Searching \ for '[OT] Magnetic Field' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=magnetic+field
Search entire site for: 'Magnetic Field'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Magnetic Field'
1999\09\23@124009 by Wagner Lipnharski

picon face
What is the most positive way to block magnetic field using a 5mm *any
material* board?
Take a look at the picture and tell me why it doesn't work.
http://www.ustr.net/jpg/moto1.jpg

1999\09\23@130124 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face
On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Wagner Lipnharski wrote:

> What is the most positive way to block magnetic field using a 5mm *any
> material* board?
> Take a look at the picture and tell me why it doesn't work.
> http://www.ustr.net/jpg/moto1.jpg

Because you put the south pole on the cold blue side instead of the hot
red side, everyone knows it's warmer down south :-)

-Bob

1999\09\23@131809 by Nick Taylor

picon face
Congratulations!!!!  The world's first perpetual motion machine!!!
And all us PIC Listers will be able to say we knew him back in the
last century!

Wagner Lipnharski wrote:
>
> What is the most positive way to block magnetic field using a 5mm *any
> material* board?
> Take a look at the picture and tell me why it doesn't work.
> http://www.ustr.net/jpg/moto1.jpg

1999\09\23@132606 by Dave VanHorn

flavicon
face
> > What is the most positive way to block magnetic field using a 5mm *any
> > material* board?
> > Take a look at the picture and tell me why it doesn't work.
> > http://www.ustr.net/jpg/moto1.jpg

Because you can't "block" a magnetic field the way the picture shows..  It
completes, always. There is no substance that can simply block the fields
without interacting with them.

You can shield by using high permeability material, which would be strongly
attracted to the magnets, or by diamagnetic material which is repelled (a
superconductor)  but the field will always complete.

1999\09\23@140757 by Stevens, Kurt

flavicon
face
Interesting, though, if you could 'bend' the field the way a beam of light
is bent in a CRT.

{Quote hidden}

1999\09\23@143039 by Dave VanHorn

flavicon
face
> Interesting, though, if you could 'bend' the field the way a beam of light
> is bent in a CRT.

Kind of.. You can use ferrous material to take field away from somewhere
else, but of course there's the attractive force.. You can use diamagnetic
material to push field away, with a repulsive force.. TANSTAAFL

1999\09\23@150022 by Stevens, Kurt

flavicon
face
Could you explain a little the nature of diamagnetic material and what that
material might be?

> ----------
> From:         Dave VanHorn[SMTP:dvanhornspamKILLspamCEDAR.NET]
> Sent:         Thursday, September 23, 1999 2:24 PM
> To:   .....PICLISTKILLspamspam.....MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject:      Re: [OT] Magnetic Field
>
> > Interesting, though, if you could 'bend' the field the way a beam of
> light
> > is bent in a CRT.
>
> Kind of.. You can use ferrous material to take field away from somewhere
> else, but of course there's the attractive force.. You can use diamagnetic
> material to push field away, with a repulsive force.. TANSTAAFL
>

1999\09\23@150632 by Erik Reikes

flavicon
face
At 01:24 PM 9/23/99 -0500, you wrote:
>> Interesting, though, if you could 'bend' the field the way a beam of light
>> is bent in a CRT.
>

As photons only have 1/2 integer multiples of spin, the only thing that can
'bend' them is gravity (and that's not really bending light, but space
itself).  In a crt, a B field alters the paths of electrons which strike a
phospour coating on the front of the tube causing them to glow.  So, you
move the electrons around which cause different parts of the CRT to glow.
Basically you have a decent sized particle accelerator pointed at your face
for 8-20 hours a day every day.

Sleep tight.

;)

-Erik Reikes

>Kind of.. You can use ferrous material to take field away from somewhere
>else, but of course there's the attractive force.. You can use diamagnetic
>material to push field away, with a repulsive force.. TANSTAAFL

1999\09\23@152926 by Brian Aase

flavicon
face
Oh, Gee.  This design pops up at least once a year and is always
good for a laugh or two.  :-)
Most attempts to point out the flaws in it focus on the effectiveness
of the shield device, and the resulting shape of the flux field.  What
seems not to get noticed much, is that "permanent" magnets are
not really permanent at all.  Energy is transferred to the magnet
material during the magnetization process, and the best one can
ever do is recover that quantity of energy and no more.
If someone has figured out how to make a truly non-depletable
permanent magnet, I'll be the first to invest!
Brian Aase


Wagner Lipnharski wrote:
>
> What is the most positive way to block magnetic field using a 5mm *any
> material* board?
> Take a look at the picture and tell me why it doesn't work.
> http://www.ustr.net/jpg/moto1.jpg

1999\09\23@154211 by Ricardo Schmidlin Imbiriba

flavicon
face
   Hello Wagner.

   Take a look at :  http://www.magnetic-shield.com/labkit.html

   And if you build the "The world's first perpetual motion machine!!!"
send us a picture.

   Ricardo S. Imbiriba :-)

{Original Message removed}

1999\09\23@160714 by l.allen

picon face
>
>
> Because you put the south pole on the cold blue side instead of the hot
> red side, everyone knows it's warmer down south :-)
>

Not in our neck of the woods...
North warm.. South cold...     as it should be.
Warm Christmas, cold Mid-year too.
_____________________________

Lance Allen
Technical Officer
Uni of Auckland
Psych Dept
New Zealand
_____________________________

1999\09\23@163432 by paulb

flavicon
face
Dave VanHorn wrote:

> Because you can't "block" a magnetic field the way the picture shows..
>  It completes, always. There is no substance that can simply block the
> fields without interacting with them.

 There is however, an equally glaring error here.  The arrangement of
the magnets on the rotor is such that they form a closed magnetic loop
and exhibit no net magnetic field anyway.

 If OTOH, the rotor is a conventional synchronous motor assembly with
alternating poles, it becomes pretty evident that equal numbers of each
pole will be exposed and no net torque produced.
--
 Cheers,
       Paul B.

1999\09\23@170901 by David E. Fields

picon face
I think that electrons are attractee/repulsed by an electric field is because
they have a charge. Similarly, when they see a B (magnetic) field moving
relative to them, then they experience a force because the B field looks like
an eleactric field.

Photons are not charged and do not respond to E or B fields.

The situation with spins is that electrons have spin 1/2 and photons have
spin 0 (I think).

David

1999\09\23@171546 by M. Adam Davis

flavicon
face
You are thinking of a magnetic field as a force.  Stop it.

Think, instead, of a piece of metal which has two ends.  Think of
particles which want to travel from one end to the other.  They travel
slowly in air, and other non magnetic fields, and faster in ferrous
objects.  Thus the lines of travel are longer through air, and shorter
through ferrous things.  Now, the particles desperately want to get from
one end to the other, so when a ferrous object comes near, they tug at
it, trying to make it part of their path.

You cannot block their path.  Magnetic shielding is simply a nice way of
saying 'lets create a path *through* the casing of the device, instead
of through the device itself, or creating a field opposite the one we
want to avoid, thus deflecting the obnoxious field.'   So your 'magnetic
shielding' either creates a path (thus short circuiting the entire
magnet, and no field reaches the disc) or creates a road block which the
'particles' will stream around.  But the particles will always want to
get back to their own magnet, so the amount of prticles going from
magnet A North to magnet B south must be matched by the same number of
particles going from magnet B North to magnet A South.  Thus all
'forces' you are trying to capture must equal out, and, in the end, you
will get no energy from the magnets that you don't give them in the
first place.

PLEASE NOTE:  There are not such particles, a permanent magnet has a
field which is static.  Einstien was trying to create a 'universal
equation' which contained all the forces we experience, but he couldn't
figure out magnetism before he died.  It is not a subject we can easily
discuss with quantum physics, nevermind without them.  So I made up my
own rules for the sake of the argument, and, aside from the words, the
description is how static ('permanent') magnetic fields will react with
your objects.

