Energy in a permanent magnet question

[HardySpicer]

Suppose I have a permanent magnet and attract a nail a height h from
the ground. If the nail has mass m then I have done mgh of work
(potential energy) which must come from the field. If I then attract
a second nail the magnetic attraction will be less since I have used
energy when attracting the first one - which is still attached. If I
keep doing this there is little energy left to lift anything more.

I then pull off the nails which requires energy from me. That energy
must be released back into the field since I can then replicate the
experiment. Is this right? So energy is stored in permanent magnets.

[brent]

For a mere $31 you can find the answer to your question here:

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=737473&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D737473

[George Herold]

On Apr 13, 7:29 am, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:

Here's how I would think about it.

There is energy in the magnetic field. The energy density is B^2/
(2*mu sub zero) (MKS units) If you integrate this over all space you
get the total energy in the field. Sticking bits of iron in the field
reduces the B field outside the pieces of iron and so the total energy
of the system has decreased.
So sure there is some energy in any magnet. (I trust this is *not*
leading to some perpetual motion gizmo.)

George H.

[Nico Coesel]

HardySpicer <gyans...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Suppose I have a permanent magnet and attract a nail a height h from
>the ground. If the nail has mass m then I have done mgh of work
>(potential energy) which must come from the field. If I then attract
>a second nail the magnetic attraction will be less since I have used
>energy when attracting the first one - which is still attached. If I

Magnets don't have anything to do with energy. They exert a force. The
energy comes from whatever is moving/holding the magnet or the object.

--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
--------------------------------------------------------------

[Helmut Wabnig]

No, it's not right.

But you don't want to know anyway.

The energy stored in a magnet is called magnetization work.
If you extract it, you will de-magnetize the magnet.

Google for:

Coercitivity
Susceptibility
Remanence
Degaussing


w.

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:44:21 GMT, ni...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
wrote:

>HardySpicer <gyans...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Suppose I have a permanent magnet and attract a nail a height h from
>>the ground. If the nail has mass m then I have done mgh of work
>>(potential energy) which must come from the field. If I then attract
>>a second nail the magnetic attraction will be less since I have used
>>energy when attracting the first one - which is still attached. If I
>
>Magnets don't have anything to do with energy.

They certainly store energy. It takes energy to magnetize one, and the
nail experiment is one way to recover some of that energy.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators

[Helmut Wabnig]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 07:12:41 -0700, John Larkin
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:44:21 GMT, ni...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
>wrote:
>
>>HardySpicer <gyans...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Suppose I have a permanent magnet and attract a nail a height h from
>>>the ground. If the nail has mass m then I have done mgh of work
>>>(potential energy) which must come from the field. If I then attract
>>>a second nail the magnetic attraction will be less since I have used
>>>energy when attracting the first one - which is still attached. If I
>>
>>Magnets don't have anything to do with energy.
>
>They certainly store energy. It takes energy to magnetize one, and the
>nail experiment is one way to recover some of that energy.

No, Mista.

If you pull out energy (regardless how),
the magnet would de-magnetize.

w.

[Sam Wormley]

On 4/13/12 6:29 AM, HardySpicer wrote:
> Suppose I have a permanent magnet and attract a nail a height h from
> the ground. If the nail has mass m then I have done mgh of work
> (potential energy) which must come from the field. If I then attract
> a second nail the magnetic attraction will be less since I have used
> energy when attracting the first one - which is still attached. If I
> keep doing this there is little energy left to lift anything more.

No.

[halong]

Not really,

It took you an amount of energy to set up this scenario :

> Suppose I have a permanent magnet and attract a nail a height h from

...When the nail jumps to the magnet, it's just paying you back what
you've spent out

So, tell this experiment to Obama and explain to him that the "no free
lunch in America" still works, and it's now biting him

[tm]

"halong" <cco...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:f1904b03-f7fe-4840...@36g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...

_________________________________________________

Or better yet see if you can get some of that green energy funding from the
dept of energy. Let us know if it works.

[John Larkin]

So, when the magnet lifts a nail, where did the energy come from? Do
you believe in conservation of energy?

[Tim Wescott]

It does demagnetize -- the more nails you put on, the less magnetic field
there is available to the outside world. Then, when you pull the nails
off, you re-magnetize it.

And no, I don't mean "demagnetize" in the way that you were thinking --
and no, that's not my problem.

--
My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook.
My conservative friends think I'm a liberal kook.
Why am I not happy that they have found common ground?

Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & Software
http://www.wescottdesign.com

[Nico Coesel]

John Larkin <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:44:21 GMT, ni...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
>wrote:
>
>>HardySpicer <gyans...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Suppose I have a permanent magnet and attract a nail a height h from
>>>the ground. If the nail has mass m then I have done mgh of work
>>>(potential energy) which must come from the field. If I then attract
>>>a second nail the magnetic attraction will be less since I have used
>>>energy when attracting the first one - which is still attached. If I
>>
>>Magnets don't have anything to do with energy.
>
>They certainly store energy. It takes energy to magnetize one, and the
>nail experiment is one way to recover some of that energy.

If that where true a motor with permanent magnets would stop working
very quickly.

A magnet exerts a force. A magnet can attract things but it takes the
same amount of energy to remove those things so the nett output is 0.

[Androcles]

"Tim Wescott" <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote in message
news:ndidnfhNnZF81hXS...@web-ster.com...

Because you are kook who doesn't know what a friend is.

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:53:05 -0500, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com>

wrote:

>On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:33:33 +0200, Helmut Wabnig wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 07:12:41 -0700, John Larkin
>> <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:44:21 GMT, ni...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:
>>>
>>>>HardySpicer <gyans...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Suppose I have a permanent magnet and attract a nail a height h from
>>>>>the ground. If the nail has mass m then I have done mgh of work
>>>>>(potential energy) which must come from the field. If I then attract
>>>>>a second nail the magnetic attraction will be less since I have used
>>>>>energy when attracting the first one - which is still attached. If I
>>>>
>>>>Magnets don't have anything to do with energy.
>>>
>>>They certainly store energy. It takes energy to magnetize one, and the
>>>nail experiment is one way to recover some of that energy.
>>
>>
>> No, Mista.
>>
>> If you pull out energy (regardless how), the magnet would de-magnetize.
>
>It does demagnetize -- the more nails you put on, the less magnetic field
>there is available to the outside world. Then, when you pull the nails
>off, you re-magnetize it.
>
>And no, I don't mean "demagnetize" in the way that you were thinking --
>and no, that's not my problem.

Right. The captured nails shunt the field locally, leaving less
external field to lift future nails.

A thin coating of infinite-mu stuff would soak up all available
external-to-magnet energy, and shield the magnet perfectly.

[Fred Bartoli]

brent a écrit :

Available for free here (please send me the $31 :-) :
<http://web.archive.org/web/20060821171406/http://www.cip.csiro.au/Machines/papers/EnergyStoredInPermanentMagnets.pdf>

Also see:
http://www.femm.info/wiki/PMEnergy


--
Thanks,
Fred.

[spamtrap1888]

On Apr 13, 7:12 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:44:21 GMT, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
> wrote:

>
.> >HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>Suppose I have a permanent magnet and attract a nail a height h from
> >>the ground. If the nail has mass m then I have done mgh of work
> >>(potential energy)  which must come from the field. If I then attract
> >>a second nail the magnetic attraction will be less since I have used
> >>energy when attracting the first one - which is still attached. If I
>
> >Magnets don't have anything to do with energy.
>
> They certainly store energy. It takes energy to magnetize one, and the
> nail experiment is one way to recover some of that energy.

I know from practical experience it takes energy to demagnetize them
as well -- perhaps as much or more to randomize the domains as it took
to align them.

[CWatters]

When an apple falls does the earth use up some of it's gravity?

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:59:31 GMT, ni...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)

wrote:

>John Larkin <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:44:21 GMT, ni...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>HardySpicer <gyans...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Suppose I have a permanent magnet and attract a nail a height h from
>>>>the ground. If the nail has mass m then I have done mgh of work
>>>>(potential energy) which must come from the field. If I then attract
>>>>a second nail the magnetic attraction will be less since I have used
>>>>energy when attracting the first one - which is still attached. If I
>>>
>>>Magnets don't have anything to do with energy.
>>
>>They certainly store energy. It takes energy to magnetize one, and the
>>nail experiment is one way to recover some of that energy.
>
>If that where true a motor with permanent magnets would stop working
>very quickly.

That statement makes no sense. A motor gets its power from an external
power source, not from the energy stored in the magnet.

There's energy stored in the lockwashers too, but it doesn't get used
up.

>
>A magnet exerts a force. A magnet can attract things but it takes the
>same amount of energy to remove those things so the nett output is 0.

So I guess you would argue that a spring exerts force but never stores
energy. Then it follows that it takes no energy to compress a spring.




--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators

Custom laser controllers

Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links

VME thermocouple, LVDT, synchro acquisition and simulation

[John Larkin]

From a pure COE perspective, one should extract energy from a magnet
to demagnetize it. Lifting nails actually does that, some.

Hmmm, suppose you dissolve a magnet in acid. Where does the
magnetization energy go? It must come out as heat... there's (almost!)
nowhere else for it to go. That would make an interesting science
project experiment.

Similarly, if you heated charged and uncharged magnets to the curie
temperature, the charged magnet would require less heat. Maybe.

We need a good physical chemist to comment here.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators

Custom laser controllers

Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 09:47:06 -0500, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Yes. Each nail stuck to the magnet shunts some of the field, reducing
external field, so there's less energy available to lift future nails.

A magnet can't yank up an infinite mass of nails.

[m II]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

John Larkin wrote:

>> If that where true a motor with permanent magnets would stop
>> working very quickly.
>
> That statement makes no sense. A motor gets its power from an
> external power source, not from the energy stored in the magnet.
>
> There's energy stored in the lockwashers too, but it doesn't get
> used up.
>
>>
>> A magnet exerts a force. A magnet can attract things but it takes
>> the same amount of energy to remove those things so the nett
>> output is 0.
>
> So I guess you would argue that a spring exerts force but never
> stores energy. Then it follows that it takes no energy to compress
> a spring.

