Tri-Force Magnets - Finally shown to be OU?

[sm0ky2]

ok i guess i should rephrase that, since you are dense and hard to explain things to...


instead of "magnetic potential" lets use the term

"potential energy, imparted onto the ball - Magnetically"


THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS THE 'full potential energy of the magnetic field"

---- except @ Point B and C respectively-------

[Omnibus]

No, you?re wrong. You have to come to terms with that and try to straighten out your confusion. Maybe you can go back in the thread where I explained that to you or maybe you can look around and find literature which explains it. However, no matter what you find you have to sit on your own and try to figure this out yourself.

[sm0ky2]

Pre-Emptive Post::::

If we examine this using classical magnetic analysis::

i.e. total field observation::
M(a) is 13 Joules , just as is M(b)

However - @ A_1 - the energy imparted onto the ball from the magnetic field is 1/13 M(a)
@A_2 - it is 2/13 M(a), ect.

This is important for you to understand this increase of energy as the ball is lifted.
Regardless of the point of reference when examining the field.

[sm0ky2]

I will attempt to avoid discussion with you concerning advanced magnetics, it is obvious you did not reach this level of teaching, so i will try to keep my future posts in lines with your classical training.

Examining the field from outsideperspective of the field
vs
Examining the field from the charge's perspective

[Omnibus]

Pre-Emptive Post::::

If we examine this using classical magnetic analysis::

i.e. total field observation::
M(a) is 13 Joules , just as is M(b)

However - @ A_1 - the energy imparted onto the ball from the magnetic field is 1/13 M(a)
@A_2 - it is 2/13 M(a), ect.

This is important for you to understand this increase of energy as the ball is lifted.
Regardless of the point of reference when examining the field.

Don't continue with this. Deal with your confusion first. It's a waste of time otherwise.