody has to pay the bill. Accountants tend to scream loudly when a budgeted item doubles*.

* Bjarne is deluded enough to think that you can assign the Lorentz factor (a number without units of measurement) any units that he likes, e.g. those of acceleration. This is an arbitary multiplication of his "kinetic resistance" equation by 1 m/s^2, KR = (y-1) * a where a = 1 m/s^2.
But we can select any value for a that we like. Including values that make accelerators consume a million times their budgeted electrictity cost.

Accelerated particles do not hit the walls of the accelerator

This is one of the very good points that Cuddles makes http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5345407&postcount=473.
  • RF systems (e.g. RF cavity resonators) are used to accelerate particles and to keep them in the ring.
If there was an extra impossible "kinetic resistance" then the acceleratparticles would always hit the walls of the accelerator because the RF systems do not know about Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance".

Stored particles do not hit the walls of the accelerator


The next point is that the beams are circulated without acceleration for hours at a time. This is the accelerator acting as a storage ring. Making the beam travel in a circle is fairly basic physics. All you need are magnets and Maxwell's equations. The magnets are tuned to keep particles at a specific energy traveling in a circle.
If the particles are not at that energy they escape the storage ring. They hit the walls. In the case of high energy beams as in the LHC they then proceed to destroy the system.

Accelerated particles have the energy that is predicted
Yet another (less compelling) reason is that scientists are really interested in the collisions and their products. They are so interested that they measure the energy of all of the products in calorimeters.
There is a little law of physics that you should know about: energy is conserved.
Thus the energy of the products is equal to the energy of the particles that collided.
No one has claimed a Nobel Prize by noticing that energy is not conserved in the collisions, i.e. the products have half the predicted energy of the particle beams.
 
Bjarne
We don't know what a magnetic field really is, exactly like the cow on the top on the iceberg does not know what a iceberg is.
And we do not know why particles are moving in a magnetic field, or why the speed is like it is, and a lot more.
Rc
Who do you mean by "we"?
Click to expand...
Included you..
You don’t’ know what a MF reallty is and how it really works.
It’s out there is space my friend…can you explain ?

For me there is no doubt... to power the magnets so that there is a magnetic field to bend the charged particles into an orbit.
Click to expand...
Exactly, the magnetic fields bend the trajectory of the particle.
But how ? How does it "interact" with the MF and why ? and by the way what is a particle ?

Don’t you think there is a lot we don’t know ?
 
Last edited:
And his ignorance grows! (FYI Bjarne: particle)The fatal flaws and basic ignorance in Bjarne's ideas in his two threads include:
  1. "Bended space is Contracted Space"
    Curved space is not contracted space
    First Asked 11 November 2009
  2. Physical quantities can be arbitrarily assigned units of measurement, e.g. an equation that returns numbers (no units) can be given units of m/s^2 or coulombs or kilograms just because Bjarne wants it to return acceleration or charge or mass.
  3. Anything Bjarne states is right even if there is experimental evidence that shows that it is wrong.
  4. Energy is not conserved in Bjarne's universe!
    First asked 26 November 2009
  5. Can Bjarne understand that the force of gravity is not constant within a solid sphere?
    First asked 26 October 2009
  6. Can Bjarne understand the physics behind orbital resonances?
    First asked 3 December 2009
    So far the answer is no :eye-poppi!
  7. Does Bjarne understand orbital mechanics?
    First asked 3 December 2009.
    So far the answer is no :eye-poppi!
  8. Can Bjarne understand that energy is not a force and cannot "equalize" a force?
    First asked 9 December 2009
    You can expend energy to create a force to equalize a force as a hovering helicopter does. But the simple facts are:
    • Forces are vectors but energy is a number.
    • The SI units of force are Newtons but the SI units of energy is Joules.
  9. Bjarne asks what a particle is!
And the questions he he cannot answer (basically about units of measurement):
The conclusion is that he is is in the lowest tier of the many internet cranks that we see . The only guy I know of who is "crankier" is TimeCube guy.
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
Included you..
You don’t’ know what a MF reallty is and how it really works.
It’s out there is space my friend…can you explain ?
Exactly, the magnetic fields bend the trajectory of the particle.
But how ? How does it "interact" with the MF and why ? and by the way what is a particle ?

Don’t you think there is a lot we don’t know ?
Click to expand...

The electromagnetic forces are carried by photons. That is 'how' a particle interacts with the field, and how it works.

You can pretend magnetism is some mysterious thing, and I've noticed a lot of crackpots think the same thing, but in reality magnetism is one of, if not THE best understood property of the universe. The current theory which describes it, Quantum Electrodynamics, is the most precise and best tested theory in modern physics.

Yes, are things we don't know a lot about, but electromagnetism is not by any stretch of the imagination one of them.
 
ArcturusA said:
The electromagnetic forces are carried by photons. That is 'how' a particle interacts with the field, and how it works.

Yes, are things we don't know a lot about, but electromagnetism is not by any stretch of the imagination one of them.
Click to expand...

What kind of evidence are there ?

