Why are magnets debunked when talked as a source of energy?

The particular setup (toroidal 'inductor') by it's nature requires a solenoidal coil as source of applied B. That's not a snafu. The arrangement lends itself to an easy identification of the phenomena. Underlying physics is actually present within those permanent magnets you want, but not there so easy to tease out mathematically.

'Directly due' in part as previously discussed.

Told you before - such idealizations are routine. And more than just acceptable they are often essential if one wants to properly discern what's relevant. No red flag at all.

Maintain all you like but it's not so. Subtract expression (1) from (2) in #19 and you have the excess energy density that I claim is 'free'. Show how it's wrong - if you can.

What's more, if you had a grasp of what that bit on flux quantization in a superconducting loop implied, you would realize potential for 'excess energy' follows as automatic consequence of that flux quantization. It's imo been staring people in the face for a long time but not recognized. And btw in that scenario one is quite free to use just permanent magnets as source of applied B field. Really. What matters is the quantum nature of that loop, or magnetic media in toroid scenario.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I guess that pretty well summarizes your appeal to intelligent discussion.

I looked at your post again and really couldn't think of how to reply other than what I've already said. If I were you I would start with first principles and skip all the fake appearances of having some detailed problem worked out. Statements like "ferromagnetic materials are intrinsically quantum mechanical in nature" are about as far afield of science as it gets. You apparently don't see how egregious this type of speech is or you wouldn't have employed it. To the uninformed reader, you appear to be explaining something detailed about how magnets work. In fact there is a sentence to that effect. But it's surrounded by styrofoam. If you think you have an explanation for what generates the magnetic field in a magnet, go for it. But if I Google "How do magnets work" I'll quickly land on how they're made (solidifying the material under an applied field) after which I need only understand, if I'm trying to get below the macro scale, what a magnetic domain is. Beyond that I might want to know what makes small structures polar and at some point I'll land on the principle that generates a minute B field from the circulation of, say, an electron. (And vice-versa). Other that this very basic idea linking chemistry and electromagnetics to the macro-scale effect, the post you're worrying about offers nothing to the question posed, which was, whether magnets can provide a perpetual source of energy. Obviously magnets are not a source of energy, or they'd be hauling them by the trainloads to your local power plant for immediate consumption. And obviously they are not a perpetual source of energy, or we'd all be living like kings, arguing here about our prowess in lawn games while we sipped on mint juleps from our winter homes on Cayman or somewhere. Your foray into the superconducting solenoid lost me as to its purpose in power generation, and your allusion to "excess energy" kind of sealed your fate. I did not understand whatever it is you think makes it possible to extract energy from a magnetic field using a superconducting solenoid, and if it had a rat's ass chance in hell of working it would have been pounced on in the 19th or early 20th century when human sweat was still a basic source of energy. Of course it would violate all the other laws of physics and so we'd be operating in a completely different world where we could levitate at will and command the sun to shine or not and no doubt we'd live forever. Is that what you were leading to? That would be pseudoscience for sure.

I answered your post as soon as I saw it. What does "odd timing" mean? I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A matter of self-defense. In the face of baseless accusation. Perfectly reasonable reaction to therefore call your bluff imo.

Which shorn of all the guff there, was simply to flat-out accuse me of spouting pseudoscience - accuse with no substance behind it whatsoever. They got 'witches' burned in the middle-ages that way you know.

I threw something in which was original, on-topic and intended to stimulate intelligent discussion. This is a forum site, not some peer-review panel of a top-notch scientific journal. Get real.

Really? Well perhaps if you had not subtly misquoted what I actually wrote: "The one key thing about ferro or ferri magnetism is it's fundamentally quantum mechanical nature." you would realize how far afield your comment is. Never think you will get away with misquoting me!

Note the above deprecatory words thrown my way. Now watch the irony unfold.....

'Solidifying the material under an applied field'? You have just given yourself away - no physics education, just a self-styled defender of the faith. Google again!

Unbelievable. Accuse me of 'styrofoam' wording - while that above word-salad again betrays that, contrary to my expectation, you have no physics education at university level. Neither do I, but can now say without hesitation have a better grasp of the topic at hand - by far - than yourself.

And all of that piece totally and quite deliberately ignores the point clearly made in e.g. #19, #85 and again in #137 - what I am claiming is a subtle effect with no practical application but imo very great theoretical interest.

Try this: Date stamp for #86: 02-27-13, 12:58 AM
Date stamp for your response in #99: Yesterday, 01:27 AM (and previous post #98 has Date stamp: 03-04-13, 11:16 PM, so we deduce, Sherlock Holmes like, you posted #99 on 03-05-13). I'm sure you can handle that much math!

But whatever, now that I know basically where you're at, best imo we agree to end this here and now. As anything further between us will be just useless tit-for-tat. Agreed?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, I agree too.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I can only just begin to express the depths of how horribly wrong that is. COE isn't some idea that was thought-up hundreds of years ago and now people take for granted without ever bothering to test anymore. COE is a foundational assumption on which virtually every problem in multiple branches of science depends and as such is used as an essential tool for solving most problems. For example, if you measure the flow rate of steam through a heat exchanger and use that information to calculate how much the temperature of the water on the other side will increase, that's conservation of energy. If conservation of energy were even a little bit flawed, it would have truly profound implications for the functioning of much of our technology.

With a statement like that, you may as well put in your sig: "I'm a crackpot who chooses not to believe in established principle because I find it inconvenient."

 

I didn't believe it either when I heard it from I guy I worked with, so I double checked it on the internet and it confirmed it. And now they say that it is moving away, I have heard both, not sure what one to believe because they both claimed it was from the same laser experiment. To tell you the truth I think they are both wrong, the moon isn't going anywhere, it has been up there for 4.5, no, now it is 4.6 billion years ago, sigh. Good thing I checked on the age of the solar system, that figure has also changed. If they would stop changing what is science so much maybe I would be right every once in a while.

 

The planet still wouldn't lose any number of nuclei of atoms or molecules, if it had the same amount of moles and less size then it would only raise in temperature still. The theory is complete bologna. There would have to be some type of Jupiter Radiation where atoms vanish into thin air because it lost electromagnetic energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation. If it emitted radiation that it could not get back then all of its atoms would be running around naked without electrons if there wasn't some type of atom vanishing trick.

 

If you're more careful about where you get your information and checking your facts, instead of relying on what you hear from some guy at work, then you'll be wrong less often.
Learn what sources are more reliable isn't always easy, but it's a skill worth learning.

Things shrink when they cool, and expand when they heat, right?
This isn't because they lose or gain atoms or molecules, it's because the atoms and molecules get closer or further apart.


Are you going to measure the temperature of some pressurized and unpressurized gas tanks?

 

I didn't believe it either when I heard it from I guy I worked with, so I double checked it on the internet and it confirmed it .

Things do shrink when they cool, and expand when they heat up, but that doesn't mean that enormous pressures of gravity no longer creates heat. I think there could be an increase in initial temperature, until the atoms and molecules settle down, but I don't think they could decide to no longer then have a steady amount of heat from the amount of pressure acting on them.

 

My mistake, I thought you meant that some guy at work said the Moon was getting closer.

I suggest you measure the temperature of those compressed gas tanks and see if what you think matches what really happens.

 

It is no mistake, he actually said it all the time. People use to actually believe that the moon was falling and would one day hit the Earth. They also claimed it came from laser experiments projected at the moon. The only mistake I think is believing any type of claim of this nature. Either someone is just making it up, or the people that ran these experiments have done a complete 360 in their claims.

Maybe one day I will. While I am at it, I will then also develop modern formulations of the laws of thermodynamics. I think having to repeat these experiments to insure they are completely accurate has been swept under the rug for way too long.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

 

I guess this means the sky is not falling, you learn something new everyday.

 

Pot calling the kettle black.

No, that was religiously motivated. Today we are factually motivated. Today all the burning at the stake is done by logic and best evidence, which, you are complaining, is tantamount to torture.

Suggesting that immersing a stationary solenoid in a static magnetic field will generate "excess energy" is not real.

Meaningless nonsense. Everything is fundamentally quantum mechanical in nature. At least you admit it. . . (guilty as charged).