I hope this helps!

-Adam

Wagner Lipnharski wrote:
>
> What is the most positive way to block magnetic field using a 5mm *any
> material* board?
> Take a look at the picture and tell me why it doesn't work.
> http://www.ustr.net/jpg/moto1.jpg

1999\09\23@172548 by Robert A. LaBudde

flavicon
face
At 12:28 PM 9/23/99 -0700, Brian wrote:
>Oh, Gee.  This design pops up at least once a year and is always
>good for a laugh or two.  :-)
>Most attempts to point out the flaws in it focus on the effectiveness
>of the shield device, and the resulting shape of the flux field.  What
>seems not to get noticed much, is that "permanent" magnets are
>not really permanent at all.  Energy is transferred to the magnet
>material during the magnetization process, and the best one can
>ever do is recover that quantity of energy and no more.
>If someone has figured out how to make a truly non-depletable
>permanent magnet, I'll be the first to invest!

I've got a pendulum clock on my mantle that has been swinging for 10 years
based on a pair of permanent small magnets.


================================================================
Robert A. LaBudde, PhD, PAS, Dpl. ACAFS  e-mail: EraseMEralspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTlcfltd.com
Least Cost Formulations, Ltd.                   URL: http://lcfltd.com/
824 Timberlake Drive                            Tel: 757-467-0954
Virginia Beach, VA 23464-3239                   Fax: 757-467-2947

"Vere scire est per causae scire"
================================================================

1999\09\23@173629 by Robert A. LaBudde

flavicon
face
At 05:13 PM 9/23/99 -0400, Adam wrote:
>PLEASE NOTE:  There are not such particles, a permanent magnet has a
>field which is static.  Einstien was trying to create a 'universal
>equation' which contained all the forces we experience, but he couldn't
>figure out magnetism before he died.  It is not a subject we can easily
>discuss with quantum physics, nevermind without them.  So I made up my
>own rules for the sake of the argument, and, aside from the words, the
>description is how static ('permanent') magnetic fields will react with
>your objects.

Actually, they're still trying to prove the existence of magnetic
monopoles. There was a NASA experiment about 20 yrs ago that supposedly
found a trace, but was found to be irreproducible and was presumed to be a
misread cosmic ray track. Since then, no new news.

================================================================
Robert A. LaBudde, PhD, PAS, Dpl. ACAFS  e-mail: ralspamspam_OUTlcfltd.com
Least Cost Formulations, Ltd.                   URL: http://lcfltd.com/
824 Timberlake Drive                            Tel: 757-467-0954
Virginia Beach, VA 23464-3239                   Fax: 757-467-2947

"Vere scire est per causae scire"
================================================================

1999\09\23@175042 by paulb

flavicon
face
Robert A. LaBudde wrote:

> I've got a pendulum clock on my mantle that has been swinging for 10
> years based on a pair of permanent small magnets.

 As long as you replace the batteries from time to time.
--
 Cheers,
       Paul B.

1999\09\23@175052 by Sean H. Breheny

face picon face
You are exactly right! In upper-level physics, E and B fields are combined
into one tensor (a matrix) which expresses itself as a certain amount of E
and a certain amount of B depending upon the refernce frame that you are
measuring in.

You are also right that photons have no charge. I do believe that they have
spin, however. I don't know the magnitude off hand, but IIRC, their spin
vector corresponds to their polarization.

Sean

At 04:58 PM 9/23/99 EDT, you wrote:
{Quote hidden}

| Sean Breheny
| Amateur Radio Callsign: KA3YXM
| Electrical Engineering Student
\--------------=----------------
Save lives, please look at http://www.all.org
Personal page: http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/shb7
@spam@shb7KILLspamspamcornell.edu ICQ #: 3329174

1999\09\23@185115 by Dennis Plunkett

flavicon
face
At 10:00 23/09/99 -0700, you wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Wagner Lipnharski wrote:
>
>> What is the most positive way to block magnetic field using a 5mm *any
>> material* board?
>> Take a look at the picture and tell me why it doesn't work.
>> http://www.ustr.net/jpg/moto1.jpg
>
>Because you put the south pole on the cold blue side instead of the hot
>red side, everyone knows it's warmer down south :-)
>
>-Bob

Then why do we freeze our gonads off in Tasmania?


