Search results

:lol: You need to watch it for 3 days to make sure.

I was making a joke of the fact I didn't know what a neap tide was, so I said I knew all about neep tides. My auto spellcheck even highlights it in red when I type it. If it makes you feel better :)

Nope.

Woooooooosh!

It was, er, at the back of my mind, that's all guv, I was just about to say about neep tides.

You're probably right, I was completely guessing. I thought the energy from those nuclear and atomic bombs were simply because e=mc2 and the mass was changing. I thought if the molecule is split into atoms and the mass doesn't change, then where's the energy coming from. I must be wrong, was...

Johnny Cantor: "Anthony, amazing performance today. Three goals and you look as fresh as a daisy. Where do you get so much energy?" Anthony Knockaert: "Gravity".

Quick google tells me: "Sun's Tidal Effect. Even though the Sun is 391 times as far away from the Earth as the Moon, its force on the Earth is about 175 times as large. Yet its tidal effect is smaller than that of the Moon because tides are caused by the difference in gravity field across the...

Thank you. Not sure the first bit needed to be bold though :D

But the molecule would have the same amount of potential energy as the atoms it splits into, so splitting it does not lose energy. The splitting process will take energy and cause heat etc, but that's a separate point.

No, they're both forms of potential energy.

I'm now going to spend 10 hours researching whether it's exactly 50/50, or slightly more one than the other :glare:

That's a slight misrepresentation of the truth. It's true that if I know I'm right I'll argue 'til the end. But I'm not doing it to be pedantic. I am guilty of being pedantic, but that's a separate thing. People often pick me up on my mistakes in a pedantic way, and I've no issue with that, I...

He felt I tried to make an argument about something he hadn't said. I just responded to one of his posts, perhaps without full regard to the context in which it was made, and it escalated from there. I'm in Ho.. er, erm, Horsham. Yes, Horsham, that's it.

To be fair, he was probably just taking the piss, as of course it posses potential energy (like chemical and nuclear). But he knew what I meant :)

:lol:

Smoke and mirrors. It's a cool little machine, but don't be fooled by its intricacies. So what if gravity is converting potential energy too and from kinetic energy? That's exactly what happens in Newton's cradle (that desk toy where balls swing back and forth).

Yes, the water started with lots of potential energy, and it finished with less. That's the difference. From that difference we get power in the form of electricity. The gravity has just helped change the potential energy of the high water into electricity. Gravity hasn't added energy.

If you're saying that you can drop an object, and gravity will convert its potential energy into kinetic energy, then yes, that's right. What's your point? My point is that gravity is not adding any energy, just as gravity can't add energy to that machine.

That depends. Depends how much energy you put into the spring. It's just a ****ing ball spinning round, it's not powering anything else. Let's get it to power something and see how efficient it is. Meh. Trains are a bit heavier that that ball, and it's not so easy to keep lifting the ground so...