Thin Magnetic Ramp experiment

[MarkE]

That is total B.S.

The energy we put into a magnetic material to "magnetize" it, is not equal to the Energy contained in the magnetic system.

The energy consumed magnetizing a magnet: soft or hard always exceeds the energy that can be recovered from the magnet.  This energy is different from the energy that we can convey by using magnet which over time can be many orders of magnitude greater than the the magnetization energy.

The actual amount of energy is E = mc^2, times the % of atoms parallel to the cumulative field domain.
  times another atomic factor that pertains to the electrons and their orbits that varies from atom/molecule.

The energy that a magnet gains going from a demagnetized to magnetized state does have a mass equivalence.  But the mass equivalence does not drive the energy that it takes to magnetize the magnet, nor does it drive the energy that could ever be recovered by demagnetizing the magnet.

The energy put into the magnet is ONLY used to re-align the groups of atoms such that their field domains are in a parallel plane.

And once magnetized, the difference between the ordered and unordered states is the potential energy stored in the magnet.

These are two entirely different values, and one has nothing to do with the other.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Real World Example::

Magnetic Material (X): non-magnetized, and of specific mass
              We can utilize various methods of magnetization, using electrical energy, each having different results, but take the example of the most efficient method, and mark down the "energy" used to magnetize the material.

Next, take this newly created "magnet", and place in its' field (not in physical contact) an exactly identical piece of non-magnetized material.
     Over time, this other piece will become magnetized, and measuring the field of both pieces, you find that the field strength of the original material to be close to as it were when you first magnetized it.
The second piece, however, will have its' own field, of similar magnitude.

Try that with both pieces cryogenically cooled and see what happens.  Does that tell you something?

This form of magnetic induction does not require the same amount of "energy" to be input into it to magnetize the material.
Nor, is that amount of energy "lost" from the original magnet.

Indeed.  But it does not mean that energy was not expended.  Again:  try that in a cryogenically cooled environment and compare the results.

What you propose is like comparing apples and oranges.

The energy contained within a magnet comes from atomic interactions of the mass.
  NOT from the energy we put into the material to magnetize it.

Reference?

[Floor]

various quotes from Low-Q

"Alternating a force without using energy sounds simpler than it really is - is what I meant with the first.  You must think more simple, or more basic - is what I meant with the second."

"you must think more simple, or more basic"  Yes I see your point.

But I don't  think you meant  more shallow or superficially, did you?

If we are looking for express thinking,  simply don' think or question in the first place.
Just say  "conservation of energy"  and skip the rest,  then move on to the
next "discussion" topic.

You say "one cannot get energy out of a permanent magnet."

Yes I understand that this is the conventional point of view, and I truly understand
the usefulness of taking that point of view.

"Why is this strange? And what's wrong repeating simple physics?"

It is seemed strange to me that you do not understand that what underlies simple physics doesn't
prove that energy is conserved in all situations and conditions.  I see now that perhaps you do understand this.

The idea that energy is conserved is indeed a very useful one.

Repeating simple physics as if they are proofs of things which they are not proofs of
is wrong.

Some here apparently havent reach middle shcool yet, or they dropped out already in the kindergrden,
because some here still don't understand that over unity is impossible.


"Therefor I repeat middle school physics."   

Ok  I see.

"No, but we don't need yo understand the origin of the universe to have sufficient knowledge about present physics."

Let me restate my self,  the CAUSES of the physics that are present now are not simple. (I am not referring to the origin of the universe here)

I hope you will understand, that I prefer to decide for my self as to what is sufficient knowledge
and which or what physics are "present" ?

"In a closed loop however, the distance is repeated. "You have a start point you return to and leave all the time.So the netto distance that has been traveled is zero. For example, the circumference of a wheel does not increase as the wheel spins.  Lucky for us these devices we are trying to make over unity, require the shallowest physics skills to debunk.    "

Indeed luckily for you, not so much for me.

Maybe it is, but this far, NASA make their calculations right, and the industries make their calculations right when it comes to
production of rockets, engines, electric motors, and other stuff.

Yea NASA rocks.

"IF over unity was common, it would be impossible to calculate correctly,"

I agree with you very much so.

and unexpected motor or rocket behaviour would occour from nowhere.
I does not matter what we believe. What happend, happend regardless of our opinions.
Are you mad at me because your idea can't work in practice? Blame Mother Nature - not me!
[/quote]

Sorry I was a little testy with you.  Thanks for your post.

            best wishes

                    floor

[Low-Q]

That is total B.S.

The energy we put into a magnetic material to "magnetize" it, is not equal to the Energy contained in the magnetic system.

The actual amount of energy is E = mc^2, times the % of atoms parallel to the cumulative field domain.
  times another atomic factor that pertains to the electrons and their orbits that varies from atom/molecule.

The energy put into the magnet is ONLY used to re-align the groups of atoms such that their field domains are in a parallel plane.

These are two entirely different values, and one has nothing to do with the other.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Real World Example::

Magnetic Material (X): non-magnetized, and of specific mass
              We can utilize various methods of magnetization, using electrical energy, each having different results, but take the example of the most efficient method, and mark down the "energy" used to magnetize the material.

Next, take this newly created "magnet", and place in its' field (not in physical contact) an exactly identical piece of non-magnetized material.
     Over time, this other piece will become magnetized, and measuring the field of both pieces, you find that the field strength of the original material to be close to as it were when you first magnetized it.
The second piece, however, will have its' own field, of similar magnitude.

This form of magnetic induction does not require the same amount of "energy" to be input into it to magnetize the material.
Nor, is that amount of energy "lost" from the original magnet.

What you propose is like comparing apples and oranges.

The energy contained within a magnet comes from atomic interactions of the mass.
  NOT from the energy we put into the material to magnetize it.

Interesting. That was new to me, so I might be wrong on that particular subject.
And thanks for your educational approach :-)


Vidar

[sm0ky2]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tG8zRbXQ-mQ

[Pirate88179]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tG8zRbXQ-mQ

He says in the annotation that all you need to do is blow on the ball to get it in the gate...or something to that effect, yet, he rolls the ball as if he were in a mini bowling alley.  I submit that with that much input energy, he could have the ball go even further if there were no magnets there at all.  He is deluding himself.

Bill