What?

The BH curve does not change the fact that you are NOT "switching on" iron or whatever ferromagnetic material by simply sticking a permanent magnet onto it!

Perhaps YOU should go back to school.
Or maybe stay away from your school, rather, if that is the place where they taught you that sticking a magnet onto metal "switches" it "on".

You can of course magnetise iron using a permanent magnet, but that involves slightly more than merely sticking a magnet onto it. You will need to heat or kinetically shock the soft iron while subjected to a magnetic field for the iron to "pick up" on it and become 'permanently' magnetic itself. If you don't, the iron will lose its magnetic polaritation naturally.

No matter how much you dislike that, it is true.

I see where is misunderstanding, by "switching on" I mean B movement as reaction on external H field, and as I see you mean permanent magnetization of material where B<>0 when H is zero. In any case if B is not zero this mean this piece of ferro-magnetic have own magnetic field which can attract or repel other magnetic materials, so I called this "on" state

By the way with external field H you can move not only iron also any permanent magnet along its BH curve, you can prove it by measuring, repulsion force between two magnets is always weaker than attraction.

Ah, now I see where you're going.
Sorry about that earlier hickup, clearly a misunderstanding.

Indeed attraction appears to exert greater force than repulsion between two pm's.
Interestingly, this has often been stated by various researchers...
"The pinciple of attract-attract instead of the normally used principle of attract-reject is a much more efficient way to induce motion in a permanent magnetic motor, and the way to OU." or similar statements have been made multiple times by various people in the OU pmm field...
It seems they are suggesting that the use of a homopolar magnetic field instead of a dipolar (like the "AC" based motors stated earlier in this thread) for use in a pm motor/generator has a stronger effect and can therefore produce more effective output. In other words, they seem to suggest that setups which use only the attraction to "pull" the rotor around may be considerably more efficient than setups which also use the rejection to "push" the rotor around as well.
Clearly, if you spotted the force difference between the two, you will understand what they mean.

Quote from: Honk on December 04, 2007, 02:42:54 AM
Actually, you don't need to switch polarity in a motor to create work.
You can design the motor to let a magnetic rotor chase a rotatating electromagnetic field.
This will just cause pull on the rotor, but not any push.
Just like any electric motor but efficiency and power density is dropped due to the missing push.
But still there is work being created. No need for AC fields, just switch the electromagnets ON and OFF.

That's right. Swithing it on and off will do, but then you still have a relative polarity swap, but then around a polarity offset other than zero. The relative forces are the forces that do work, and utilizing both polarities, makes a more efficient motor.

Br.

Vidar

Quote from: hansvonlieven on November 30, 2007, 01:24:38 PM
G'day Roen and all,

Keely said once in his writings (about 120 years ago) "No arrangement of magnets can ever be so graduated as to induce rotation"

Perhaps he was right.

Keely understood magnetism perhaps more than anyone before or after him. He managed to make non-magnetic materials magnetic by subjecting them to a sonic stream using acoustic resonators only. He also managed to take the magnetism out of very strong magnets by subjecting them to the same type of energy.

This has not been replicated to date but at the time was witnessed by a great many people, including eminent scientists.

Hans von Lieven

But he was much to knowledgeable to reason in absolutes without reason.

"No arrangement of magnets can ever be so graduated"

He doesn't say it cant be constructed, he says it cant be measured as~such with the graduated parrots being the main paroteers propagating the lie perpetually.

http://keelynet.com/interact/arc_1_98-7_98/00001350.htm

The gossip of Ford wearing off his stalkers using magnetic repulsion (haha) really goes confirmed by Ed using only car parts to build coral castle.

With MIT failing to fix Ed's door and finding a mysterious disk sitting on a Ford T1 bearing.

So now we can teach students it's made of unidentifyable material.

Isn't that a super interesting phenomenon in it self???

Would the kids accept it really is unidentifyable? I think some crackpot child may ask if that was the best we could do? no?

Then they can say "if you would know enough physics you would know this material can not be identified"  The parrotism is strong in this kind of slogans.

Didn't you learn it was made of unidentifyable material? Well stop trying to identify it?  haha??

I know it sounds really weird logic.

Well here we have the same:

Quote from: Mr.Entropy on December 01, 2007, 12:19:40 AM
Ah, but that's the wrong question.  You should be asking why people think these motors should work.

As you have been instructed to ignore perpetual motion with all media effort one could possibly utilise to make a person ignore something.

To me this means it is EXTREMELY obvious they are trying to cover up the truth. Where the truth would be exactly the opposite of the ADVERTISEMENT SLOGAN.

That alone should be all the reason you need to assume the exact opposite is in fact the truth!

So you use your curiosity to tell me my effort will be fruitless because you can prove you never questioned the divine truth about it and because you never thought about it this means you are the expert on the subject.

ROFL!!!

The brain enslaved minions of the establishment. That's how I know those devices work. I also know that general denial is the least productive activity one could engage into.

Einsteinian physics claimed no perpetual motion device could be build. So they never looked at any of them.

Now the fact they didn't look should support their original claim?

If you show them one they will call you a lunatic. Data is irrelevant in science!!!! Hallelujah!

Meanwhile in the real world the original claim still goes unsupported. the biggest nonsense of it all is that   closed systems do not exist. It's an imaginary universe.

The temperature changes all day, that's pure energy. There is plenty of sun and wind. Every particle is a magnetic perpetual motion device.

And there is so much radio activity everything shakes violently.

FFS! It's just like Galileo with his telescope.

Apparently they don't have to see magnetic fields to be able to make all kinds of weird but baseless claims about it. How dare you question our weird and baseless claims, we are scientists you should show much respect to us. Lets waste your time talking about how you are waisting your time.

I think magnetic flux looks like this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n1_6x3kEP8

Every university in the world didn't order one of his lenses.

They cant be graduated to look tough them either, they already know!

Yeah, right!

ROFL!