Switch off at the socket?
 

Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 09:20:18 +0100, Norman Wells wrote:

Norman, I suggest you wander off and do some in depth reading
about
the advancements in the scientific theories relating to Quantum
Mechanics that have taken place in the last 30+ years. You appear
to
be stuck in the theories of 50+ years ago.

Unfortunately that won't help at all with situations that don't
involve quantum mechanics in the slightest.

The physics of sub-atomic particles has no relevance unless you're
considering sub-atomic particles. Winding a cuckoo clock doesn't.

OK how does a clock spring store energy without *any*
atomic/sub-atomic effects?

By mechanical strain of the crystalline structure of the spring steel whose
lowest energy, and therefore most stable, conformation is 'unwound'.
Whenever displaced from that conformation it will tend to revert to it when
the strain is removed.

No atomic or sub-atomic effects at all.

Switch off at the socket?
 

Norman Wells wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


8

Are you saying now that the earth has a nuclear reaction going on
at its centre, and that's the reason it's pretty warm down there?



Yes, and no, that's not the only reason. Not even the biggest
reason. Of course it has nuclear reactions going on down
there..where else would all the radon come from? and all the uranium
is still decaying whether we use it in reactors or not.

You do know that there is a difference between radioactive decay and
fission?

Actually, radioactive decay _is_ a form of nuclear fission.

However, it is not a nuclear 'reaction', which necessarily involves
bombardment with neutrons.

Nuclear reactions do not produce radon. Radon comes about as a
result of radioactive decay of naturally-occurring radium. It's
existence therefore is no indication at all of 'nuclear reactions
going on down there'.

"Norman, this is dennis."

"dennis this is Norman."

"I'm sure that you will have lots in common to discuss."

(Creeps out - stage left rapidly).

Switch off at the socket?
 

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
: Dave Liquorice wrote:
snip
:
: OK how does a clock spring store energy without *any*
: atomic/sub-atomic effects?
:
: By mechanical strain of the crystalline structure of the spring
steel whose
: lowest energy, and therefore most stable, conformation is
'unwound'.
: Whenever displaced from that conformation it will tend to
revert to it when
: the strain is removed.
:
: No atomic or sub-atomic effects at all.
:

Wells, you're a right pillock! :~(

Switch off at the socket?
 

Jerry wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
Dave Liquorice wrote:
snip

OK how does a clock spring store energy without *any*
atomic/sub-atomic effects?

By mechanical strain of the crystalline structure of the spring
steel whose lowest energy, and therefore most stable, conformation
is 'unwound'. Whenever displaced from that conformation it will tend
to revert to it when the strain is removed.

No atomic or sub-atomic effects at all.


Wells, you're a right pillock! :~(

What's _your_ explanation then? Let's hear it.

Switch off at the socket?
 

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
: Jerry wrote:
: "Norman Wells" wrote in message
: ...
: Dave Liquorice wrote:
: snip
:
: OK how does a clock spring store energy without *any*
: atomic/sub-atomic effects?
:
: By mechanical strain of the crystalline structure of the
spring
: steel whose lowest energy, and therefore most stable,
conformation
: is 'unwound'. Whenever displaced from that conformation it
will tend
: to revert to it when the strain is removed.
:
: No atomic or sub-atomic effects at all.
:
:
: Wells, you're a right pillock! :~(
:
: What's _your_ explanation then? Let's hear it.

To suggest that there is "No atomic or sub-atomic effects at all"
is plain daft, considering that just about (if not) everything on
earth and in outer-space (that we know of) has it's origins at
the atomic or sub atomic level. A spring is a spring because of
it's atomic structure, the act of deflation is a result of
atomic/sub-atomic effects, what do you think is the building
blocks of the underlying crystalline structure you mention?
--
Regards, Jerry.

Switch off at the socket?
 

Norman Wells coughed up some electrons that declared:

No atomic or sub-atomic effects at all.

So nothing to do with the interactions of the electrons then?

What do you think allows atoms to form a crystalline structure then. Magic?

Switch off at the socket?
 

Jerry wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
Jerry wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
Dave Liquorice wrote:
snip

OK how does a clock spring store energy without *any*
atomic/sub-atomic effects?

By mechanical strain of the crystalline structure of the spring
steel whose lowest energy, and therefore most stable, conformation
is 'unwound'. Whenever displaced from that conformation it will
tend to revert to it when the strain is removed.

No atomic or sub-atomic effects at all.


Wells, you're a right pillock! :~(

What's _your_ explanation then? Let's hear it.

To suggest that there is "No atomic or sub-atomic effects at all"
is plain daft, considering that just about (if not) everything on
earth and in outer-space (that we know of) has it's origins at
the atomic or sub atomic level. A spring is a spring because of
it's atomic structure, the act of deflation is a result of
atomic/sub-atomic effects, what do you think is the building
blocks of the underlying crystalline structure you mention?

I asked what _your_ explanation was. What is going on in your scenario? Is
energy being converted to, and stored as, mass, or what?

Switch off at the socket?
 

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
snip
:
: I asked what _your_ explanation was. What is going on in your
scenario? Is
: energy being converted to, and stored as, mass, or what?
:

No, you are the one making the claims that everyone else in the
history of modern science is wrong, YOU prove that your are the
next Einstein and winner of a Nobel prize for your (literally)
earth shattering discovery...

Switch off at the socket?
 

Jerry wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
snip

I asked what _your_ explanation was. What is going on in your
scenario? Is energy being converted to, and stored as, mass, or
what?


No, you are the one making the claims that everyone else in the
history of modern science is wrong, YOU prove that your are the
next Einstein and winner of a Nobel prize for your (literally)
earth shattering discovery...

I'll take that as you don't know then.

Switch off at the socket?
 

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 21:07:58 +0100, Dave Liquorice wrote:

The abilty for the people to pay or not isn't particularly relevant. The
root problem was that the underlying value of the asset wasn't enough to
cover the debt on it.

From which one can therefore conclude that the people buying the asset were

a) being ripped off by having to paying far more than the asset was worth

and/or

b) incredibly stupid