Perpetual Motion Machine Drawings
KC
website with drawings of my version of a magnetically driven perpetual
motion machine.
Total investment so far:
Sacrifice of four old car stareo speaker magnets: about $2
Purchase of a dozen 1 7/8" X 7/8" X 3/8" bar magnets: about $35
(The only place here that had them and was handy was Canadian Tire.)
Still to come: about $100 for enough arc magnets to assemble one ring
magnet
(I figure if I can't get the one design in the drawings on my site, to
function properly when using a complete ring configuration made of arc
magnets, I can take it apart and use a partial "ring" from some of the
arc magnets.)
A likely source, (I know they are available over the internet, but
most are from outside canada and I hate paying nearly double because
of the customs duty), would be the auto wrecker. I expect to make it
into the city in a week or so. Hunting through various makes and
models of vehicles to find the starters that use permanent magnets
isn't going to be fun, but I'll tough it out. If I remember correctly,
the long bolts that hold the housing of the starter are more
accessable than the starter bolts usually are so, I'll just pull off
the housing with the magnets and leave the rest. Its a do-it-yourself
type auto wrecker, so I may get a break on the price by taking just
the housing, as compared to buying the whole starter.
Just follow either one of the two links on my main webpage via the
link below.
Have fun!
KC
Mr Clarke
news:8824f771.04111...@posting.google.com...
Is your time cheap?
When you calculate "total investment" so far do you not pay yourself
£50 / hour for experimentation purposes (you may only have five minutes
left to live after reading this message)!
I would sit literally ALL DAY with just a lump of platiscene and a rubber
ball without making anything work at all; but the working machine is in my
imagination. Maybe a month or two later I`ll make a quick sketch of the
idea in my theory notes (but even these, after several years, had to be
gathered together from various parts of my apartment into a folder)!
I`ll simply say that Permanent Magnets (as you have utilised them)
will not work by themselves to provide a motion.
Magnetism is not a fuel but like fuel it takes more of the same force
to overcome itself.
It doesn`t bore me one bit yet (but who knows?).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Clarke
-------------------------------------------------------
KC
Unfortunately, all my employers seemed to think so.
> When you calculate "total investment" so far do you not pay yourself
> £50 / hour for experimentation purposes (you may only have five minutes
> left to live after reading this message)!
I've got millions of dollars in "sweat equity" into this. But I'll
likely never realize a dime from it. (I hope for another 5 years, but
that might be stretching matters abit.)
> I would sit literally ALL DAY with just a lump of platiscene and a rubber
> ball without making anything work at all; but the working machine is in my
> imagination.
I'm more into computers or magnets as play things. Never both at once
though.
> Maybe a month or two later I`ll make a quick sketch of the
> idea in my theory notes (but even these, after several years, had to be
> gathered together from various parts of my apartment into a folder)!
Damn, I wish I was that organized.
> I`ll simply say that Permanent Magnets (as you have utilised them)
> will not work by themselves to provide a motion.
> Magnetism is not a fuel but like fuel it takes more of the same force
> to overcome itself.
I look on magnets as something like large versions of an atom. Most
people are not aware of the forces involved. Like the fact that the
force of attraction between two magnets is about twice that, of the
force of repulsion bewteen the same two magnets.
> It doesn`t bore me one bit yet (but who knows?).
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ashley Clarke
> -------------------------------------------------------
I know there are many people who know more of the physics principles
and math involved with magnets, but I can honestly say I don't know of
anyone who has observed and understood the interations between magnets
as well as I believe I do. There are areas of study relating to
magnetic shields, etc, that I hope to pursue at a later date but, for
now I believe I'm on the right track and I'm going to stick with it.
(No pun intended.)
KC
KC
already visited my website and didn't understand the principle behind
my designs. As I've already stated repeatedly, I'm not a physicist so
I put everything in laymans terms. It's just as well though as, (if I
were a physicist), based on the responses I've seen to date, I would
likely have ignored my observations and shrugged it off. Then I'd have
shuffled off as I flipped through my filing cabinet like brain for the
next neatly categorized entry, that fit with someone elses perceptions
of reality.
Anyway, you need only got to my slightly revised main page at the URL
below and click on the first link to get to the page relating the
principle in question.
Have a great day!
KC
Website: http://keithc.netfirms.com/
P.S. One new items added to the collection mentioned in my previous
post below:
keith__...@hotmail.com (KC) wrote in message news:<8824f771.04111...@posting.google.com>...
> Total investment so far:
> Sacrifice of four old car stareo speaker magnets: about $2
> Purchase of a dozen 1 7/8" X 7/8" X 3/8" bar magnets: about $35
> (The only place here that had them and was handy was Canadian Tire.)
> Still to come: about $100 for enough arc magnets to assemble one ring
> magnet
Added two rather old 1/4 HP AC electric motors that may have the arc
magnets I need. (I hope to disassemble them for inspection, as soon as
the rain lets up.) Cost $25 with the diaphram compressor and bench
grinder that they came with. Both were under powered with the 1/4 HP
motors anyways.
Added one small permanent magnet DC motor salvaged from a cordless
Skil drill that had a dead battery pack. Paid $10 for the drill about
two years ago and used it one year, so I think it paid for itself
already.
Thats it for now!
KC
<----------------- snip --------------->
Will Smith
>
>I look on magnets as something like large versions of an atom. Most
>people are not aware of the forces involved. Like the fact that the
>force of attraction between two magnets is about twice that, of the
>force of repulsion bewteen the same two magnets.
Maybe THAT is the force that is driving your proposed magnetic device.
Since (as you state) the attraction would overcome the repulsion, it
would naturally move toward the opposite polar force. It would have
to do so with enough force to overcome the resting inertia of the
magnet itself.
>
Don Kelly
"Will Smith" <Wi...@MenInBlack.com> wrote in message
news:ft1sm1l40q7lo59hu...@4ax.com...
Since the only energy stored in a magnet is that which is put there in the
making of the magnet, and this is limited, a magnetic motor without any
exterior input of energy would soon run down as once the stored energy is
extracted- tough-no magnet. Many have tried (and using attraction-repulsion
concepts) but none have managed to make a motor based on magnets alone. It
is like catching the energy of a falling object and using this energy to
raise the object back to where it fell from. Lossless it can run itself but
with inevitable losses (which include any useful work done) it eventually
stops.
Such devices simply do not work.
--
Don Kelly
cross out to reply
Desertphile
wrote:
>
> "Will Smith" <Wi...@MenInBlack.com> wrote in message
> news:ft1sm1l40q7lo59hu...@4ax.com...
> > On 21 Nov 2004 12:46:33 -0800, keith__...@hotmail.com (KC) wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>I look on magnets as something like large versions of an atom. Most
> >>people are not aware of the forces involved. Like the fact that the
> >>force of attraction between two magnets is about twice that, of the
> >>force of repulsion bewteen the same two magnets.
> >
> > Maybe THAT is the force that is driving your proposed magnetic device.
> > Since (as you state) the attraction would overcome the repulsion, it
> > would naturally move toward the opposite polar force. It would have
> > to do so with enough force to overcome the resting inertia of the
> > magnet itself.
> Since the only energy stored in a magnet is that which is put there in the
> making of the magnet
Well, Yes and No. Magnetic fields contain no energy that can be
used to perform work: an external source of energy is required
before magnetic fields can be used to perform work: that has
nothing at all to do with the energy used to "make a magnet."
> and this is limited, a magnetic motor without any
> exterior input of energy would soon run down as once the stored energy is
> extracted
Yes, the loss of energy is usually measured in picoseconds.
>- tough-no magnet. Many have tried (and using attraction-repulsion
> concepts) but none have managed to make a motor based on magnets alone. It
> is like catching the energy of a falling object and using this energy to
> raise the object back to where it fell from. Lossless it can run itself but
> with inevitable losses (which include any useful work done) it eventually
> stops.
> Such devices simply do not work.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Don Kelly
news:lcba86d1bbc4lgg40...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 21:13:13 -0700, "Don Kelly" <dh...@shawcross.ca>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Since the only energy stored in a magnet is that which is put there in
>> the
>> making of the magnet
>
> Well, Yes and No. Magnetic fields contain no energy that can be
> used to perform work: an external source of energy is required
> before magnetic fields can be used to perform work: that has
> nothing at all to do with the energy used to "make a magnet."
>
>> and this is limited, a magnetic motor without any
>> exterior input of energy would soon run down as once the stored energy is
>> extracted
>
> Yes, the loss of energy is usually measured in picoseconds.
------------------------
A magnetic field can do work. Try one. Lifting an object with a permanent
magnet is doing work. All that happens is that some of the field stored
energy is converted to mechanical energy. Note that with an ideal keeper and
magnet permeability (say infinite) the magnet energy is 0 although B is
maximum. At any other gap there will be stored energy n the gap. The force
will be dependent upon the change in field stored energy with position and
any movement of an object is due to this force- just as would be the case
with a solenoid. Removing the object from the magnet requires an external
energy source and this energy will be stored back in the external field
(ignoring losses). In a cycle, there will be a net loss and some internal
field weakening (small with modern magnets) So ,if you could have a machine
using only magnets, these losses and demagnetization effects will add up
until the device quits. The magnet might not be completely de-magnetized as
the device will quit earlier. With modern magnets, demagnetization might be
low per cycle so that some appreciable time is needed- depending on the
incremental loss of field energy per cycle. I do expect more than
picoseconds (not a measure of energy!) - this could take considerable time-
sufficient to give rise to the claims made by the builders of these machines
(running at no load and with good bearings).