Energy is neither created or desproinged?


mike









-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPiH4XAAoJEDTMN7GV3zbXwYIIALaku9gy6MEHd1bxZvyZtI4T
tDuwOZXzS3KH6xYAyM9wASX/go+vmTxZQklL9uRuBETDRm8Scj2jCjkcUfOz98N7
KH8sOwkIlAYbIhw5qLZQNpD80popk/FldxMJC3FDuAi6WBgc1EwX8KbPtEF5c7+/
7/v6ADbC0eHKX99nW2rcdwF9BpVbmC/xLGnhnPTfooOuE0dZkjAyePNECB6Z716j
WsU1CNABUs/SFfotSVc0x1fvjABKpj6VosPQIcQ2k3Pr0wW2y7drgPVI997UZ4xq
LjE/UH+Ik01hRNMwn9mUE0xYfUiQDL8a+gJ7LCtf4y/dg9eUFjh9D5Be0rb8/fY=
=7gTG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Nico Coesel]

John Larkin <jla...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:59:31 GMT, ni...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
>wrote:
>
>>John Larkin <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:44:21 GMT, ni...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>HardySpicer <gyans...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Suppose I have a permanent magnet and attract a nail a height h from
>>>>>the ground. If the nail has mass m then I have done mgh of work
>>>>>(potential energy) which must come from the field. If I then attract
>>>>>a second nail the magnetic attraction will be less since I have used
>>>>>energy when attracting the first one - which is still attached. If I
>>>>
>>>>Magnets don't have anything to do with energy.
>>>
>>>They certainly store energy. It takes energy to magnetize one, and the
>>>nail experiment is one way to recover some of that energy.
>>
>>If that where true a motor with permanent magnets would stop working
>>very quickly.
>
>That statement makes no sense. A motor gets its power from an external
>power source, not from the energy stored in the magnet.

So a nail takes away energy from a permanent magnet but an
electromagnet pulling a permanent magnet does not?

>>A magnet exerts a force. A magnet can attract things but it takes the
>>same amount of energy to remove those things so the nett output is 0.
>
>So I guess you would argue that a spring exerts force but never stores
>energy. Then it follows that it takes no energy to compress a spring.

A spring isn't a magnet. A spring stores energy by deformation.

A permanent magnet does not change in any way whether something is
stuck to it or not. Hence it cannot absorb or provide energy. This is
exactly what the over-unity tin-foil-hat people don't seem to
understand.

[HardySpicer]

> http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=737473&url=http...

I have that paper and the first page is here

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=v75c92&s=5

Hardy

[HardySpicer]

On Apr 14, 3:34 am, John Larkin

<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:33:33 +0200, Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- ---
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -.dotat> wrote:
> >On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 07:12:41 -0700, John Larkin

> ><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:44:21 GMT, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
> >>wrote:

>
> >>>HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>Suppose I have a permanent magnet and attract a nail a height h from
> >>>>the ground. If the nail has mass m then I have done mgh of work
> >>>>(potential energy)  which must come from the field. If I then attract
> >>>>a second nail the magnetic attraction will be less since I have used
> >>>>energy when attracting the first one - which is still attached. If I
>
> >>>Magnets don't have anything to do with energy.
>
> >>They certainly store energy. It takes energy to magnetize one, and the
> >>nail experiment is one way to recover some of that energy.
>
> >No, Mista.
>
> >If you pull out energy (regardless how),
> >the magnet would de-magnetize.
>
> >w.
>
> So, when the magnet lifts a nail, where did the energy come from? Do
> you believe in conservation of energy?
>
> --
>

> John Larkin                  Highland Technology Incwww.highlandtechnology.com  jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

>
> Precision electronic instrumentation
> Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
> Custom timing and laser controllers
> Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
> VME  analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
> Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators

I'm not talking perpetual motion, the energy presumably came from the
factory when it was magnetised.


Hardy

[Nico Coesel]

HardySpicer <gyans...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Apr 14, 3:34=A0am, John Larkin

><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:33:33 +0200, Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- ---
>>
>>
>>
>>

>> >w.
>>
>> So, when the magnet lifts a nail, where did the energy come from? Do
>> you believe in conservation of energy?
>>
>

>I'm not talking perpetual motion, the energy presumably came from the
>factory when it was magnetised.

Magnetism is caused by alignment of molecules within crystal
structure. Ofcourse it takes energy (effort) to align the molecules
but the molecules don't need energy to have a certain alignment. Its
like sorting eggs by size. It doesn't change the egg it just makes
sure they can get more money for bigger eggs.

[HardySpicer]

On Apr 14, 3:59 am, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:
> John Larkin <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> >On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:44:21 GMT, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
> >wrote:
>

> >>HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Suppose I have a permanent magnet and attract a nail a height h from
> >>>the ground. If the nail has mass m then I have done mgh of work
> >>>(potential energy)  which must come from the field. If I then attract
> >>>a second nail the magnetic attraction will be less since I have used
> >>>energy when attracting the first one - which is still attached. If I
>
> >>Magnets don't have anything to do with energy.
>
> >They certainly store energy. It takes energy to magnetize one, and the
> >nail experiment is one way to recover some of that energy.
>
> If that where true a motor with permanent magnets would stop working
> very quickly.
>
> A magnet exerts a force. A magnet can attract things but it takes the
> same amount of energy to remove those things so the nett output is 0.
>

I didn't say it generated its own energy or was a perpetual motion
machine.
I was asking about where the original energy went when you pulled off
the nails
and we see it must go back into the field. In this respect it is a bit
like a capcitor.
A magnet must lose energy eventually though as energy must be also
released as sound
,heat etc


Hardy

[John Larkin]

Good point. If the nail slams into the magnet, its kinetic energy is
lost.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators

Custom laser controllers

Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links

[HardySpicer]

On Apr 14, 7:34 am, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:
> John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
> >On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:59:31 GMT, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
> >wrote:
>

> >>John Larkin <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
> >>>On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:44:21 GMT, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
> >>>wrote:
>

> >>>>HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>Suppose I have a permanent magnet and attract a nail a height h from
> >>>>>the ground. If the nail has mass m then I have done mgh of work
> >>>>>(potential energy)  which must come from the field. If I then attract
> >>>>>a second nail the magnetic attraction will be less since I have used
> >>>>>energy when attracting the first one - which is still attached. If I
>
> >>>>Magnets don't have anything to do with energy.
>
> >>>They certainly store energy. It takes energy to magnetize one, and the
> >>>nail experiment is one way to recover some of that energy.
>
> >>If that where true a motor with permanent magnets would stop working
> >>very quickly.
>
> >That statement makes no sense. A motor gets its power from an external
> >power source, not from the energy stored in the magnet.
>
> So a nail takes away energy from a permanent magnet but an
> electromagnet pulling a permanent magnet does not?
>
> >>A magnet exerts a force. A magnet can attract things but it takes the
> >>same amount of energy to remove those things so the nett output is 0.
>
> >So I guess you would argue that a spring exerts force but never stores
> >energy. Then it follows that it takes no energy to compress a spring.
>
> A spring isn't a magnet. A spring stores energy by deformation.
>
> A permanent magnet does not change in any way whether something is
> stuck to it or not. Hence it cannot absorb or provide energy. This is
> exactly what the over-unity tin-foil-hat people don't seem to
> understand.
>

well clearly it does as observed by the paper that I attached and
somebody else tracked down.

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 19:34:33 GMT, ni...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)

If you don't believe in conservation of energy, you need a new hat.

[Nico Coesel]

HardySpicer <gyans...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Apr 14, 7:34=A0am, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:
>> John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>> >On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:59:31 GMT, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
>> >wrote:
>>
>> >>John Larkin <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:44:21 GMT, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
>> >>>wrote:
>>
>> >>>>HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>Suppose I have a permanent magnet and attract a nail a height h from
>> >>>>>the ground. If the nail has mass m then I have done mgh of work

>> >>>>>(potential energy) =A0which must come from the field. If I then attr=

>act
>> >>>>>a second nail the magnetic attraction will be less since I have used
>> >>>>>energy when attracting the first one - which is still attached. If I
>>
>> >>>>Magnets don't have anything to do with energy.
>>
>> >>>They certainly store energy. It takes energy to magnetize one, and the
>> >>>nail experiment is one way to recover some of that energy.
>>
>> >>If that where true a motor with permanent magnets would stop working
>> >>very quickly.
>>
>> >That statement makes no sense. A motor gets its power from an external
>> >power source, not from the energy stored in the magnet.
>>
>> So a nail takes away energy from a permanent magnet but an
>> electromagnet pulling a permanent magnet does not?
>>
>> >>A magnet exerts a force. A magnet can attract things but it takes the
>> >>same amount of energy to remove those things so the nett output is 0.
>>
>> >So I guess you would argue that a spring exerts force but never stores
>> >energy. Then it follows that it takes no energy to compress a spring.
>>
>> A spring isn't a magnet. A spring stores energy by deformation.
>>
>> A permanent magnet does not change in any way whether something is
>> stuck to it or not. Hence it cannot absorb or provide energy. This is
>> exactly what the over-unity tin-foil-hat people don't seem to
>> understand.
>>
>
>well clearly it does as observed by the paper that I attached and
>somebody else tracked down.

I've read the paper and I still can't get rid of the feeling its a
bogus number to easely compare different permanent magnetic materials.

If this energy would be for real, then a magnet would explode when
heated beyond the curie point because of a chain reaction releasing
the energy. Same goes for the situation in which the magnet is cooled
down. Would it freeze up when it sucks in all the energy to get its
magnetism back?

[Nico Coesel]

No, its absorbed by whatever is holding the magnet. Same happens when
you drop the nail on the floor.

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 21:29:27 GMT, ni...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
wrote:

It would certainly convert the stored energy to additional heat, but
it would be a small amount, not enough to cause an explosion. A small
supermagnet probably doesn't store many joules.

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 21:33:32 GMT, ni...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)

Well, it's lost to us, unrecoverable. It converts into heat and sound
and maybe a tiny bit of electromagnetic radiation. But it's gone from
the scene.

If, while the nail was being pulled in by the magnet, we let it turn a
tiny windlass, and spin a tiny generator, we could recover that
energy, and let the nail make a gentle landing on the surface of the
magnet.

[HardySpicer]

There is a thing called magnetic cooling which I have never understood.

[Nico Coesel]

The thing is that conservation of energy has nothing to do with it
because there is no energy in a magnet to begin with. Again: the
magnetic field of a permanent magnet is caused by molecular
anlignment. Its the state of the material not an energy level.

Think of a magnet as a brick made of clay. A clay brick needs to be
baked but that doesn't mean the energy needed to bake it is
encapsulated in it.

[Nico Coesel]

<tin foil hat debunking on>
And how much energy is required to pull the nail back and repeat that?
You're walking the slippery perpetuum mobile slope here.

You could start your experiment by sticking the nail to the magnet and
then wind the windlass and see how much energy it takes to pull the
nail away. Does the magnet 'eat' that energy?

A magnet is usefull as a catalyst when converting motion into
electricity and vice versa. However such a conversion will only work
when either electricity or motion is added.

[Tim Williams]

"Nico Coesel" <ni...@puntnl.niks> wrote in message
news:4f8886a3....@news.kpn.nl...

> Magnetism is caused by alignment of molecules within crystal
> structure. Ofcourse it takes energy (effort) to align the molecules
> but the molecules don't need energy to have a certain alignment. Its
> like sorting eggs by size. It doesn't change the egg it just makes
> sure they can get more money for bigger eggs.

Arguably, the same entropic state applies: there are more permutations of
eggs (or atomic spins) when in an apparently randomized state than there are
when lined up in order. The thermodynamic energy associated with this state
is miniscule per object, so we don't notice eggs heating up when we sort
them; there's a whole mess of spins in a magnetic material, though, and
magnets do, in fact, get quite hot during manufacture (in electrical terms,
they have huge hysteresis losses!).

Tim

--
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms

[Tim Williams]

"Nico Coesel" <ni...@puntnl.niks> wrote in message

news:4f887e70....@news.kpn.nl...

> A spring isn't a magnet. A spring stores energy by deformation.

Sure it is. And vice versa. A spring "pushes" because electrons are
pushing against electrons; same reason a magnet doesn't like to be
magnetized. Electrons shmelectrons, everything is electrons :^)

[Tim Williams]

"John Larkin" <jla...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in message
news:dotgo71s1p0p81b7m...@4ax.com...

> Similarly, if you heated charged and uncharged magnets to the curie
> temperature, the charged magnet would require less heat. Maybe.

What you'll see in the T vs. t curve (that's temp vs. time...) is a big jump
upwards at curie. That is to say, suppose you place the sample inside a
perfectly insulated chamber and apply constant power to it. If heat
capacity (Cp) is constant, temperature will rise linearly with time,
forever. But since the curie point releases the stored magnetic energy,
temperature will jump up suddenly, as if the material instantaneously had
infinite Cp. The delta T divided by Cp is how much magnetic energy was
stored.

[Tim Williams]

"Nico Coesel" <ni...@puntnl.niks> wrote in message

news:4f88b0a2....@news.kpn.nl...

> The thing is that conservation of energy has nothing to do with it
> because there is no energy in a magnet to begin with. Again: the
> magnetic field of a permanent magnet is caused by molecular
> anlignment. Its the state of the material not an energy level.

Statistical mechanics says they are one in the same. All states have an
energy level associated with them, even abstract information -- the sheer
nature of states and their statistics, with no physical energy intrinsically
associated with them.

> Think of a magnet as a brick made of clay. A clay brick needs to be
> baked but that doesn't mean the energy needed to bake it is
> encapsulated in it.

Actually, sintering releases energy, because it makes crystals grow and
densifies the product. The release, of course, is very small, too little to
save any fuel in the kiln.

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 23:19:42 GMT, ni...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)

Not at all. When the magnet pulls the nail into itself, work is done.
That's simple mechanics. The energy can be wasted, as heat and sound,
or it can be recovered with the tiny windlass thing. When you pull the
nail away from the magnet, you have to do work. This is no more
complex than putting a jar of pickles up on a shelf, and taking them
down.

>
>You could start your experiment by sticking the nail to the magnet and
>then wind the windlass and see how much energy it takes to pull the
>nail away. Does the magnet 'eat' that energy?

The magnet is in a different state when there's a nail stuck to it, as
opposed to when there's no nail. Obviously the presence of the nail
reduces the overall reluctance of the magnetic circuit. So the stored
energy in the system is different.

>
>A magnet is usefull as a catalyst when converting motion into
>electricity and vice versa. However such a conversion will only work
>when either electricity or motion is added.

Catalyst? What does that mean?

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 19:01:00 -0500, "Tim Williams"
<tmor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>"John Larkin" <jla...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote in message
>news:dotgo71s1p0p81b7m...@4ax.com...
>> Similarly, if you heated charged and uncharged magnets to the curie
>> temperature, the charged magnet would require less heat. Maybe.
>
>What you'll see in the T vs. t curve (that's temp vs. time...) is a big jump
>upwards at curie. That is to say, suppose you place the sample inside a
>perfectly insulated chamber and apply constant power to it. If heat
>capacity (Cp) is constant, temperature will rise linearly with time,
>forever. But since the curie point releases the stored magnetic energy,
>temperature will jump up suddenly, as if the material instantaneously had
>infinite Cp. The delta T divided by Cp is how much magnetic energy was
>stored.
>
>Tim

Right. A similar principle is used to generate millikelvin
temperatures, namely a change of temperature caused by a change in
magnetization state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_demagnetization

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 23:09:12 GMT, ni...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)

So how does a magnet pull up a nail? Work is done lifting things
against gravity. Where did the energy come from?

