Michel Jullian wrote: >> I've adapted my own style of physics... > > No problem, I was only suggesting this as a way for you to realize you can't do away > with PE. Simulation software is usually based on forces and fields, so indeed it doesn't > have to compute energy to solve things. Which software do you use, something of your > own making?
To realize? It's the only way of doing it without using magic. For now I see no reason to use a magnetic monopole. I'll just have to use what already works, the current loop. :-) >> That's an odd statement since it is 100.00000% >> incorrect. :-) No offense intended > > A less peremptory tone would be more productive. I am blunt, and make no apologies for it. When in error I ***gladly*** admit such error. Saving face IMHO it pitiful. > I know about induced emf, my comment > mentioned no other current loop around, in which context it is 100% correct :) I am sorry, but your statement was clear and incorrect. Your quote, --- "You keep telling us electromagnets consume energy, true but that's only because the wires are resistive. A non-resistive current loop would not consume any energy to keep the current going." --- You said, "electromagnets" Notice the "s," which means plural. You know what? It does not even matter if you meant one electro-magnet because your statement is still incorrect. Electro-magnets have induction, so you can't even energize the thing without consuming such energy. Of course there is wire resistance, but there is also ***reactance***. Right off the bat your statement is incorrect. Second, we were clearly discussing two electro-magnets accelerating toward each other. Regards, Paul Lowrance ____________________________________________________________________________________ Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL
