Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: LibWhacker
As there is no need for a magnetic field, there is also less energy consumption.

Another reporter handicapped by being beyond his depth. No hint whatsoever as to what magic is involved in creating no-energy heat.

It's been a long time since I seriously studied physics, but it seems to me that generating heat is more energy intensive than generating magnetic fields. I hope there are followup details, somewhere.

3 posted on 02/07/2012 11:04:52 PM PST by Publius6961 (My world was lovely, until it was taken over by parasites.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Publius6961
...but it seems to me that generating heat is more energy intensive than generating magnetic fields...

Yeah, and I would think a lot slower. How do you rapidly switch a heater's output level?

4 posted on 02/07/2012 11:15:49 PM PST by Upstate NY Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Publius6961

Creating magnetic fields uses significantly more power. A magnetic field is generated by passing current through a coil. A relatively small 3 Tesla field using a resistive coils requires a large amount of power. The largest magnet in the world at the National High Magetic Field Laboratory has its own power plant and consumes about 25 percent of the power in Tallahasssee, when fully powered.

So no....using a small heat pulse to reverse a field is magnitudes less power. By the way, Nature and Science are probably the top scientific journals in the world. It wouldn’t be there if it wasnt significant.


11 posted on 02/08/2012 4:24:58 AM PST by vmivol00 (I won't be reconstructed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson