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

What people?

It is tricky to determine if someone is making something up or misinformed, but it's an important life skill that everyone should learn. If a factoid sounds suspicious, look for independent verification as well as claims to the contrary. Check the sources. Where did the factoid come from? Is there some underlying data you can check? Does the claimant have any qualifications in the subject matter?
In this case, you can start with the Wikipedia article, being sure to check the references. You could also try a Google Scholar search, which reveals lots of scientific papers describing the experiment, the data, data analysis, and applications.

Or, you could go to university, where thousands of students repeat those experiments every semester, eg
http://www.ifm.liu.se/courses/tffm08/dloadsExfys/Lab64HeatPump.pdf

(Although, I think that a lot of actual undergrad lab work is being/has been replaced by computer simulations now.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

??? I quoted it just above that. You said you don't accept conservation of energy, right?

I am indeed a mechanical engineer. Not sure why would see a problem with that. Engineering is applied physics.

See, there it is again. You're attacking COE as a matter of faith. It isn't. I design things and they work because COE is true (among other reasons).

I don't have the time nor do I care enough to do a 'debunk my crackpot claims' game. The burden of proof is always on the person making the initial claim and the USPTO has a great method for dismissing crackpots without dismissing them: All you have to do is build a device and install it in the lobby of the USPTO office. If it is still running in a year, they'll consider your claim.

See, there is no need to debunk a self-debunking claim. You're basically saying 'My device violates COE - prove that it doesn't work.' By claiming it violates COE, you just did!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

your an engineer. what sort of engineer? and what is COE?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I said in that quote that I'm a mechanical engineer. COE is Conservation of Energy.

 

Well stop complaining about it and do it! These experiments (this and the "speed of force" experiment) are easy! Just do them!

Or google them and watch videos of other people doing them...

 

It's a mixed bag off eggheads and nuts you've got here. Your question comes up from time to time and challenges the folks who haven't learned the basics. They tend to break out of their cages and pounce on the opportunity to grandstand. Hopefully by now you've got the picture that conservation of energy can't be violated in a machine, and that the magnet can't be used to generate electricity without setting the generator into motion, and it takes energy to do that. There are no over-unity ("energy creating") machines, no unity (perfect) machines, only lossy ones (efficiency less than 100%). So the conversion from mechanical energy to electrical energy will always cost a certain amount of energy. The best you can do is to try to reduce the losses as much as possible.

The principle involved is this: whenever a conductor cuts across a magnetic field (or vice versa) an electric potential (voltage) is induced in the conductor. It's that motion between the conductor (usually windings) and magnet that requires energy to be put into the generator. It's a somewhat unfortunate term--too bad they didn't call them "converters" in the first place. Maybe a lot of confusion would have been avoided.

 

Why the hell did you seek to join those separate quotes to this again dis-ingenuous question? Stop this BS. You know perfectly well the context in which I claim there is very possibly an exception to COE - one that cannot be utilized in any practical way (that covers your later BS commentary about USPTO 'test'). I directed you straight to a statement to that effect (in #143) last time, and anyway you have read every post of mine time and again making that position plain - e.g. #85. But distortion evidently is the name of your game.

You truly are behaving as a fool as another has characterized you. At the gross Newtonian mechanics level you are used to - OF COURSE COE WORKS! You have learned or rather refused to acknowledge everything brought up on that in my last dealing with you, and for that matter right back in #23. Again - from #156:

Just maybe this time round something will light up inside that skull of yours. But I rather think it's a case of having a flamer's incurable addiction to continual argumentation, and thus a futile directive.

I refer you to above comments, which refer you back to previous ones, etc. etc. Actually it's more than evident you have tons of time for flaming.

Look, if that statement makes you happy, makes you feel in some way victorious, fine. I don't really care to keep up this degenerate arguing. Leave off here and I will.

 

There are plenty of real life systems from energy to medicine to -you name it- which work fine under classical physics. There are others (say GPS) which rely on SR/GR, and so on. Many new theories will still rely on classical physics, which is, for the most part, an approximation of the more recent models.