Yes I have great faith in nature and its laws. And anyone who doesn't is a nut. I reviewed the thread and noticed that my education is not at issue, while your bogus posts are. However, if you are equating a physics education with faith, then you've established your cult following of pseudoscience. In fact your immersion in it is analogous to, well, here we go: the mobilizing of the magnetic domains in a material while applying a magnetic field, so that they tend to lock into place upon cooling or crystallization or solidification. Maybe your opinions are like that.

I am concurring with the university -slash- high school teaching that energy is conserved, that no "excess energy" is available from a stationary solenoid immersed in static magnetic field, and that any work done is done on the magnetic moment that is moved under the applied torque (in its its dot product with the applied B field--or vice versa). You've completely ignored these first principles, hence my answers. Note also, you just equated education with faith in your remark immediately above -- so why pretend that education is the standard?

There's nothing subtle about suggesting that the laws of nature can be suspended, just because you deem some things to be more "fundamentally quantum mechanical in nature" than others. Nor does science ride in your back seat just because you deem it so.

I don't do numerology so I have no idea what your point is. We haven't discussed math, so you have no basis for characterizing my math background. Nor is it relevant. You're reacting defensively because you asked for feedback, I gave it, and it didn't stroke your ego. As I said before I responded to your post (directed to me) when I saw it. What is your point here anyway?

You will no sooner locate "where I'm at" than you will produce energy from a stationary solenoid immersed in a static magnetic field. Nevertheless you've certainly put yourself on the ideological map. That is, unless you're just trolling. :m:

 

Nice to know I'm not totally isolated here.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

There's that 'horrible' or now close derivative used again. Seems to be a favorite of mud-slingers.

And I have said or implied any different to that generic statement? Point out where - prove that bit is anything more than phony distraction.

Do tell! Again - I have somehow been attacking thermodynamics of that kind - in your mind? But again, this to me is a giveaway that your background is not physics but engineering. Another self-styled defender of the faith - but one preferring to quote steam tables rather than Sartre.

BS. Read again my response to this kind of dis-ingenuous tripe in #143. Third last para there to be exact.

Mud-slinger. Distort willfully, and fail to deliver anything of substance that might genuinely undermine what I have presented in good faith. In case there is any doubt, it was you earlier referred to as delivering nothing but smart arse vitriol back in #21: "mental masturbation.....crackpot". Without an ounce of what could be termed genuine critique. Constructive critique.

Recall I initially thought the better of you - until you came out snarling here at SF. It's because I remembered an occasion, not here but back at PF: http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=4117676&postcount=13 - see also posts #5, #15. Your post #19 there was (obliquely) supportive and constructive. My my, how things have changed. Seems that was just an aberration.
Take a tip - if there is nothing specific and genuinely relevant to bring to the discussion - don't enter it. Sling mud and you will get as good as you give. Understood?

Now to anyone out there who has the academic wherewithal to make a genuinely constructive, detailed and to-the-point reply, but has chosen to remain in the shadows. Think about stepping out of the shadows now. I'm thoroughly sick of spending time and energy merely warding off baseless accusations. Note I have been careful to admit #19 and following posts may be in error, but if so it needs to be shown specifically how and why.
[In case there are any competent and genuinely motivated takers, better just add here an admission that is trivial in context but could be seized on. I failed to notice and edit a faulty passage in 5th last para in #19. It went "...in that Faraday's/Lenz's law just fails utterly." As per edit I did make elsewhere there, Faraday's law always holds and it should have read "...in that Lenz's law just fails utterly." Not sure now just what I was thinking but probably was vaguely making a linkage via transformer action. A bad moment. So very very sorry for that awful slip-up.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

]

 

WOW!

What is going on here?!
I asked a simply question that ignited up a HUGE argument.
Can someone sum up whats are you arguing?

+ Thanks for the replies.
I got really good answers!

 

Your vaguely written question fanned the flames of misunderstanding and led to all the posters engaging in a huge brouhaha.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This happens all the time.


And of course the thread has been dramatically derailed.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Thats sad...
But hey hope everyone is satisfied.

 

Regretfully I second those sentiments exactly.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Just out of curiosity - got a time and place or website address for that classic derailment pic?