[George Herold]

On Apr 13, 3:34 pm, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:
> John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
> >On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:59:31 GMT, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
> >wrote:
>

> >>John Larkin <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
> >>>On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:44:21 GMT, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
> >>>wrote:
>

> >>>>HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>Suppose I have a permanent magnet and attract a nail a height h from
> >>>>>the ground. If the nail has mass m then I have done mgh of work
> >>>>>(potential energy)  which must come from the field. If I then attract
> >>>>>a second nail the magnetic attraction will be less since I have used
> >>>>>energy when attracting the first one - which is still attached. If I
>
> >>>>Magnets don't have anything to do with energy.
>
> >>>They certainly store energy. It takes energy to magnetize one, and the
> >>>nail experiment is one way to recover some of that energy.
>
> >>If that where true a motor with permanent magnets would stop working
> >>very quickly.
>
> >That statement makes no sense. A motor gets its power from an external
> >power source, not from the energy stored in the magnet.
>
> So a nail takes away energy from a permanent magnet but an
> electromagnet pulling a permanent magnet does not?
>
> >>A magnet exerts a force. A magnet can attract things but it takes the
> >>same amount of energy to remove those things so the nett output is 0.
>
> >So I guess you would argue that a spring exerts force but never stores
> >energy. Then it follows that it takes no energy to compress a spring.
>
> A spring isn't a magnet. A spring stores energy by deformation.
>
> A permanent magnet does not change in any way whether something is
> stuck to it or not. Hence it cannot absorb or provide energy. This is
> exactly what the over-unity tin-foil-hat people don't seem to
> understand.

The field in space changes shape! That stores the energy. Where
there's a force there is always possible energy exchange. A force
over some distance is an energy... always.

George H.

>
> --
> Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
> indicates you are not using the right tools...
> nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)

> --------------------------------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[George Herold]

On Apr 13, 3:04 pm, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com>
wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 11:37:46 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888
>
>
>
>
>
> <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 13, 7:12 am, John Larkin

> ><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:44:21 GMT, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
> >> wrote:
>

> >.> >HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>Suppose I have a permanent magnet and attract a nail a height h from
> >> >>the ground. If the nail has mass m then I have done mgh of work
> >> >>(potential energy)  which must come from the field. If I then attract
> >> >>a second nail the magnetic attraction will be less since I have used
> >> >>energy when attracting the first one - which is still attached. If I
>
> >> >Magnets don't have anything to do with energy.
>
> >> They certainly store energy. It takes energy to magnetize one, and the
> >> nail experiment is one way to recover some of that energy.
>

> >I know from practical experience it takes energy to demagnetize them
> >as well -- perhaps as much or more to randomize the domains as it took
> >to align them.
>
> From a pure COE perspective, one should extract energy from a magnet
> to demagnetize it. Lifting nails actually does that, some.
>
> Hmmm, suppose you dissolve a magnet in acid. Where does the
> magnetization energy go? It must come out as heat... there's (almost!)
> nowhere else for it to go. That would make an interesting science
> project experiment.

For real low temperatures they do magnetic with certain salts.

(I've never done it though.)

Magnets always confuse people. You can see the energy storage in a
spring, but magnets are hard to see. I've got this image of squeezing
magnetic field lines together, like some spring with tension in it.
But that's far from perfect.

George H.

>
> Similarly, if you heated charged and uncharged magnets to the curie
> temperature, the charged magnet would require less heat. Maybe.
>

> We need a good physical chemist to comment here.

>
> --
>
> John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc
>

> jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot comhttp://www.highlandtechnology.com

>
> Precision electronic instrumentation
> Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
> Custom laser controllers
> Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links

> VME thermocouple, LVDT, synchro   acquisition and simulation- Hide quoted text -

[Phil Hobbs]

Nico Coesel wrote:

>
> HardySpicer <gyans...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Suppose I have a permanent magnet and attract a nail a height h from
> >the ground. If the nail has mass m then I have done mgh of work
> >(potential energy) which must come from the field. If I then attract
> >a second nail the magnetic attraction will be less since I have used
> >energy when attracting the first one - which is still attached. If I
>

> Magnets don't have anything to do with energy. They exert a force. The
> energy comes from whatever is moving/holding the magnet or the object.

>
> --
> Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
> indicates you are not using the right tools...
> nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
> --------------------------------------------------------------

C'mon, Nico, don't you remember electrodynamics? The energy density of
the magnetic field is proportional to the volume integral of B**2.
(It's the volume integral of B**2/(8*pi) in godsown, I mean Gaussian
units, and in SI it's something with a mu-nought in it that I always
have to look up.)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

[George Herold]

On Apr 13, 4:58 pm, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com>
wrote:

> jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot comhttp://www.highlandtechnology.com

>
> Precision electronic instrumentation
> Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
> Custom laser controllers
> Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links

> VME thermocouple, LVDT, synchro   acquisition and simulation- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I don't think that causes a loss in the 'magnetic field' energy. If I
treat a system of magnet plus bits of iron... then the energy is
'stored' in moving the bits of iron away from the magnet. If you
start with the iron away from a magent... then you start with some
energy stored in the system.

George H.

[George Herold]

> --------------------------------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Look up magnetic cooling!

George H.

[Bill Beaty]

On Apr 13, 4:09 pm, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:
> The thing is that conservation of energy has nothing to do with it
> because there is no energy in a magnet to begin with.

Tinfoil hat stuff, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of magnets.

Of course there is energy in a PM, just as there is energy in an
inductor: stored energy proportional to I^2. Or do you also believe
that an electromagnet stores no energy? Or believe that inductors
store energy, but permanent magnets do not?

Typically we model a PM as having a large surface current which
produces the field, since all the elementary loop currents of
individual domains will cancel within the bulk of the material. Where
did I last see this one, in Halliday and Resnik?

Let's look at the dual of your statement:
> Think of a capacitor as a brick made of clay. A clay brick needs to be

> baked but that doesn't mean the energy needed to bake it is
> encapsulated in it.

A magnet is very different than a brick. An inductor is very
different than a brick. A capacitor is very different than a brick.
Shall we even bring up "electrets" like PZT which need to be "poled"
by applying high voltage while at high temperature? An electret is
like a persistently-charged capacitor, while a PM is like a
superconductor with a persistent surface current.


((((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( (o) ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty Research Engineer
beaty a chem washington edu UW Chem Dept, Bagley Hall RM74
billb a eskimo com Box 351700, Seattle, WA 98195-1700
ph206-762-3818 http://staff.washington.edu/wbeaty/

[Phil Hobbs]

John Larkin wrote:
>
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 11:37:46 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888

> <spamtr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 13, 7:12 am, John Larkin

> ><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:44:21 GMT, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >.> >HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >>Suppose I have a permanent magnet and attract a nail a height h from
> >> >>the ground. If the nail has mass m then I have done mgh of work

> >> >>(potential energy) which must come from the field. If I then attract

> >> >>a second nail the magnetic attraction will be less since I have used
> >> >>energy when attracting the first one - which is still attached. If I
> >>
> >> >Magnets don't have anything to do with energy.
> >>
> >> They certainly store energy. It takes energy to magnetize one, and the
> >> nail experiment is one way to recover some of that energy.
> >

> >I know from practical experience it takes energy to demagnetize them
> >as well -- perhaps as much or more to randomize the domains as it took
> >to align them.
>
> From a pure COE perspective, one should extract energy from a magnet
> to demagnetize it. Lifting nails actually does that, some.
>
> Hmmm, suppose you dissolve a magnet in acid. Where does the
> magnetization energy go? It must come out as heat... there's (almost!)
> nowhere else for it to go. That would make an interesting science
> project experiment.
>

> Similarly, if you heated charged and uncharged magnets to the curie
> temperature, the charged magnet would require less heat. Maybe.
>
> We need a good physical chemist to comment here.
>

As a physical chemist friend of mine used to say,

"A physical chemist is someone who
Talks physics to chemists,
Chemistry to physicists,

and

Baseball to other physical chemists."

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

PS to all over-unity enthusiasts:
Despite all wishful thinking and short-lived scientific grandstanding to
the contrary, conservation of energy continues to be confirmed by
experiment, massively, every day.

[George Herold]

[Phil Hobbs]

Nico Coesel wrote:
>
> John Larkin <jla...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:59:31 GMT, ni...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
> >wrote:
> >

> >>John Larkin <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:44:21 GMT, ni...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
> >>>wrote:
> >>>

> >>>>HardySpicer <gyans...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Suppose I have a permanent magnet and attract a nail a height h from
> >>>>>the ground. If the nail has mass m then I have done mgh of work

> >>>>>(potential energy) which must come from the field. If I then attract

> >>>>>a second nail the magnetic attraction will be less since I have used
> >>>>>energy when attracting the first one - which is still attached. If I
> >>>>
> >>>>Magnets don't have anything to do with energy.
> >>>
> >>>They certainly store energy. It takes energy to magnetize one, and the
> >>>nail experiment is one way to recover some of that energy.
> >>
> >>If that where true a motor with permanent magnets would stop working
> >>very quickly.
> >
> >That statement makes no sense. A motor gets its power from an external
> >power source, not from the energy stored in the magnet.
>
> So a nail takes away energy from a permanent magnet but an
> electromagnet pulling a permanent magnet does not?
>
> >>A magnet exerts a force. A magnet can attract things but it takes the
> >>same amount of energy to remove those things so the nett output is 0.
> >
> >So I guess you would argue that a spring exerts force but never stores
> >energy. Then it follows that it takes no energy to compress a spring.
>
> A spring isn't a magnet. A spring stores energy by deformation.
>
> A permanent magnet does not change in any way whether something is
> stuck to it or not. Hence it cannot absorb or provide energy. This is
> exactly what the over-unity tin-foil-hat people don't seem to
> understand.

Not true. If your picture were right, the tinfoil hats would be making
money. The field contains energy, and the field does change when other
magnetic objects move around.

The force on an object equals minus the gradient of the total energy of
the system with respect to the object's displacement. You move the
object, you change the energy. If the force is big enough to move the
object by itself, it winds up in a position that gives lower energy to
the whole system.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

[Bill Beaty]

On Apr 13, 12:34 pm, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:

> A permanent magnet does not change in any way whether something is
> stuck to it or not. Hence it cannot absorb or provide energy.

Incorrect argument. A magnetized permanent magnet (PM) is a system,
it is magnet plus external field. The system changes greatly when
something is stuck to it.

Here's the dual of your argument: since electrons don't change as they
travel through a circuit, this proves that electric circuits cannot
transfer any energy.

