Thin Magnetic Ramp experiment

[Low-Q]

@Low-Q

Quote from Low-Q 
"That sounds simpler than it really is. Alternating a force recuire energy.
If you move 1 kg mass from one place to another, it will still be 1kg. You don't change anything by moving it around - not even with the "right timing". I believe you think more complicated than neccessary." End Quote

Which is it ?
"That sounds simpler than it really is."   or  "I believe you think more complicated than neccessary."

What are you saying ?
1. There is no way to get work from magnets.
         or
2. There is no KNOWN way to get work from magnets ?
         or
3. This topic is not interesting to you.                           

1. There is no way you can get work from magnets.
2. There is KNOWN that you cannot get work from magnets
3. These kind of topics are always interesting


You see, magnets holds potential energy after energy has been pumped in to magnetize them.
If this potential does not change over time, you cannot get work from magnets.


"Charge" a bucket with 10 litre of water. Poor out 5 litre water without reducing the volume of water in it. That is what you try to do with magnets. If the water level doesn't change, no water is poored out - no work done. If the water level drops, you have spent 50% for the potential energy in the water. 50% left in the bucket. However, there is no KNOWN way to poor out 5 litre and still have 10 litre left in the bucket without refilling it. The "hard" question here is how to refill 5 litre of water without water available? No one will ever find out? I think the question is well covered by logic and common sense.


Spend 50% of magnetism in a magnet to do work, and there is 50% left to do work, and the magnet is 50% weaker. When all magnetism is spent, you don't have a magnet any more - or you have an emty bucket, and no potential energy left to do work. Pure logic - but appearently for some, that does not apply to magnets. Well, it does. So now you've learned something new :-)
There is an obvious relationship between what you put in and what you get out. Well proven and well tested. NASA use the same simple laws of physics to hit a target on Mars. If there was a flaw in those laws, NASA wouldn't exist - nor the general industy all over the world.


Think simple. There is nothing spooky about magnets that does not apply to common physics.


Vidar

[shylo]

I read somewhere once that to store magnets they should have a keeper?
What happens when you bring a strong neo towards a piece of steel?
A magnet will always center itself on a layer of steel.
Offset the center.
artv

[Floor]

@Low-Q

I'll repeat my first question.

You said  "That sounds simpler than it really is."   buy then you say  "I believe you think more complicated than necessary."
Which of these statements do you intend that I take as your meaning ?

Most of what you have said is no more than anyone has heard by time they have finished  middle school.
and doesn't really need to be repeated here.

You have said  "Think simple. There is nothing spooky about magnets that does not apply to common physics."
What a strange statement you make !

The ultimate causes of ANY THING are not actually Know, by ANY ONE.  I think this statement is the first thing to
acknowledge in physics, lest we all become the scientific equivalent of religious zealots.
There is nothing shameful in the acceptance of this fact.

I don't know of any physics that doesn't depend upon action at a distance, do you ?

Common or not, the depths of physics are clearly not simple.

I do agree with you that it is sometimes best to keep to simple thinking.

You say
"If there was a flaw in those laws, NASA wouldn't exist - nor the general industy all over the world."
That is a misleading and untrue  statement.

I don't believe in the big bang theory.  I'm not supposed to.  It's a theory.
I do think there have been lots of big bangs in the universe.

If you want play chess, find a chess board and some one else to play against.

                     floor

[Low-Q]

@Low-Q

I'll repeat my first question.

You said  "That sounds simpler than it really is."   buy then you say  "I believe you think more complicated than necessary."
Which of these statements do you intend that I take as your meaning ?

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.
No matter how I expressed myself, one cannot get energy out of a permanent magnet.

Most of what you have said is no more than anyone has heard by time they have finished  middle school.
and doesn't really need to be repeated here.

You have said  "Think simple. There is nothing spooky about magnets that does not apply to common physics."
What a strange statement you make !

Why is this strange? And what's wrong repeating simple physics?
Some here appearently havent reach middle shcool yet, or they dropped out already in the kindergrden,
because some here still don't understand that overunity is impossible. Therefor I repeat middle school physics.

The ultimate causes of ANY THING are not actually Know, by ANY ONE.  I think this statement is the first thing to
acknowledge in physics, lest we all become the scientific equivalent of religious zealots.
There is nothing shameful in the acceptance of this fact.

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

I don't know of any physics that doesn't depend upon action at a distance, do you ?

You're right. 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. Forexample, the circumference of a wheel does not increase as the wheel spins.

Common or not, the depths of physics are clearly not simple.

Lucky for us these devices we are trying to make over unity, require the shallowest physics skills to debunk.

I do agree with you that it is sometimes best to keep to simple thinking.

You say
"If there was a flaw in those laws, NASA wouldn't exist - nor the general industy all over the world."
That is a misleading and untrue  statement.

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.
IF over unity was common, it would be impossible to calculate correctly,
and unexpected motor or rocket behaviour would occour from nowhere.

I don't believe in the big bang theory.  I'm not supposed to.  It's a theory.
I do think there have been lots of big bangs in the universe.

I does not matter what we believe. What happend, happend regardless of our opinions.

If you want play chess, find a chess board and some one else to play against.

Are you mad at me because your idea can't work in practice? Blame Mother Nature - not me!

[sm0ky2]

1. There is no way you can get work from magnets.
2. There is KNOWN that you cannot get work from magnets
3. These kind of topics are always interesting


You see, magnets holds potential energy after energy has been pumped in to magnetize them.
If this potential does not change over time, you cannot get work from magnets.

Vidar

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.