However, even if the magnet is ideal, so that all energy involved is the
air gap energy which changes with position, it will not supply net energy
per cycle because the geometry of the situation is cyclic returning to a
given position and total field energy once a cycle (zero net energy from the
magnet) so such devices will run until the initial external starting energy
is dissipated. I think that we can agree on that as we do on perpetual
motion and overunity.
A good reference is at
http://www.magnetweb.com\design.htm
which has a series of articles by Dr. P Campbell.
Typical analysis of rotating electromagnetic machines considers the energy
balance between input electrical energy, losses, magnetic field energy and
mechanical output energy. Force can be expressed in terms of the changes in
field energy with position. Good references here are any electric machines
text.
As for my comments re manufacture- it is during manufacture that the
magnetization takes place - effectively establishing the magnetization M
and the resultant BH curve whose area represents the net stored energy in
the magnet. Work is involved in moving from one point to another along this
curve- in that sense I can say that the manufacture puts energy in -some of
which is borrowed to do external work. Establishing a BH loop at a lower
maximum B (and M) would require less energy in manufacture and the slope of
the top of the BH curve would be the same but the product BH at a given gap
will be lower so manufacturing energy is related in that it determines the
maximum B at H=0 (and related M).
Nonlinearity, while small, means that changing the external geometry and
field and returning to the original position, there will be a minor loop and
magnetic losses so gradual weakening of the magnet occurs.
Desertphile
wrote:
> "Desertphile" <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote in message
> news:lcba86d1bbc4lgg40...@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 21:13:13 -0700, "Don Kelly" <dh...@shawcross.ca>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Since the only energy stored in a magnet is that which is put there in
> >> the
> >> making of the magnet
> >
> > Well, Yes and No. Magnetic fields contain no energy that can be
> > used to perform work: an external source of energy is required
> > before magnetic fields can be used to perform work: that has
> > nothing at all to do with the energy used to "make a magnet."
>
> >
> >> and this is limited, a magnetic motor without any
> >> exterior input of energy would soon run down as once the stored energy is
> >> extracted
> >
> > Yes, the loss of energy is usually measured in picoseconds.
> A magnetic field can do work.
Yes, but only after an external source of energy is also added.
> Try one. Lifting an object with a permanent
> magnet is doing work.
Yes: you arm provides all of the energy. The magnetic field adds
ZERO energy.
Good fucking gods. Read a fucking physics book. Better yet, watch
the MIT lecture series 8.01 and 8.02 on YouTube.
Don Kelly
"Desertphile" <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote in message
news:beoc865khe6qsr99k...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 19:23:03 -0700, "Don Kelly" <dh...@shawcross.ca>
> wrote:
--snip-------
>
>> A magnetic field can do work.
>
> Yes, but only after an external source of energy is also added.
>
>> Try one. Lifting an object with a permanent
>> magnet is doing work.
>
> Yes: you arm provides all of the energy. The magnetic field adds
> ZERO energy.
-------------
Agreed in a motor situation (and including fridge magnets in this) - in a
cycle of operation, you are absolutely correct. My statements were for part
of a cycle and for this, you are wrong.
Here are a couple of things for you to consider:
1) take a magnet in your hand and move it towards a vertical (to get rid of
gravity effects) ferromagnetic surface and try to control its movement. You
feel a force. Which way is it acting- does it require you to push the magnet
towards the surface (i.e are you applying force in the direction of motion
hence doing work) or does it pull the magnet so that any force that you
apply is against the direction of motion and work is being done on you by
the magnet?
2)Hold a magnet as above and then release it without moving your arm or
hand- which way does the magnet move? Once released, what force or work are
you doing on the magnet? If none, why does it move? If it moves over a
distance- that means that there is a mechanical energy change- is this
consistent with any force that you may have applied when removing your hand?
Is it consistent with a force provided by the magnet? Is motion in the
direction of the magnetic force or in some direction dependent on how you
release the object?
3)A variation on (2)
Rigid arm holding the magnet (could be a mechanical arm ) fixed at a given
height above an object and separated by a non-magnetic barrier -say
Teflon -where mu is essentially mu0 and slide the barrier out (work to do
this can be measured but with a low coefficient of friction it should be
negligable)- magnet, object and field undisturbed. On removal of this
barrier, the object is lifted. The energy to do this can be measured. Is the
magnet exerting a force moving an object over a distance? The arm is not
moved so that while it sees a force, it is not doing work as it does not
move. A variation is to have the magnet on a thin but rigid glass plate on
rollers so that the distance between the plate and the base surface is
fixed. Put an object on the base and roll the glass plate over the object -
all mechanical external force is parallel to the base. Will the magnet pick
up the object, moving it in a direction perpendicular to the force used to
move the glass? This can be instrumented to determine force vs distance and
mechanical energy input from the source and Mgh can be used to determine the
energy lifting the object. How do they correlate?
On further analysis (as in the reference that I gave you) you will find that
what I have said doesn't violate conservation of energy.
in general with an electromagnetic system: delta(Welect)=
delta(Wmagnet)+delta(Wmech) +delta(losses)
where delta(W) is the change in energy {conservation of energy)
Set Delta(Welec) to zero in the permanent magnet case and conservation of
energy is still applicable.
In this case, delta(Wmagnet) =-delta(Wmech) ignoring losses.
You also need to consider internal Bm=muo(Hm+M) where M is the magnetization
and the effect of M can be expressed as ampere turns as in a solenoid.
From this one can determine the force at any position in terms of the
magnetic field and having the force, integrate over distance to find what
happens to the magnetic field energy which is analogous to gravitational
potential energy.
This, I assume , is what you are trying to say but you have only considered
energy transfer in one direction.
Does this mean that I support perpetual motion and motors running only on
magnets? Definitely not.
My original points were:
a)In a cycle from one position back to the same position there is, at best,
no change in magnetic field energy because the initial and final states are
the same so no net energy is extracted from the magnets -we agree on that.
b) There will be magnetic losses- these will be small so that without
external energy the magnetic field energy will decrease. Bmagnet will
decrease a small amount each cycle
c) Supposing that a), b) are not true, there is a limit on the original
energy which is related to the original magnetization M ( Bmagnet =muoM at
0 external gap. This is small in motor terms and even with this foolish
supposition is not sufficient to keep such a device going without external
input as, somehow, the demanded net energy out would exceed the available
magnet energy and this doesn't cut the mustard.
The best thing, after a good gift of gab, for a perpetual motion exhibition
is a good initial starting force and excellent bearings as the magnets will
be, at best, energy neutral.
The over-unity people equate forces to energy. Wrong.
Finally, I am not an amateur with respect to electromagnetic energy
conversion and have not been at the freshman level for many years. What I
find annoying is that so few references actually deal with the physics and
engineering of permanent magnets- the reference I gave you is one. Slemon of
the University of Toronto, many years ago also dealt with this.
Sooo- yes, I have read the physics books.
You have said many sensible things- I agree with these.
harry k
> "Desertphile" <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote in message
>
> news:beoc865khe6qsr99k...@4ax.com...> On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 19:23:03 -0700, "Don Kelly" <d...@shawcross.ca>
I know you can do what noone else has. Keep at it! Here is the clue
that noone else knows. To get that last magnet into juuuusssst the
riiiggghhhttt position you have to wrap your tongue around both
eyeteeth at the same time.
Lord I does love the magnet nuts.
Harry K
Desertphile
wrote:
> "Desertphile" <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote in message
> news:beoc865khe6qsr99k...@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 19:23:03 -0700, "Don Kelly" <dh...@shawcross.ca>
> > wrote:
> >> A magnetic field can do work.
> >
> > Yes, but only after an external source of energy is also added.
> >
> >> Try one. Lifting an object with a permanent
> >> magnet is doing work.
> >
> > Yes: you arm provides all of the energy. The magnetic field adds
> > ZERO energy.
Greetings again. Also, I apologize for my abusive words in my
previous post. I took three ibuprofen and I feel much better.
> Agreed in a motor situation (and including fridge magnets in this) - in a
> cycle of operation, you are absolutely correct. My statements were for part
> of a cycle and for this, you are wrong.
You mean "all the world's physicists are wrong."
> Here are a couple of things for you to consider:
>
> 1) take a magnet in your hand and move it towards a vertical (to get rid of
> gravity effects) ferromagnetic surface and try to control its movement. You
> feel a force.
Yes indeed. :-) A static force. Moving the magnet to any material
(other than a similar magnetic field, everything is attracted to a
magnetic field: even one's hand) imparts energy to that magnetic
field, which it promptly loses within picoseconds. That energy
comes from the act of moving the magnet.
All this was explained very well in MIT's lecture series 8.01 and
8.02.
> Which way is it acting- does it require you to push the magnet
> towards the surface (i.e are you applying force in the direction of motion
> hence doing work) or does it pull the magnet so that any force that you
> apply is against the direction of motion and work is being done on you by
> the magnet?
A point charge, such as that contained in all matter (not just
ferromagnetic) will travel a magnetic line of force perpendicular
to the line of force. It will then come to rest at its lowest
level of energy and stay there forever unless a source of energy
is applied to move it.
> 2)Hold a magnet as above and then release it without moving your arm or
> hand- which way does the magnet move? Once released, what force or work are
> you doing on the magnet?
100% of it.
> If none, why does it move?
"None" is not the correct answer.
> If it moves over a
> distance- that means that there is a mechanical energy change- is this
> consistent with any force that you may have applied when removing your hand?
Moving the magnet, or the material (in your example, ferromagnetic
material) supplied 100% of the energy. The electromagnetic force
converted most of that energy into kinetic energy.
The two forces (gravity and electromagnetism) contain zero energy:
they are static forces. As such they can be used to convert one
form of energy into another. The two interactions (weak nuclear
and strong nuclear) can be converted into kinetic energy given a
radioactive material, but they can be ignored in this case.
> Is it consistent with a force provided by the magnet? Is motion in the
> direction of the magnetic force or in some direction dependent on how you
> release the object?
The motion towards the magnet is where 100% of the energy comes
from. The ferromagnetic material leaping towards the magnet comes
from the hand moving the magnet.
This is basic high school physics. As I noted, the MIT lecture
series on the subject is worth watching. The videos are available
on YouTube.
> 3)A variation on (2)
> Rigid arm holding the magnet (could be a mechanical arm ) fixed at a given
> height above an object and separated by a non-magnetic barrier -say
> Teflon -where mu is essentially mu0 and slide the barrier out (work to do
> this can be measured but with a low coefficient of friction it should be
> negligable)- magnet, object and field undisturbed. On removal of this
> barrier, the object is lifted. The energy to do this can be measured.
Yes. The lifting then comes to an immediate stop until another
source of energy is applied.
> Is the
> magnet exerting a force moving an object over a distance?
Yes. Building the device and then removing the magic barrier
(which, by the way, does not exist) imparts the energy to produce
the work. The system then promptly goes to its lowest level of
energy and stays there. Every time, without exception, always.
> The arm is not
> moved so that while it sees a force, it is not doing work as it does not
> move. A variation is to have the magnet on a thin but rigid glass plate on
> rollers so that the distance between the plate and the base surface is
> fixed. Put an object on the base and roll the glass plate over the object -
> all mechanical external force is parallel to the base. Will the magnet pick
> up the object, moving it in a direction perpendicular to the force used to
> move the glass?
Yes. Placing the glass plate on rollers and then placing the
magnet and the ferromagnetic material on the glass provides 100%
of the energy to move the glass.
> This can be instrumented to determine force vs distance and
> mechanical energy input from the source and Mgh can be used to determine the
> energy lifting the object. How do they correlate?
>
> On further analysis (as in the reference that I gave you) you will find that
> what I have said doesn't violate conservation of energy.
Nobody says it does.
> in general with an electromagnetic system: delta(Welect)=
> delta(Wmagnet)+delta(Wmech) +delta(losses)
> where delta(W) is the change in energy {conservation of energy)
> Set Delta(Welec) to zero in the permanent magnet case and conservation of
> energy is still applicable.
Nobody said otherwise.
> In this case, delta(Wmagnet) =-delta(Wmech) ignoring losses.
> You also need to consider internal Bm=muo(Hm+M) where M is the magnetization
> and the effect of M can be expressed as ampere turns as in a solenoid.
=YAWN!= Thefact remains that none of the energy comes from
magnetic fields.
> From this one can determine the force at any position in terms of the
> magnetic field and having the force, integrate over distance to find what
> happens to the magnetic field energy which is analogous to gravitational
> potential energy.
Yes. The force applied (mass times acceleration) produces work
(force times distance) and can be measured. However, the amplitude
of the electromagnetic force (a different usage of the word
entirely) is measured by how a point charge's vector changes
within the magnetic field. Two totally different things. The
function is explained in the MIT lecture series 8.01, lecture 11.
> This, I assume , is what you are trying to say but you have only considered
> energy transfer in one direction.
The energy transfered is in only one direction.
> Does this mean that I support perpetual motion and motors running only on
> magnets? Definitely not.
That is impossible. A source of energy is required.
> My original points were:
> a)In a cycle from one position back to the same position there is, at best,
> no change in magnetic field energy
There is no such thing as "magnetic field energy."
> because the initial and final states are
> the same so no net energy is extracted from the magnets -we agree on that.
There is no energy to extract.
> b) There will be magnetic losses- these will be small so that without
> external energy the magnetic field energy will decrease.
Magnetic fields decrease due to thermal agitation.
There is no such thing as "magnetic field energy."
> Bmagnet will
> decrease a small amount each cycle
No.
> c) Supposing that a), b) are not true, there is a limit on the original
> energy which is related to the original magnetization M ( Bmagnet =muoM at
> 0 external gap. This is small in motor terms and even with this foolish
> supposition is not sufficient to keep such a device going without external
> input as, somehow, the demanded net energy out would exceed the available
> magnet energy and this doesn't cut the mustard.
No. The phrase "the original energy which is related to the
original magnetization" makes no sense. There is no energy in
magnets except that which is applied from an external source, and
that energy lasts for picoseconds.
> The best thing, after a good gift of gab, for a perpetual motion exhibition
> is a good initial starting force and excellent bearings as the magnets will
> be, at best, energy neutral.
There is no such thing.
> The over-unity people equate forces to energy. Wrong.
>
> Finally, I am not an amateur with respect to electromagnetic energy
There is no such thing as "electromagnetic energy."
> conversion and have not been at the freshman level for many years. What I
> find annoying is that so few references actually deal with the physics and
> engineering of permanent magnets- the reference I gave you is one. Slemon of
> the University of Toronto, many years ago also dealt with this.
> Sooo- yes, I have read the physics books.
But you do not understand the fundamental basics. You appear to
believe that energy is a thing, an object, a "something" that
exists in the real world: it is not.
Energy is an ability, not a thing, measured by a system's ability
to perform work. Magnets and thus magnetic fields cannot perform
work without an external source of energy being applied: they
therefore contain zero energy.
> You have said many sensible things- I agree with these.
>
> --
> Don Kelly
> cross out to reply
Desertphile
Richard Feynman did a damn fine job of that ten years before I was
born. He and his team was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for
doing so.
MIT teaches the physics of electromagnetic fields to every single
one of its students: it is a required subject, no matter what the
student goals at MIT are. The MIT lecture series 8.01 and 8.02 are
mandatory for every student.
Isaac Asimov also wrote essays on the subject.
> > the reference I gave you is one. Slemon of
> > the University of Toronto, many years ago also dealt with this.
> > Sooo- yes, I have read the physics books.
> >
> > You have said many sensible things- I agree with these.
> >
> > --
> > Don Kelly
> > cross out to reply
> I know you can do what noone else has. Keep at it! Here is the clue
> that noone else knows. To get that last magnet into juuuusssst the
> riiiggghhhttt position you have to wrap your tongue around both
> eyeteeth at the same time.
>
> Lord I does love the magnet nuts.
I just spent 30 minutes explaining the problems with "Don Kelly's"
hypothesizes. Energy is the ability to perform work (mass times
accelerations times distance) and is therefore an abstract number,
not a thing. Saying there is "electromagnetic energy" is like
saying a bunch of Sundays can be grabbed and put into a can for
later use when needed.
Planets in stable orbits around stars, or barycenters, or other
masses or collection of masses, use zero energy doing so. That is
because they aren't accelerating. In unstable orbits (i.e., not
orbiting), masses accelerate and they gain or lose energy in the
process with the net energy between masses equalizing to zero.
(Shoot a satellite towards Jupiter and Jupiter's angular momentum
slows down as the satellite speeds up in Jupiter's gravity well.)
Electromagnetic fields work the same way that gravity fields do. I
have explained this dozens of times in my YouTube videos. Moving
iron into a magnetic field and releasing the iron will cause the
iron to move to the magnet: 100% of that energy came from the hand
moving the iron because energy is the ability to perform work, not
a "thing."
Picking up a rock and letting it fall to the ground is the exact
same thing as picking up a piece of iron and moving it into an
electromagnetic field: the falling rock will move to its lowest
energy level and stay there until another source of energy is
applied (i.e., pick up the rock again). It is exactly the same
thing with magnetic fields and iron.
Unfortunately a hell of a lot of people hate these facts, and I am
baffled over the reason why.
> Harry K
Don Kelly
Good
-----
>
> Isaac Asimov also wrote essays on the subject.
>
>> > the reference I gave you is one. Slemon of
>> > the University of Toronto, many years ago also dealt with this.
>> > Sooo- yes, I have read the physics books.
>> >
>> > You have said many sensible things- I agree with these.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Don Kelly
>> > cross out to reply
>
>> I know you can do what noone else has. Keep at it! Here is the clue
>> that noone else knows. To get that last magnet into juuuusssst the
>> riiiggghhhttt position you have to wrap your tongue around both
>> eyeteeth at the same time.
>>
>> Lord I does love the magnet nuts.
>
> I just spent 30 minutes explaining the problems with "Don Kelly's"
> hypothesizes. Energy is the ability to perform work (mass times
> accelerations times distance) and is therefore an abstract number,
> not a thing. Saying there is "electromagnetic energy" is like
> saying a bunch of Sundays can be grabbed and put into a can for
> later use when needed.
------
Generally in mechanics force* distance doesn't necessarily involve
acceleration (Oops
>
> Planets in stable orbits around stars, or barycenters, or other
> masses or collection of masses, use zero energy doing so. That is
> because they aren't accelerating. In unstable orbits (i.e., not
> orbiting), masses accelerate and they gain or lose energy in the
> process with the net energy between masses equalizing to zero.
> (Shoot a satellite towards Jupiter and Jupiter's angular momentum
> slows down as the satellite speeds up in Jupiter's gravity well.)
OK
>
> Electromagnetic fields work the same way that gravity fields do. I
> have explained this dozens of times in my YouTube videos. Moving
> iron into a magnetic field and releasing the iron will cause the
> iron to move to the magnet: 100% of that energy came from the hand
> moving the iron because energy is the ability to perform work, not
> a "thing."
OK
>
> Picking up a rock and letting it fall to the ground is the exact
> same thing as picking up a piece of iron and moving it into an
> electromagnetic field: the falling rock will move to its lowest
> energy level and stay there until another source of energy is
> applied (i.e., pick up the rock again). It is exactly the same
> thing with magnetic fields and iron.
-----------
I agree with the above. Certainly the iron will fall to the lowest energy
state and the pickup and dropping cycle results in a zero energy cycle.
However, picking up the rock requires doing work on the rock. Consider this
as "storing" the ability to do work. Dropping the stone takes no energy
from the dropper and it could be said that this previously "stored" energy
is then released converted as the rock falls to a lower state- if your foot
is in the way then painful work is done on it.
Ditto with a permanent magnet. Taking the iron away from the magnet does
work - again "storing" energy. Then when you decide to release it , it
"falls".
When the iron is in the field, and constrained there is the capability of
doing work (commonly potential energy). Sure it is simply returning the
work previously done by the hand and I have not denied that.
All I have said is that for part of the cycle, the magnet does work (knowing
full well that its capability to do so is because of work previously done).
Quibble- moving the iron from the magnet requires one to apply a force in
the direction of the motion. The hand is doing the work. Moving the iron
into the field results in a motion opposite to the retarding force of the
hand so it appears that the magnet is doing the work at that time.
A rotary perpetual motion machine fails mainly because of this cycling from
one state back to the same state in each revolution. A linear motor runs
into this and other problems and the only energy involved in either is that
put in by an external source to start the whole ball of wax.
Ditto for Beardon's devices.
I love conservation of energy - is that being a nut?
What gets many people is that they mistake force for energy /work.
Thanks for the emphasis on to the concept of energy as the ability to do
work vs being work. This gets blurred sometimes.
--
Don Kelly
cross out to reply
P.S. that lasht magnet got caught up in my denturesh
Don Kelly
"Desertphile" <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote in message
news:2olk869qgq049vego...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 21:27:49 -0700 (PDT), harry k
> <turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 9, 8:30 pm, "Don Kelly" <d...@shawcross.ca> wrote:
>> > "Desertphile" <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote in message
>> >
>> > news:beoc865khe6qsr99k...@4ax.com...> On Mon, 6 Sep 2010
>> > 19:23:03 -0700, "Don Kelly" <d...@shawcross.ca>
>> > > wrote:
>> > --snip-------
>> >
>> > -------------
>
>
> I just spent 30 minutes explaining the problems with "Don Kelly's"
> hypothesizes. Energy is the ability to perform work (mass times
> accelerations times distance) and is therefore an abstract number,
> not a thing. Saying there is "electromagnetic energy" is like
> saying a bunch of Sundays can be grabbed and put into a can for
> later use when needed.
>
> Planets in stable orbits around stars, or barycenters, or other
> masses or collection of masses, use zero energy doing so. That is
> because they aren't accelerating. In unstable orbits (i.e., not
> orbiting), masses accelerate and they gain or lose energy in the
> process with the net energy between masses equalizing to zero.
> (Shoot a satellite towards Jupiter and Jupiter's angular momentum
> slows down as the satellite speeds up in Jupiter's gravity well.)
>
> Electromagnetic fields work the same way that gravity fields do. I
> have explained this dozens of times in my YouTube videos. Moving
> iron into a magnetic field and releasing the iron will cause the
> iron to move to the magnet: 100% of that energy came from the hand
> moving the iron because energy is the ability to perform work, not
> a "thing."
-------------
Re-reading (without external distractions this time) Professor Lewin's
lecture transcript. 8:01 lecture 11
"There's a gravitational force mg in this direction, so the force by Walter
Lewin must be in this
direction, so the motion and my force are in the same direction, so the work
that I'm doing is
clearly plus mgh.
So the work that Walter Lewin is doing is plus mgh when the object goes from
A to B.
The work that gravity was doing was minus mgh--
we just saw that.
So the net work that is done is zero, and you see there is indeed no change
in kinetic energy.
There was no kinetic energy here to start with, and there was no kinetic
energy there."
This was an Oh, Shit! moment.
Total work done in gravitational field is 0 as it would be in a magnetic
field.
I was thinking in terms only of the work that I did in picking up a rock
and only of the work done by gravity in lowering the rock (not both (w-w)
rather than (w-w)+(w-w) in a cycle). What has been a large part of this is
a lot of work dealing with machines where it is convenient to look at the BH
curve and consider "stored energy" in the field. That was what I was going
on about, extended to determination of forces due to permanent magnets.
(and NEVER, when dealing with machines is the magnetic field seen as any
source of energy but rather as a coupling between electrical and mechanical
systems) All my comments reflected this.
My apologies and also my thanks - I'm getting too old and rusty and not
always thinking as well as I should about things. Your patience has helped.
About the only thing I can salvage is that it is possible to weaken a
permanent magnet by cycling it to or past the knee of the BH curve- but that
involves some of the magnetic domains being seduced by thermal agitation so
I don't win there.:)
Don Kelly
--
Don Kelly
cross out to reply
"Don Kelly" <dh...@shawcross.ca> wrote in message
news:WsXjo.21559$0O3....@newsfe11.iad...
>
>
>
> "Desertphile" <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote in message
> news:2olk869qgq049vego...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 9 Sep 2010 21:27:49 -0700 (PDT), harry k
>> <turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 9, 8:30 pm, "Don Kelly" <d...@shawcross.ca> wrote:
>>> > "Desertphile" <desertph...@invalid-address.net> wrote in message
>>> >
>>> > news:beoc865khe6qsr99k...@4ax.com...> On Mon, 6 Sep 2010
>>> > 19:23:03 -0700, "Don Kelly" <d...@shawcross.ca>
>>> > > wrote:
>>> > --snip-------
>>> >
>>
>> Electromagnetic fields work the same way that gravity fields do. I
>> have explained this dozens of times in my YouTube videos. > -------------
------------------------------------
I reread what I wrote in my last message and have fallen back into
apostasy.
Going through what is in the Lewin lectures, it is clear that <nothing> in
MIT 801 and 802 contradicts what I have said in previous comments.
Note that what becomes more clear in the 801.12 lecture is that the total
mechanical energy input in moving from A to B is the sum of the kinetic
energy and the potential energy
(gravitational potential energy in this case). In other words the negative
work done by gravity when an object is raised in a direction opposite to the
gravitational field is converted to potential or stored energy. So KE +PE
at A is the same as at B. KE at B =KE at A is a red herring. Coming back
down, this PE is converted back to Kinetic energy and the final total energy
is the same as at the start- no net work done for the round trip.
We make use of this in hydro systems- the sun does the lifting of the water
(no charge) and the release of the water does work (and the energy to open
the valve is not the source of this work). We also have pumped hydro where
the electrical grid supplies the energy to pump water which is released at a
later time to supply the grid (but not turn electrical energy back to coal).
This is done for economic reasons only.
Lewin talks about this gravitational potential energy ( difference) in this
sense, just as he talks about a spring (also conservative).
In 802 he considers electric and magnetic field stored energy- again
conservative fields.
When you move the iron into the magnetic field and release it:
"Moving
iron into a magnetic field and releasing the iron will cause the
iron to move to the magnet: 100% of that energy came from the hand
moving the iron because energy is the ability to perform work, not
>> a "thing." "
Please consider the force that you apply to move the iron into the field -
is it + or -? Toward or away from the magnet. Considering this is the work
that you do + or - ?
Which part of the cycle are you on?
None of this supports perpetual motion or overunity in any way -even the
wheel with housenumbers 6 going up and 9 down :)
mark krawczuk
if ya havent see it..
"Desertphile" <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote in message
news:a8jk869t3u9jcpg48...@4ax.com...
harry k
> hey pedohiled you ever watched energy from the vacum ?
>
> if ya havent see it..
>
>
> news:a8jk869t3u9jcpg48...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
<snip>
Is that supposed to be English?
And how do you "watch energy"??
Harry K
mark krawczuk
"Desertphile" <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote in message
news:a8jk869t3u9jcpg48...@4ax.com...
mark krawczuk
AGAIN YAWNNNNNN BETCHYA DESERTPHILE HAS NOT EVEN TRIED ANY EXPERIMENTS
, ALL HIS WEIRDO IDEAS ARE IN HIS TINY BRAIN.
SO YOU BELEIVE NOTHING FROM EIENSTEIN WHEN HE SAID :
Imagination is more important than knowledge." DESERT PHILE CANT THINK "
OUTSIDE THE BOX "
EIENSTEIN AGAIN " We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking
we used when we created them"
YOUR A NUTTER INDIAN LOLVER
"Desertphile" <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote in message
news:a8jk869t3u9jcpg48...@4ax.com...