What if the textbooks are right?

[WilbyInebriated]

should you be ostracized because you destroyed the last motor you worked on? some may say yes, that it demonstrates incompetence. i say no, because you really didn't give me enough information to make an informed opinion. ie: if you tried to raise the compression to 40:1 on a lawnmower, it ending up being destroyed is perfectly understandable.
i'm really not interested in all this 'grandstanding' and 'proselytizing', what i am interested in is how you plan to effect a 40:1 compression ratio...

[Liberty]

Does anybody know what magnetic arrangements/experiments have been tried by physics or science to give them the idea that magnets are only conservative and always result in a sum of zero?  It would be good to know the arrangements that have already been tried so they are not repeated.

[CARN0T]

Hello, Liberty,

I think every student of physics at some time tries to discover new principles involving magnets.  Books have been written on the subject.  The good books are saying that "perpetual motion machines" don't work.

You will go further in your pursuits if you adopt the view that if you don't know exactly where the expected energy is coming from (e.g., you put it in) then you shouldn't expect to get any energy.

Every testbook on this topic should include that a magnetic field from a magnet can be represented as a scalar potential field.  A requirement that a scalar field exist is that the curl of B = 0 and this is interpreted as a condition for a "conservative field."  Yet I am having trouble at the moment with the idea that a magnetic field be "conservative" since I don't know where to get the "test charge" to verify the fact.  (I am a bit rusty here.)

Ernie Rogers

Does anybody know what magnetic arrangements/experiments have been tried by physics or science to give them the idea that magnets are only conservative and always result in a sum of zero?  It would be good to know the arrangements that have already been tried so they are not repeated.

[magifesq]

Anyone happen to know if ceramic magnets are used in alternators or neodymium?  If Neo-d's are the strongest production magnets, perhaps that would be more efficient?

[spinner]

thanks ernie, and while i will not argue that they have been subjected to very close scrutiny and test for over one hundred years, that does not make them 'universal' or a 'law', it still remains a theory, a theory backed up with a lot of data, but still a theory none the less. a calculation is just that, a calculation, nothing more. science has a long history of ostracizing ANYONE, lay person and scientist alike, who brings a claim that changes the status quo, see this page. perhaps scientists/physicists all need a history lesson of their peers despicable behavior?

Laws of TD have been in power for more than 100 years now... And so far, they're shown to be the "death proved" method in science. That's why they're a called LAW, not THEORY.
But you're right, the minute when someone can prove they're not working, the science would (probably?) admit the error and moved on....
All what is needed is a good, solid proof! Until then, why change something which definitely works?

i seem to recall a british institution saying that everything that could be invented, had been. this was the in 19th century i believe? sounds ludicrous now doesn't it? that's my point, 100 years ago brilliant physicists like yourself wrote many papers about how the best engine of the day could not effect man powered flight...what happened to those calculations? 500 years ago EVERYONE knew the world was flat. 500 years from now? who knows what the future will bring, surely you don't claim this knowledge do you?

You see, the "history" can be quite partial, or biased.... Depends on which sources you trust.? Yes, Science make mistakes, no doubt...
But there were mostly important individuals (not always scientists), who at some time expressed a (wrong) opinion... (Teachers, physics, doctors, politicians, scientists, generals, presidents... whatever... ) And who were later quoted by many....
(I had a chance to read a lot of such brilliant statements  from different sources....)  ... Lord Kelvin, etc...

The case you're mentioning - I think I remember that the pearson was a head of a US patent office, expressing his (narrow-minded) opinion during an important event (World Show event or something)..  One pearson!  That surely was not a general scientific opinion?

The same goes for possibility of flight, space exploration, nuclear technology, revolutionary medicine, chemistry, economy.... Name it...

It's up to any individual to form his/hers impartial opinion..

I must say that the general FE community is seriously clogged with extremely partial "historical sources"...
Many "urban legends" became a "historical facts"...

Like the famous saying that the "bumblebee cannot fly".... On many FE pages, it is quoted as a proof for scientific nonsense...
But it is interesting to trace this statement back in time....

Cheers!