Question
Please let me know the approximated energy consumption of the accelerator when the particles is moving with for example 2.98E8 m/s and 2.97E8 m/s and 2E8m/s

Please mention the energy consumption in % relative to the top speed (mention above - 2.99999997 m/s) or in MW relative to the 220-300 MW and the numbers of particles ,mentioned in the example above.
 
Bjarne said:
What kind of evidence are there ?
Click to expand...

For electromagnetism? Textbooks full. You should read them some day.

Question
Please let me know the approximated energy consumption of the accelerator when the particles is moving with for example 2.98E8 m/s and 2.97E8 m/s and 2E8m/s

Please mention the energy consumption in % relative to the top speed (mention above - 2.99999997 m/s) or in MW relative to the 220-300 MW and the numbers of particles ,mentioned in the example above.
Click to expand...

No. You are trying to get us to do your homework, with a lot of irrelevant factors in it, so you can dream up some silly 'calculation'.

You claim to have a hypothesis, you calculate the loss of a moving particle. I suggest you calculate to loss for one proton in the Hadron collider (link to the neccessary info has been given often enough) at full speed. Result should be in Joule per time unit or Joule per distance unit.

Until you provide this calculation, I consider the discussion of that subject closed.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
For electromagnetism? Textbooks full. You should read them some day.

No. You are trying to get us to do your homework, with a lot of irrelevant factors in it, so you can dream up some silly 'calculation'.

You claim to have a hypothesis, you calculate the loss of a moving particle. I suggest you calculate to loss for one proton in the Hadron collider (link to the necessary info has been given often enough) at full speed. Result should be in Joule per time unit or Joule per distance unit.

Until you provide this calculation, I consider the discussion of that subject closed.

Hans
Click to expand...

I am not asking about how much energy the particles are losing but how much the accelerator is using by different constant particles motion.

So soon I have this info I will show you all what is wrong....

Question
Please let me know the approximated energy consumption of the accelerator when the particles is moving with for example 2.98E8 m/s and 2.97E8 m/s and 2E8m/s

Please mention the accelerators energy consumption in % relative to the top speed (mention above - 2.99999997 m/s) or in MW relative to the 220-300 MW and the numbers of particles ,mentioned in the example above.
 
Bjarne said:
Please mention the accelerators energy consumption in % relative to the top speed (mention above - 2.99999997 m/s) or in MW relative to the 220-300 MW and the numbers of particles ,mentioned in the example above.
Click to expand...
Between 0 and 100% relative to 220-300 MW.
We know that you are incapable of the simplest physical calculation so what are you going to do with this?

Accelerators do not have double* their budgeted electricity cost
To accelerate the particles you use electricity.
Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance" means that more electricity is used that is designed or budgeted for. Somebody has to pay the bill. Accountants tend to scream loudly when a budgeted item doubles*.

* Bjarne is deluded enough to think that you can assign the Lorentz factor (a number without units of measurement) any units that he likes, e.g. those of acceleration. This is an arbitary multiplication of his "kinetic resistance" equation by 1 m/s^2, KR = (y-1) * a where a = 1 m/s^2.
But we can select any value for a that we like. Including values that make accelerators consume a million times their budgeted electrictity cost.

Accelerated particles do not hit the walls of the accelerator

This is one of the very good points that Cuddles makes http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5345407&postcount=473.
  • RF systems (e.g. RF cavity resonators) are used to accelerate particles and to keep them in the ring.
If there was an extra impossible "kinetic resistance" then the accelerated particles would always hit the walls of the accelerator because the RF systems do not know about Bjarne's impossible "kinetic resistance".


Stored particles do not hit the walls of the accelerator

The next point is that the beams are circulated without acceleration for hours at a time. This is the accelerator acting as a storage ring. Making the beam travel in a circle is fairly basic physics. All you need are magnets and Maxwell's equations. The magnets are tuned to keep particles at a specific energy traveling in a circle.
If the particles are not at that energy they escape the storage ring. They hit the walls. In the case of high energy beams as in the LHC they then proceed to destroy the system.



Accelerated particles have the energy that is predicted
Yet another (less compelling) reason is that scientists are really interested in the collisions and their products. They are so interested that they measure the energy of all of the products in calorimeters.
There is a little law of physics that you should know about: energy is conserved.
Thus the energy of the products is equal to the energy of the particles that collided.
No one has claimed a Nobel Prize by noticing that energy is not conserved in the collisions, i.e. the products have half the predicted energy of the particle beams.
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
So soon I have this info I will show you all what is wrong....
Click to expand...
How can you show that all is wrong when you do not have the figures? We already know you do not understand the physics that you criticize, so why should any "calculations" on your part make an impression on us?
 
Bjarne: If you want some numbers to play around with and further demonstrate that you are incapable of the simplest physical calculation then have a look at LHC Energy consumption
Power
When the LHC is up and running the total average power for the whole CERN site will peak during July at about 180 MW of which:
  • LHC cryogenics 27.5 MW
  • LHC experiments 22 MW
If we include the base load for the whole site, the LHC contribution totals around 120 MW. (The number for just the LHC machine, not including the experiments or the site base load, would a fair bit less.)
During winter, when the accelerators are not running, CERN's total consumption drops to about 35 MW.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom