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

No, the onus is still on you. You hypothesized you can make a non-symmetrical solenoid (why this should behave differently than a motor/generator, I don't know...), so do the experiment and publish your results. No amount of mental masturbation on an internet forum will take the burden of proof off of you.

But hey, whatever - some people like infinite crackpot debunking so you'll probably get some takers anyway.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is cruel reality.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Perhaps if you defined your idea of what a 'non-symmetric solenoid' is, then compared that to what I tried to make plain, you would understand why you admit to not understanding!

Oh my. Experiments? Need I point out the likely net power levels to be expected? Just wonder if you would have barked that ultimatum at Einstein re proof of GR - something only dimly confirmed by a dedicated expedition some years after publishing. And no, please don't try and paint me as claiming to be Einstein reincarnated or whatever - it's just an analogy, ok!? And no I prefer to use a forum to air this rather than go the publishing route which is I believe a right still available here. The idea is to get people thinking rather than stinking.

But it has already started - with you no less. Funny, I actually had a soft spot for you until this bit of thoroughly destructive not constructive criticism. I know better now. One more on my list of avoid-if-at-all-possible people. Why folks can't try a bit of pleasantness is beyond me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That was horrible. Maybe even reportable.

 

Exactly! If you put the energy in to separate it, you can get the energy back in the form of heat (combustion) electricity (fuel cell) etc. Likewise if you put energy into a magnet (force) you can get energy out (electricity.)

 

wait a minute.
a magnet HAS to be a source of energy.
a magnetic gun or "launcher" can propel a projectile further than you can.
god i hate math, please spare me, please, please, please.

 

rpenner - do try and understand no personal offense was meany in my opening address. How could it - no names! It was meant as a challenge. You know - throw down the gauntlet and stir some positive point-by-point intelligent critique. I spoke plainly and if you find insufficient tact there, well I can't know ahead of time how thick or thin various people's skins are. Perhaps you can though fill in with some greater detail as to just what was so horrible to you. And likewise if the term 'boffin' somehow offends well sorry but it's common terminology and really shouldn't be taken as a putdown by me. Sure will avoid in future though! But up to you, I try and extend an olive branch here. So far three quite negative responses sort of confirms the 'I may regret this' opener for sure.

Can someone out there please look past perceived rudeness or whatever (I've copped it truly full-on myself already, and not just this thread), and deal with the substance in #19?

 

Without a model and calculations in that model, all you have is handwavey garbage which nowhere implies that a perpetual motion machine is possible.

Therefore nothing justifies that display of logorrhea. There is no substance in post #19. Where there should be substance you invoke "magic" for what you can't calculate and what we can't calculate because you didn't build a specific device -- even in your imagination.

 

Well there was imo sufficient rudiments of one to go with it further, and there were calculations, but who am I to deny the charge of nothing but handwavey garbage.

That one I had to look up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logorrhoea
Compare connotations there to my apparrently 'horrible' term boffin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boffin
So who should really have grounds for offence? Don't bother answering. I Get the message loud and clear - olive branch refused. Another one for that list (sigh).

Obviously not to your exacting expectations. Might just have to crawl back into my cave and sulk.

 

when refering to magnetism it's important to point out the source, PM (permanent magnets) or electromagnets.
the properties of these 2 are not the same.
electromagnets can add and subtract from the core field and due to what is known as apparent power can give the impression of "getting something for nothing".

 

Quite so and that much evident enough in my #19 I would have hoped.

What exactly is your understanding on 'apparent power' above? Sure it is not just the well known reactive power of an inductor? Which is nothing to do with what I'm on about.

 

Hmm.
This thread really got some attention.
Well due to my demanding calculus class I've been dealing with that a lot.
So I'll be back to hopefully soon to respond to the most interesting replies.

I appreciate all your efforts and I'll be back soon.

 

Wouldn't a magnet use up energy if it suddenly just fell off of your fridge? A magnet created from rubbing metal against a magnet wouldn't last that long, and they can transfer their polarity to other objects. When this happens it could then release the potential energy it created by falling off of the fridge, creating kinetic energy while it falls.

 

yes, it's directly related to reactive power.
the reactance of a coil is not the same as its DC resistance.
you can calculate power loss with both the DC resistance and reactance.
one of these values will ALWAYS be lower than the other.
by stating the reactive power loss against the actual DC power loss you can give the impression that you have magically gained something.

edit:
the relationship between these values are discussed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AC_power

 

OK that was as I thought you meant. Without quibbling over some details in above, sure reactive and real power are fundamentally different - but in essence it all gets down to phase relationships in those situations. And that stuff is not related at all to the gist of #19. I repeat a passage (with indicated edit here) from there:

And I suspect most who have read #19 have skimmed it having a mindset 'now where's the obvious stupid error that I will spend just two minutes tops trying to find'.
I strongly suggest reading and re-reading all of #19 until the actual main point there sinks in properly. Note I have slightly edited #19 - a particular reference to Faraday's law should have read Lenz's law. Commentary on that is between the [...] Plus did some minor cleaning up of text in the part covering shrinking a superconducting loop current.

 

The input power from that wasn't magnetic: you lifted it onto the fridge. And that action creates no excess energy either.

 

A magnet is always pulling on the object in the launcher, so it would do nothing but wiggle back and forth if not for the fact that you can turn electromagnets on and off. An electric motor does the same thing.

 

What i understand, magnetism generates due to spin of an electron. Spin requires mechanical energy. Electrons having charge have some electrical energy(potential).

So magnetism results from the interaction of 'mechanical energy' with 'electrical energy'.

 

That's wrong, but even if it were true, your claim doesn't require waiting for a celestial event to prove.

Incorrectly invoking Einstein is almost as bad as comparing yourself to him.

 

That's no different to a brick falling off the edge of a table. The energy in question is not related to magnetism.