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

Funny, I was thinking everyone is confused because they don't understand that there is not an absolute frame.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You should try using a river mill, they have provided free energy to small settlements for thousands of years.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

When I pull the nails down by the strings, they immediately go back up again. Does that not qualify as ''moving through a distance?''

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well in my post I gave an example that the gravities kinetic E is being used by the bound atoms of the object holding the object together, in this case the sticks bonded atoms. You apply the weight to the stick the stress/work now moves to holding the sticks atoms together, put to much weight on the stick and it snaps.

Sorry, I dont agree with that. Gravity applies a constant force on the water and because the water is more dense than the floating object, it floats. In that example gravity is beaten by its own mechanics in that situation. Compress the wood enough that its density is greater than the waters and the wood sinks.

 

No. Please look up the definition of "perpetual motion machine".

 

That way of viewing the issue is just fine. So what implications does that statement have when applied to the equation for work?

But only once. Not continuously.

 

A river mill is a solar power plant, not a gravity motor.

Next time try tidal power. But do yourself a favor and Google it first.

 

You changed the scenario. In this case, there is input energy from you pulling down the nails and the output from the magnet is exactly equal to it. Just like when you push or pull on a spring.

 

And you can point to a single statement anywhere in #19, #31, #35, #44, #46 that contradicts such an obvious fact? Looking at it all wrong but more on that below.

Of course it involves the change in solenoid current (thus change in applied B field) - but is in combination with the QM character of the magnetic core's constituent intrinsic magnetic moments!! One macroscopically models the core of saturated ferromagnetic media as being equivalent to a solenoidal surface current that - *note carefully here* - does not alter in response to the emf associated with -dB/dt induced by a time-changing solenoidal supercurrent in the outer toroidal windings. Which has the consequences as explained in #19 - a 'hidden' excess energy which is *not* electrically accessible but rather appears as extra mass/inertia. Dig!? It's all back there in #19 and it all keeps getting completely misunderstood. Go back, ponder the thinking that led to the expressions (1) and (2) there. Then ponder again that reproduced passage in #35. Can only hope the penny will finally drop.

And I refer you back to my last above comments. In your case I'm confident there is no malicious intent to misrepresent or denigrate my argument - something that cannot be said for earlier respondents. Nevertheless you have continued to completely miss the core issue in #19, regardless of everything written by me since. May get round to posting a more compact summary of #19 - complete with a list of FAQ's addressing yours and others misconceptions. In the mean time, please accept that your #43 & #48 is just barking up the wrong tree.

Methinks this merry-go-round situation is more rooted in human psychological conditioning than anything to do with scientific truth per se. Try out this interesting simple test: http://www.canaryzoo.com/humour alzheimer eye test.htm
I hope you get the drift here.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

In reality only 'gravitational mass' and 'electrical charge' exists.

Magnetism generates from the interactions of these mass and charge.

Magnetism does not have any independent existence like mass and charge.

 

Oh? No such thing as strong or weak nuclear force and the associated 'charges'?

Rather than interaction of charge and, not mass but spin (classical picture)?

So you don't accept QM model of an intrinsic magnetic moment that is simply 'there'?

 

I think I nailed it. Why do you think otherwise?

 

'Intrinsic magnetic moment' is due spin of an electron/charge.

Without electrical charge, there can not be any magnetism.

But electrical charge can exist without magnetism.

 

Because it is not a machine. Any work that is extracted from the system will decrease the energy of the system - so it is not a perpetual motion machine.

It is not even perpetual motion because the system will lose energy do to friction - even in outer space. There is no perfect vacuum so there is always some friction due to the few atoms in the near vacuum.

 

Oh I see, "perpetual motion machine".


Even in an ideal friction-less scenario, perpetual motion is impossible due to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which manifests itself in some scientific effect/phenomenon, resulting in energy being converted to some other form.

 

You acknowledge now it at least has nothing to do with coupling of charge to mass. Which was my point on that earlier.

A qualified yes if one discounts that for instance a neutron has zero charge but non-zero magnetic moment. It's true there is a substructure involving fractional charge quarks but net effect is an entity with no charge but magnetic moment.

True classically if restricted to a frame with no relative motion thus no SR effects involved. But in quantum picture, afaik all charged elementary particles are always associated with an accompanying intrinsic magnetic moment. They always go together - unless I have missed some earth-shattering discovery in the news lately. Of course in composite structures charges can add yet magnetic moments overall cancel - reverse of neutron case.

 

Not really - without friction perpetual motion is possible. Imagine an object moving through space in an absolute vacuum out side of any graviational influence - it would move at the same speed forever. This is of course an artificial scenario that is not possible.

 

Origin beat me to it, but in my words:
A perpetual motion machine is a device that violates one of the three laws of thermodynamics. An object that moves at constant speed in accordance with Newton's first law does not qualify.

The issue is one of precision of meaning. If you call constant speed motion "perpetual motion", it confuses people so that they equate it to free energy. So the term has been more precisely defined than its colloquial definition would imply.

 

Thanks, I forgot about that.
As with what Russ said, an inertial frame should not be classified under "perpetual motion".


I was thinking about the "Overbalanced Wheel" and how such constructs are impossible. Perhaps we should only apply "perpetual motion" to closed systems which undergo cyclical motion.

 

Right. In both cases (providing nothing "snaps") there is no work being done.

No, gravity is beaten because the force of water pushing the boat upwards exactly counteracts the force of gravity pushing the boat downwards. From a work perspective it is no different than either of the other examples (i.e. work is always zero.)