Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics

[SchubertReijiMaigo]

A magnet doesn't create energy... A static force doesn't produce energy, energy is movement... If you place a magnet before a coil and you don't move the magnet you have no energy, a static field doesn't produce any energy, you need to moove the magnet before the coil to produce EMF and electricity, the big problem is the lenz law that oppose your input. To produce energy you need movement, a force is static, for exemple a voltage mean nothing without amperage, even with "static electricty" you have micro or even nano Ampers of current...
To simplify: take a transformer.
1) Feed it with DC current (static field like a PM) --> try to measure the voltage at the secondary...
2) Feed it with AC current  (dynamic field) --> measure the output voltage...
The magnet on the fridge don't move, yes you are right, it work against gravity, you can do the same thing with a regular metal (or any other object) and glue it with your glue stick on the fridge.

[TinselKoala]

Rosemary, there must be some mistake. I don't know anything about skepticism, free energy, or critical thinking, but I do know this much:

When I click on the scribd reference you frequently give that links to a paper you and some others wrote, I immediately see the IEEE banner, and I see the IEEE journal name on every page of the paper.
Yet, I have heard from others that the IEEE journal(s) have rejected this paper, as many as 5 times, and it has definitely NOT been accepted for publication.
Hence, the mistake. It seems to me that EITHER the paper HAS been accepted, and thus your continuing use of IEEE in the link and on the paper is legitimate and legal and not a violation of IEEE copyright --- OR my other informants are correct, the paper has NOT been accepted, and thus the use of the IEEE initials and so forth is ... a mistake.
But everyone who clicks through to that paper is likely to believe that IEEE has endorsed it somehow, since you are using their initials AS IF they had actually accepted it for publication.

Is that right?

[pauldude000]

@loner

Always a pleasure to hear from you Art. Your comments and insights are always welcome, whether in disagreement or agreement alike.

@all

Indeed, in physics a magnet is indeed moving, whether or not it moves. :-)

Considering a fridge magnet, the two masses are under constant acceleration towards each other. (The fridge, and the magnet). Since the magnet does not have the force to overcome the inertial resistance of the mass of the refrigerator, the tiny mass of the magnet itself is forced to move.

Now, in this manner a magnet is just like gravity, in that the mass is continually falling towards the fridge with X force dependent upon the energy of the magnetic field, and that is what holds the nonmagnetic papers in place.  If the motion were not constant, or the field was truly static,  the magnet would instantly be overcome by the force of gravity as there is no other force holding it in place.

EXACTLY like gravity is holding you to the earth despite the centrifugal effect which would otherwise throw you off of the earth due to it's rotation.

It is a force being actively employed to overcome a different force acting against it, so yes work is being done.

Glues do not generally work by energy transference, but mechanical bonding . IE the material penetrates the surface of both items to some extent, then hardens. In this case, the glue actually COMBINES the two objects, making then logically one object. Gravity in this case does not have to overcome a general force, but cause a material failure or breakage.

This perpetual magnet (choke) problem is not as easy to dismiss as it first appears. :-)

The concept of a static but active field is somewhat of a conceptual case of circular logic. A static field is neither interacting nor in motion itself, nor causing motion.. It is static, and no energy is either moving, being gained nor expended.

A magnetic field is only truly static if it is not causing motion, yet anytime a force is overcome, we see the effects of acceleration, even if the distance traveled over time is zero.

Therefore, by our terms static, we mean a lack of acceleration, not of motion. Motion is actually therefore a relative term with little meaning, only gaining meaning when applied towards an observers frame of reference.

Acceleration however is ONLY applicable to an object in motion. If acceleration is present, work is being done. Therefore, though the magnet appears stationary, it's constant state of acceleration denies lack of work.

:-)

Paul Andrulis

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rosemary, there must be some mistake. I don't know anything about skepticism, free energy, or critical thinking, but I do know this much:

When I click on the scribd reference you frequently give that links to a paper you and some others wrote, I immediately see the IEEE banner, and I see the IEEE journal name on every page of the paper.
Yet, I have heard from others that the IEEE journal(s) have rejected this paper, as many as 5 times, and it has definitely NOT been accepted for publication.
Hence, the mistake. It seems to me that EITHER the paper HAS been accepted, and thus your continuing use of IEEE in the link and on the paper is legitimate and legal and not a violation of IEEE copyright --- OR my other informants are correct, the paper has NOT been accepted, and thus the use of the IEEE initials and so forth is ... a mistake.
But everyone who clicks through to that paper is likely to believe that IEEE has endorsed it somehow, since you are using their initials AS IF they had actually accepted it for publication.

Is that right?

Hello TK.  I'm afraid this is entirely off topic in this thread and will take the trouble to answer it on my own.

Regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

(I'm cringing slightly from the expected torrent of logic I'm about to get hit with.)



Art

You won't get that torrent from me Art.  I wholeheartedly agree with what you've written.  Very well put.  But I DO however think that the stationery magnet is - nonetheless - working.  It's defying the gravitational pull. 

Nice subject.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary