Switch off at the socket?

"Jerry" wrote


Go find a clue about this word "dyslexia".

Then go and find out why you have all the attributes of a
newsgroup "troll"

Yer, I know. A word that is difficult to read and spell describing
a condition where one finds it difficult to read and spell.

For all I know, you are badly educated, or maybe just not
very bright. That's not a huge problem on usenet.

Dyslexic, I doubt very much. I know an awful lot more about
the symptoms of dyslexia than you could shake a stick at.
And you display none of them.

My diagnosis from a professional point of view is that you
are not dyslexic. You just used it as an excuse for a bad education.

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

Look, his formula can be used to calculate the energy that could
theoretically be released from a certain mass, or to calculate the mass
that could be formed from a certain amount of energy. And you can do that
with any mass or any amount of energy at any time. But those calculations
only have any significance or relevance if what you're doing is actually
converting mass into energy or vice versa. And mass is not actually
converted into energy on earth in any processes except nuclear reactions
and radioactive decay, whatever you may think.

It does raise an interesting concept.
If you feed electricity into a heating element in a good insulator it will
get more massive.
You should be able to measure that increased mass after a while as it will
be an impurity in the heating element unless it becomes the same element. If
it becomes the same element you could grow rare elements. Star trek eat your
heart out TNP has invented the replicator.

"Paul Martin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Do you deny the existence of atoms, because they are undetectable in
your home?

Brownian motion?

Unfortunately my scanning tunnelling electron microscope is in my other
trousers.

I prefer my atomic force microscope, its usb powered.

[email protected] wrote:


"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

Look, his formula can be used to calculate the energy that could
theoretically be released from a certain mass, or to calculate the
mass that could be formed from a certain amount of energy. And you
can do that with any mass or any amount of energy at any time. But
those calculations only have any significance or relevance if what
you're doing is actually converting mass into energy or vice versa.
And mass is not actually converted into energy on earth in any
processes except nuclear reactions and radioactive decay, whatever you
may think.

It does raise an interesting concept.
If you feed electricity into a heating element in a good insulator it
will get more massive.
You should be able to measure that increased mass after a while as it
will be an impurity in the heating element


sigh. No it wont.

A hot atom of nickel has more mass than a old atom of nickel etc etc.


unless it becomes the same
element. If it becomes the same element you could grow rare elements.
Star trek eat your heart out TNP has invented the replicator.



Look Dennis, I dunno what your problem is: I have cited at least three
articles explaining all this, and others have been cited by others.

Get it through your thick skull: Energy has mass. Energy IS mass. No
nuclear transformations are necessary.

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
news : Jerry wrote:
: "rosie" wrote in message
: ...
:
: snip
:
: I only posted this to give him a clue.
:
:
: Go find a clue about this word "dyslexia".
:
: Oh God, have we got to make allowances for the backward too?
:

Yes, we are all making allowances for you...

Of course if you knew anything about dyslexia you would know how
ignorant your comment above is, many people now believe that a
certain Albert Einstein was dyslexia and again if you knew
anything about the causes of dyslexia you would understand why.

"rosie" wrote in message
...
:
snip
:
: diagnosis from a professional point of view is that...

....you're a worthless Usenet troll?

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


"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

Look, his formula can be used to calculate the energy that could
theoretically be released from a certain mass, or to calculate the mass
that could be formed from a certain amount of energy. And you can do
that with any mass or any amount of energy at any time. But those
calculations only have any significance or relevance if what you're
doing is actually converting mass into energy or vice versa. And mass
is not actually converted into energy on earth in any processes except
nuclear reactions and radioactive decay, whatever you may think.

It does raise an interesting concept.
If you feed electricity into a heating element in a good insulator it
will get more massive.
You should be able to measure that increased mass after a while as it
will be an impurity in the heating element


sigh. No it wont.

A hot atom of nickel has more mass than a old atom of nickel etc etc.


unless it becomes the same element. If it becomes the same element you
could grow rare elements. Star trek eat your heart out TNP has invented
the replicator.



Look Dennis, I dunno what your problem is: I have cited at least three
articles explaining all this, and others have been cited by others.

Get it through your thick skull: Energy has mass. Energy IS mass. No
nuclear transformations are necessary.

I have describe energy storage systems where that is plainly untrue.
You have failed to show how these work despite your claim that all energy
storage increases mass.
Here is another that you won't be able to explain...

dinorwic pumps a mass of water up to the top of the hill, then it lets it
down again.
The water at the top isn't hotter, in fact its probably colder after its
been stored for a day in winter.
Now tell me where this extra relativistic mass is.

Stephen wrote:

In reality there are lots of sites where unexpected shudowns cause
issues (data centres, hospitals ?).

also many sites where power continuity is critical have backup
generators - now those really are inefficient compared.


Data centres tend to have battery UPS-es at the least, and usually
generators. When your entire business model relies on keeping those
computers going you take care of them.

Andy

Man-wai Chang to The Door (+MS=32B) wrote:
... if and only if you are living in cold regions....
You are posting to four newsgroups tagged "UK" (United Kingdom). It
_is_ cold for all of us. Not like HK...

There is hot weather in UK, isn't it?


Yes, but not often. For most of the year we are heating our homes;
domestic air conditioning is rarely fitted, and even less often required.

Andy

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
[email protected] wrote:


"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...

Look, his formula can be used to calculate the energy that could
theoretically be released from a certain mass, or to calculate the
mass that could be formed from a certain amount of energy. And you
can do that with any mass or any amount of energy at any time. But
those calculations only have any significance or relevance if what
you're doing is actually converting mass into energy or vice versa.
And mass is not actually converted into energy on earth in any
processes except nuclear reactions and radioactive decay, whatever
you may think.

It does raise an interesting concept.
If you feed electricity into a heating element in a good insulator it
will get more massive.
You should be able to measure that increased mass after a while as it
will be an impurity in the heating element


sigh. No it wont.

A hot atom of nickel has more mass than a old atom of nickel etc etc.

To test that, it's vital to have a definition of 'mass', isn't it?

You see, according to the definition in Chambers Dictionary of Science and
Technology, mass is defined as 'the quantity of matter in a body'. That
must mean that it's a direct measure of the number of atoms the body
contains, since all matter is composed of atoms. From that it follows that,
however hot any amount of something is, it has exactly the same mass as it
always had, because it always contains the same number of atoms.

If you maintain, contrarily, that the number of atoms increases with
heating, you should be able to tell us the nature of the atoms created, and
whether they're the same as those already there (if so why?) or different
(in which case what?).


unless it becomes the same
element. If it becomes the same element you could grow rare elements.
Star trek eat your heart out TNP has invented the replicator.



Look Dennis, I dunno what your problem is: I have cited at least three
articles explaining all this, and others have been cited by others.

Get it through your thick skull: Energy has mass. Energy IS mass. No
nuclear transformations are necessary.

But there's a difference in fact between energy and mass, namely that mass,
ie matter, has a tangible physical form. If energy is converted into mass,
it must be converted into atoms or at least sub-atomic particles. What
atoms? What sub-atomic particles?