I have an almost opposite view. Galileo's handwritten notes of his observations of the "stars" near Jupiter (its moons) is a perfect example of how the thinking mind, aided by technology (in this case, his own hand made telescopes) is one the quintessential examples of trustable work. It ain't the wig, but what's under it, that counts.

You mean billions of years and of course it's lot more than millions of tons. In any case, keep in mind that the Earth lost heat more rapidly before there was an atmosphere, that heat will naturally radiate into open space and thus the mantle cooled down over the ages. The pressure increased in the formative era but reached equilibrium (when no more mass was being added). The outflow of heat has reduced the net energy since the inflow was a fixed amount (not including solar heat which pales in comparison.)

 

Like aerospace engineer? Does that make you qualified to discuss?

 

No, a mechanical engineer is not an aerospace engineer.
Both would be qualified to discuss basic physics, although not necessarily to teach it, or discuss the development or philosophy behind it.

 

aha so Russ Waters is not qualified to discuss fundamentals. but he does it anyway.

 

1. This is basic physics, an engineering graduate is certainly qualified to discuss it.
2. Russ may well have other qualifications besides his engineering degree.
3. This is a public internet forum. Anyone is welcome to discuss whatever they want, regardless of their qualifications or lack of.

 

• are you sure? this is fundamnetal physics
• nope if he did he will say it
• unfortunately so are you

 

Maximum_Planck - you seem to sense well the kind of issues that are bedeviling this thread in particular, but elsewhere too. Apart from the continual onslaught of vacuous drivel and innuendo from certain non-physicists, what really bothers me is the silence from a qualified select few here that really could step in with intelligent, positive feedback. My appeal to that end has so far fallen on deaf ears and one can only speculate as to why. Let's just say I sense a disagreeable odor permeating the place and maybe time I went on a vacation to the mountains so to speak. Lurking has advantages.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Your qualifications seem to be in the direction of a troll...

 

Geeze, what do you expect? You make the absurd claim that for your scenario the conservation of the energy does not hold. Then you go on to essentially say - it is a really, really little effect that can't be measured, but it is real... give me a break.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

did i say anything about my qualification? no i did not. so why are you referring to it?

i also hate people who call others trolls. it is harmful and disrepsectful.

 

but you also cannot prove otherwise

 

We have 'met' here before, no? And not such a happy time. Still I will just answer briefly since you were 'kind' enough to ask a question. What I expect but have not got is along the lines, the astonishing lines imo of the royal treatment meted out to A-wal. You can compare and contrast. It's there for all ot see. And I agree with Maximum_Planck's comment in #178 btw. If the tentative claim is so absurd - why don't you step in with an incisive, laser-sharp critique. Drilling down to just where the wheels all come off my little heresy - in your opinion that is. Now if that puts you on the spot, feel free to not have to answer. All good?

 

Funny you should ask. I actually started as an aerospace engineernig major, but it kicked my ass, so I switched to mechanical. Aero is a spin-off/sub-discipline of mechanical, so all of the aero courses [that I passed...] transferred as electives. ME is very broad, so there are a lot of specializations/focus areas that you can take. Based on my coursework and experience, you might say mine are thermodynamics and fluid dynamics.

As for if I'm qualified to discuss, this is the internet: there are no qualification requirements. True to that, I haven't asked for nor do I care what anyone else's are, including yours. And even if I did, there is no way to verify anyway: you wouldn't believe how many phd's talk like 12 year olds on the internet!

I will say this though: since I am over age 15, I did take an introductory physics course in Junior High (not my only physics, just the only one required for the level of this discussion), so I'm quite qualified to discuss such a simple, fundamental issue as COE.

For the air tank issue, as I said, that exact problem is discussed in the first few weeks of a thermodynamics course; my specialty. Also learned in a thermodynamics class:

Problem solving, step 1: Write a conservation of energy statement/equation.

Edit: also, if you weren't aware, "conservation of energy" is another name for the First Law of Thermodynamics.