Dennis

1999\09\23@190748 by Dennis Plunkett

flavicon
face
At 17:25 23/09/99 -0400, you wrote:
{Quote hidden}

       "Subarashi!"

Dennis

>================================================================
>
>

1999\09\23@190956 by Dennis Plunkett

flavicon
face
At 17:34 23/09/99 -0400, you wrote:
>At 05:13 PM 9/23/99 -0400, Adam wrote:
>>PLEASE NOTE:  There are not such particles, a permanent magnet has a
>>field which is static.  Einstien was trying to create a 'universal
>>equation' which contained all the forces we experience, but he couldn't
>>figure out magnetism before he died.  It is not a subject we can easily
>>discuss with quantum physics, nevermind without them.  So I made up my
>>own rules for the sake of the argument, and, aside from the words, the
>>description is how static ('permanent') magnetic fields will react with
>>your objects.
>
>Actually, they're still trying to prove the existence of magnetic
>monopoles. There was a NASA experiment about 20 yrs ago that supposedly
>found a trace, but was found to be irreproducible and was presumed to be a
>misread cosmic ray track. Since then, no new news.


What would NASA know, twice now they have lost MARS probes

Dennis


{Quote hidden}

1999\09\23@193704 by Erik Reikes

flavicon
face
At 04:58 PM 9/23/99 -0400, you wrote:
>I think that electrons are attractee/repulsed by an electric field is because
>they have a charge. Similarly, when they see a B (magnetic) field moving
>relative to them, then they experience a force because the B field looks like
>an eleactric field.

That's about the size of it.  A constant B field does nothing to electrons
at rest.  Once they start moving, however its right hand rule.

>
>Photons are not charged and do not respond to E or B fields.
>
>The situation with spins is that electrons have spin 1/2 and photons have
>spin 0 (I think).

I don't remember how exactly spin worked, but I'm pretty sure that photons
are multiples of 1/2 and electrons are integers.  I'm thinking of electron
spin in domains in a magnet, say.  I think it is the spin that is used to
model the B field interaction.  That's why a Magnetic monopole would be so
cool and odd.  An electron as a N and S pole and hence either a +1 or -1
spin... IIRC

Anyone remember their modern physics out there?

-Erik Reikes

>
>David

1999\09\23@201058 by Dave VanHorn

flavicon
face
> Could you explain a little the nature of diamagnetic material and what
that
> material might be?

Grapes.

http://www.exploratorium.edu/snacks/diamagnetism_www/

1999\09\23@212942 by adastra

flavicon
face
Although this seems right, that the magnet is being depleted I mean, it
still puzzles me.  When was the last time you heard of someone changing the
magnets in a PM generator? Or, for that matter, in a DC PM motor?  Neither
will work without the magnets, but they don't appear to be consumed in the
process.

I remember as a kid having the 2 "scotty dog" magnets, one black, one white
(N & S polarities.)  You'd put 'em on a tabletop and move one toward the
other.  If they were oriented to attract, at some point they would overcome
the friction of the tabletop and accellerate the stationary one toward the
"attractor."  This obviously requires a not-insignificant amount of energy.
it seems obvious that the energy must be coming from the magnets.  I know it
took energy to make the magnets in the first place, but it is still hard for
me to believe that you could "run down" the magnets by this process any time
soon.

There are no doubt many discoveries waiting to be made in the area of energy
storage and conversion. I have a hunch that some of the most important of
these will result from a whole new understanding of magnetism.

At the risk of burning up the OT bandwidth, I would love to hear the
thoughts of this group on this subject.

       Foster

> {Original Message removed}

1999\09\23@215234 by Erik Reikes

flavicon
face
At 07:26 PM 9/23/99 -0600, you wrote:

>"attractor."  This obviously requires a not-insignificant amount of energy.
>it seems obvious that the energy must be coming from the magnets.  I know it
>took energy to make the magnets in the first place, but it is still hard for
>me to believe that you could "run down" the magnets by this process any time
>soon.
>

The only energy that is added to a magnet during the magnetization process
is used to reduce its entropoy (make it less random).

Magnetization simply means the domains of iron molecules (or whatever is
used) are aligned in the crystal lattice to make a net Magnetic field.

The energy in your example comes from the potential energy imparted in
pulling the magnets apart.  Its analogous to driving down a hill : You can
coast all the way down a hill in what would seem energy free motion.
Really you are just trading potential for kinetic.

This is why all of these perpetual motion machines don't work.  Ep + Ek =
K.     TANSTAAFL.
It would be possible to have perpetual motion with 0 friction and 0
radiated energy.  While you can make these two effects very small, they are
never 0.  Plus, you never get anything out.

-Erik Reikes

1999\09\23@222620 by Brian Aase

flavicon
face
> At 07:26 PM 9/23/99 -0600, Erik wrote:
>
> This is why all of these perpetual motion machines don't work.  Ep + Ek =
> K.     TANSTAAFL. It would be possible to have perpetual motion with 0
> friction and 0 radiated energy.  While you can make these two effects very
> small, they are never 0.  Plus, you never get anything out.
>
> -Erik Reikes

Spoil-sport!  Now how could you possibly disagree with the US
Patent Office?  to wit:

http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US04151431__

Brian Aase, stirring up even more trouble ;-)

1999\09\23@230942 by Wagner Lipnharski

picon face
adastra wrote:
{Quote hidden}

Magnetism, Gravity and Electricity has a real amazing way to interact.
Years ago I saw a movie about all the calculations and the way they mix,
how you can study one and reach numbers that makes sense to another. It
was an amazing way to describe easily something you can try to learn
forever.  I believe it was from a local university TV channel, it is
lost in memory.

You can think about the magnetic energy stored into a magnet as gravity,
just hang a rock in a piece of wire and tie it high into a pole... you
can keep it there for 50 centuries, the energy that attracts each other
will never cease or be reduced, they would still attracting each other.
At mornings the sun reach the wire and hits it, the wire increase its
size, the rock moves down a little, this effect also heats the wire a
little more (stretching)... at night, the cool temperature just retracts
the wire, what I believe also heats the wire again (by contraction
dragging the rock). Of course we are talking about very small non
mensurable temperature degrees, but I think it happens.  It is somehow a
stored sun's energy during the day. The fact is that the rock will still
there forever being attracted by the earth's gravity, doesn't matter
other interactions of energy.

Doesn't matter the size of the mass, density or weight of it, gravity
and magnetism are not created from nothing, they are just "arranged", so
they can only be "disarranged", not eliminated or reduced. Stars,
Planets and Satellites are just showing us all the time that this kind
of energy once "arranged" last forever.

Different from that, electricity is not "arranged", it is a brute force
that just rip off electrons from their natural habitat (charge
equilibrium). Those electrons when find a way to come back they do it,
reducing this differences.  In the electricity example, there is
physical material, particles, that are moved (electrons), and they *CAN*
move back, so this is why the energy vanishes. Electricity is a pure and
simple energy storage system, while you can convert a physical movement
and store it, or transport it via wires.

In the Gravity or Magnetism example, there is no material involved,
there is nothing ripped off, no particles moved or physical change, so
there is "nothing to come back", and this is why this kind of energy
still "forever".  You can not short circuit a magnet and eliminate its
potential, if you could, you could also eliminate gravity, what would be
a nice thing to do, right?  This is why all existent matter in the
universe goes to a spherical shape, the best way to accommodate and
distribute mass attraction. It is possible to farm fishes into space,
just mix some gallons of water and fishes, the mass attraction will form
a spherical big ball of water with fishes inside, self contained... of
course this *could* happens if pressure and other details could be
solved.

Monopolo magnets are a dream, because they approaches the gravity
function, "matter attracts matter" and this is the best example of
monopolo, any matter attracts any other matter, a physical evidence that
all the universe is based in a simple and whole physics law about mass
and energy.

In some way gravity explains and justify the big-bang, as if all matter
were separated once, and desperately is trying to come back to the
original state.  The amazing thought is that "if matter attracts matter,
why they all are not already together?" The only explanation is that
something big separated and expanded it, with possibilities of someday
collapsing all back again to a new big-bang, as if saying "ok, party's
over, lets start all over again", as protons in a nuclear bomb, isn't?

Truth is that we know very little about it, the minimum necessary to
explain and justify how it works, based on how we use it, nothing else.
Very few people can explain something before it happens, very few people
can explain something after it happens, very few people can understand
it at all. After 10 years together I barely can understand my wife's
reaction to anything, how could I understand magnetism? Perhaps
magnetism is easier :)

Wagner

1999\09\24@003512 by Dave VanHorn

flavicon
face
> I remember as a kid having the 2 "scotty dog" magnets, one black, one
white
> (N & S polarities.)  You'd put 'em on a tabletop and move one toward the
> other.  If they were oriented to attract, at some point they would
overcome
> the friction of the tabletop and accellerate the stationary one toward the
> "attractor."  This obviously requires a not-insignificant amount of
energy.
> it seems obvious that the energy must be coming from the magnets.  I know
it
> took energy to make the magnets in the first place, but it is still hard
for
> me to believe that you could "run down" the magnets by this process any
time
> soon.

You store the energy as potential against the field by separating them, and
then recover it when they rejoin.  No mystery.  They aren't used up, any
more than a spring is used up when it bounces.

1999\09\24@003529 by paulb

flavicon
face
Brian Aase wrote:

> Spoil-sport!  Now how could you possibly disagree with the US
> Patent Office?  to wit:

 Who's disagreeing?  They don't care, there's no requirement that it
*works* at all (I gather many don't).  They pay the money, the Patent
Office takes the money, pays their clerks.  Everyone's happy...
--
 Cheers,
       Paul B.

1999\09\24@040123 by Roland Andrag

flavicon
face
----- Original Message -----
From: Dave VanHorn <spamBeGonedvanhornspamBeGonespamCEDAR.NET>
To: <TakeThisOuTPICLISTEraseMEspamspam_OUTMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Friday, September 24, 1999 2:04 AM
Subject: Re: [OT] Magnetic Field


> > Could you explain a little the nature of diamagnetic material and what
> that
> > material might be?
>
> Grapes.
And frogs..

I think there was an article in New Scientist a while ago about floating
them in strong magnetic fields.


>
> http://www.exploratorium.edu/snacks/diamagnetism_www/
>

1999\09\24@052906 by gdaniel

flavicon
face
Hi Nick,
I wanted to do this @ age eleven (22 years ago), I had misinformation
that copper blocked magnetic fields and so I deduced that a suitable
"shading" type arrangement would produce a "perpectual motion
machine".   Anyway it's all out of my system now !

Robert L. Forward writes most adventurous and yet plausible S.F. on
monopoles, neutron stars, gravity field pecularities etc.

regards,
Graham Daniel.

Nick Taylor wrote:
{Quote hidden}

--
Steam engines may be out of fashion, but when you consider that an
internal combustion engine would require recovery of waste heat by
transfer just before top dead centre then fashion becomes rather
redundant, USE STRATIFIED HEAT EXCHANGERS ! and external combustion.

You heard it first from: Graham Daniel, managing director of Electronic
Product Enhancements.
Phone NZ 04 387 4347, Fax NZ 04 3874348, Cellular NZ 021 954 196.

1999\09\24@071102 by Agnes en Henk Tobbe

flavicon
face
>At 12:28 PM 9/23/99 -0700, Brian wrote:
>>If someone has figured out how to make a truly non-depletable
>>permanent magnet, I'll be the first to invest!
>
>I've got a pendulum clock on my mantle that has been swinging for 10 years
>based on a pair of permanent small magnets.


That is what I would call  a really short term view....
Henk - VK2GWK

1999\09\24@081405 by M. Adam Davis

flavicon
face
I remember this.  It was a huge coil which generated an astounding
magnetic field...  I should look it up again to see what else they've
floated.

-Adam

Roland Andrag wrote:
>
> {Original Message removed}

1999\09\24@083732 by Stevens, Kurt

flavicon
face
Ummm... Could it be because you're a guy?


       >Then why do we freeze our gonads off in Tasmania?

1999\09\24@084735 by Russell McMahon

picon face
>> Spoil-sport!  Now how could you possibly disagree with the US
>> Patent Office?  to wit:
>
>  Who's disagreeing?  They don't care, there's no requirement that it
>*works* at all (I gather many don't).  They pay the money, the Patent
>Office takes the money, pays their clerks.  Everyone's happy...



I understood, perhaps naively, that perpetual motion devices were officially
unpatentable.



RM


_____________________________
What can one man do?
Help the hungry at no cost to yourself!
at  http://www.thehungersite.com/

1999\09\24@090438 by M. Adam Davis

flavicon
face
Any visible energy they have is given to them by you.  Say you have two
magnets at opposite ends of the table.  They aren't close enough to
overcome friction, so we will say that they are in a state of
equilibrium.

They will stay that way forever, unless acted upon by an external
force.  Newton's laws still apply here.

When you push them closer together, you are imparting energy to them.
You can't say, "I will push them until they overcome friction, *then*
I'll start measuring the energy they absorb, and the energy they give
out."  That is a convienient way of doing things, but utterly
unscientific.  You will spend more energy pushing them together than
they will give out.  You may indicate that you first placed them only a
mm away from overcoming friction, then pushed them, and had to give very
little energy to get a lot of it.  But you need to count the energy it
took to place the magnets on the table in the first place.  In fact, the
only place you could start with a 'clean slate' is /just/ after they
were magnetized.  You wouldn't want to start before then because of the
huge amount of energy to actually takes to magnetize a material.

Then you have to take all the forces acted upon the magnet since that
time, add them up, and then see if you can get more out than you put it.

It is true that unless placed in a perfect magnetic field of the same
polarity as the magnet, that the magnet won't be depleted, but under any
other circumstances the magnet will, over time, lose its unified
polarity.  Individual molecules will orient in other directions because
of other exernal magnetic fields.

I think a big mistake many people make when attempting free energy
machines is counting the energy they place in the machine.  It's
difficult to find out the amount of energy your body has used during the
process of setting some experiments up, where the setup energy needs to
be included.  Instead, think of a robot setting up the same experiment,
and the comparitively huge amount of energy it takes to pick up two
magnets and place them a certian distance apart.

I know that we have a lot to learn about magnetism, but I certian,
without a doubt, that you can only create energy from matter, or
conversion from another form of energy.

-Adam

All generalizations are false, including this one.

adastra wrote:
>
> Although this seems right, that the magnet is being depleted I mean, it
> still puzzles me.  When was the last time you heard of someone changing the
> magnets in a PM generator? Or, for that matter, in a DC PM motor?  Neither
> will work without the magnets, but they don't appear to be consumed in the
> process.

...

> There are no doubt many discoveries waiting to be made in the area of energy
> storage and conversion. I have a hunch that some of the most important of
> these will result from a whole new understanding of magnetism.
>
> At the risk of burning up the OT bandwidth, I would love to hear the
> thoughts of this group on this subject.

1999\09\24@090834 by M. Adam Davis

flavicon
face
The mechanical assembly of the device is patentable, but to state in the
patent that the machine works in a way which it does not (ie, I get free
energy from my device, or my device keeps running forever) is not
patentable.  But then, the patent office will usually give a patent
based on what the author has said it will do without testing it, and
wait for a lawsuit which will invalidate the patent.

-Adam

Russell McMahon wrote:
{Quote hidden}

1999\09\24@090842 by Stevens, Kurt

flavicon
face
Thanks, whoever flung this out into the ether. Interesting.

> > > www.exploratorium.edu/snacks/diamagnetism_www/
> > >
>

1999\09\24@092110 by Dave VanHorn

flavicon
face
> Thanks, whoever flung this out into the ether. Interesting.
>
> > > > http://www.exploratorium.edu/snacks/diamagnetism_www/

I was looking for a way to explain para-dia-magnetism, but they did it
better than I could. (I guess that's what they get paid for!)

It's the oxygen that's diamagnetic. Hydrogen is neutral, LOX is pale blue,
and noticably diamagnetic.

1999\09\24@095257 by Petr Krc

flavicon
face
Wagner Lipnharski wrote:
>
> What is the most positive way to block magnetic field using a 5mm *any
> material* board?
> Take a look at the picture and tell me why it doesn't work.
> http://www.ustr.net/jpg/moto1.jpg

There is no such a material, but Your drawing is also quite wrong from
the magnetics field point of view.

Take a look at:
http://members.aol.com/GMagnetics/

David Meeker is offering his simple but _powerfull_ program
'Finite Element Method Magnetics' for free.
You can analyze Your drawing with it.


> Ok, for those who don't believe in magic, what about this one?
> http://www.ustr.net/jpg/moto2.jpg
> Just complete the blanks:
> Because the .. and .... ......... is the same.

I used to draw similar machines when I was twelve.
(None of them works of course ;-).

Try to calculate Your vectors with better accuracy and then add
them all together.

--
Regards
          Petr Krc

1999\09\24@102421 by Andy Kunz

flavicon
face
I'm told that white dwarf stars are in a unique position, in that they
cannot lose energy fast enough to keep from expanding, yet can't expand
fast enough due to gravity, and as a result are a sort of "perpetual
motion" machine.

Any physicists out there?

Andy

==================================================================
Eternity is only a heartbeat away - are you ready?  Ask me how!
------------------------------------------------------------------
RemoveMEandyspamTakeThisOuTrc-hydros.com      http://www.rc-hydros.com     - Race Boats
andyEraseMEspam.....montanadesign.com  http://www.montanadesign.com - Electronics
==================================================================

1999\09\24@111233 by Tom Handley

picon face
  ROFL! Erik, that's the best description of a CRT o-scope, and it's
typical usage, that I've ever heard! ;-)

  - Tom

At 12:07 PM 9/23/99 -0700, Erik Reikes wrote:
{Quote hidden}

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Handley
New Age Communications
Since '75 before "New Age" and no one around here is waiting for UFOs ;-)

1999\09\25@210233 by paulb

flavicon
face
Hello Russell.

> I understood, perhaps naively, that perpetual motion devices were
> officially unpatentable.

 Sez who I wonder?

 It depends on whether there is a general principle in patenting that
the concept must actually *work*.  If so, then PMDs would be excluded,
but that would presume a duty on the part of the Patent Office to
actually evaluate the feasibility of every patent, employing engineers
(expensive) to do so.

 I was under the impression that was *not* the Patent Office's r™le and
thus no official stand on PMDs.
--
 Cheers,
       Paul B.

1999\09\30@165429 by Alice Campbell

flavicon
face
Hi Wagner,


> What is the most positive way to block magnetic field using a 5mm *any
> material* board?
> Take a look at the picture and tell me why it doesn't work.
> http://www.ustr.net/jpg/moto1.jpg
This is not quite on the OT but pretty close---

latest in EMF shielding devices

http://host.berk.com/~lessemf/personal.html

www.ghosthunter.org/toolbox/EMF/evm.htm#links
for supernatural phenom

www.futurehorizons.net/energy/detect.htm
for  UFO detection

please dont ask why i was nosing around these places..\

alice

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 1999 , 2000 only
- Today
- New search...