:)

Ah, but the fields outside the electrons do change greatly. It is
wrong to look only at the electron particle itself while ignoring the
fields. It's just as wrong to ignore the external b-field of a PM
while looking only at the solid magnet itself.

[George Herold]

> There is a thing called magnetic cooling which I have never understood.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

You just have to follow the energy. Magnetize a piece of stuff
connected to the some temperature resoviour (a pool of liquid
helium). Then put it in thermal contact with your sample, let it
demagnetize and it takes energy away from the sample.

George H.

[whit3rd]

On Friday, April 13, 2012 4:29:21 AM UTC-7, HardySpicer wrote:
> Suppose I have a permanent magnet and attract a nail a height h from
> the ground. If the nail has mass m then I have done mgh of work

> (potential energy) which must come from the field.

Yep; the nail reduces the field at a distance, thus reduces field energy.
> ...If I then attract

> a second nail the magnetic attraction will be less since I have used
> energy when attracting the first one - which is still attached. If I

> keep doing this there is little energy left to lift anything more.
>
> I then pull off the nails which requires energy from me. That energy
> must be released back into the field since I can then replicate the
> experiment. Is this right? So energy is stored in permanent magnets.

Energy is stored in any binding; chemical binding energy, gravitational,
magnetic, electric... it's a general principle among all types of attractive
forces.

[Przemek Klosowski]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:59:31 +0000, Nico Coesel wrote:

>>They certainly store energy. It takes energy to magnetize one, and the
>>nail experiment is one way to recover some of that energy.
>
> If that where true a motor with permanent magnets would stop working
> very quickly.
>

> A magnet exerts a force. A magnet can attract things but it takes the
> same amount of energy to remove those things so the nett output is 0.

Magnets produce magnetic field; there's energy density associated with
this field. If you introduce an object with permeability greater than
air, the magnetic field will be sucked into that object, which creates
lower overall energy configuration, which results in force pulling the
object in.

Compare this to earth gravity---it doesn't decrease when an asteroid
passes us by.

[HardySpicer]

Yes, Work done = force X displacement as we learned at school.
Where there is a force there has to be energy behind it.


Hardy

[HardySpicer]

On Apr 14, 9:29 am, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:
> HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >On Apr 14, 7:34=A0am, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:
> >> John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
> >> >On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:59:31 GMT, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
> >> >wrote:
>
> >> >>John Larkin <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>>On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:44:21 GMT, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel)
> >> >>>wrote:
>
> >> >>>>HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>>>>Suppose I have a permanent magnet and attract a nail a height h from
> >> >>>>>the ground. If the nail has mass m then I have done mgh of work

> >> >>>>>(potential energy) =A0which must come from the field. If I then attr=

> >act
> >> >>>>>a second nail the magnetic attraction will be less since I have used
> >> >>>>>energy when attracting the first one - which is still attached. If I
>
> >> >>>>Magnets don't have anything to do with energy.
>
> >> >>>They certainly store energy. It takes energy to magnetize one, and the
> >> >>>nail experiment is one way to recover some of that energy.
>
> >> >>If that where true a motor with permanent magnets would stop working
> >> >>very quickly.
>
> >> >That statement makes no sense. A motor gets its power from an external
> >> >power source, not from the energy stored in the magnet.
>
> >> So a nail takes away energy from a permanent magnet but an
> >> electromagnet pulling a permanent magnet does not?
>
> >> >>A magnet exerts a force. A magnet can attract things but it takes the
> >> >>same amount of energy to remove those things so the nett output is 0.
>
> >> >So I guess you would argue that a spring exerts force but never stores
> >> >energy. Then it follows that it takes no energy to compress a spring.
>
> >> A spring isn't a magnet. A spring stores energy by deformation.
>
> >> A permanent magnet does not change in any way whether something is
> >> stuck to it or not. Hence it cannot absorb or provide energy. This is
> >> exactly what the over-unity tin-foil-hat people don't seem to
> >> understand.
>

> >well clearly it does as observed by the paper that I attached and
> >somebody else tracked down.
>
> I've read the paper and I still can't get rid of the feeling its a
> bogus number to easely compare different permanent magnetic materials.
>
> If this energy would be for real, then a magnet would explode when
> heated beyond the curie point because of a chain reaction releasing
> the energy. Same goes for the situation in which the magnet is cooled
> down. Would it freeze up when it sucks in all the energy to get its
> magnetism back?
>

I still refuse to believe this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBB8puMtwJM&feature=related

I can't figure out how it's done at present.


Hardy

[Tim Williams]

"Przemek Klosowski" <prz...@tux.dot.org> wrote in message
news:jmav9n$uee$1...@dont-email.me...

> Magnets produce magnetic field; there's energy density associated with
> this field. If you introduce an object with permeability greater than
> air, the magnetic field will be sucked into that object, which creates
> lower overall energy configuration, which results in force pulling the
> object in.
>
> Compare this to earth gravity---it doesn't decrease when an asteroid
> passes us by.

Ah, but it does! The gravitational field between the objects is reduced.
Not so noticable on Earth for a mere asteroid, but noticable for the
asteroid. The tides exist because the Moon pulls on the oceans, or
equivalently, because the Moon reduces gravity, allowing the oceans to float
up towards space a little closer.

Both magnetic and gravitational fields are linear and obey superposition --
the analogous (and consistent) model for magnetism is, the permeable object
is polarized by the influence of the magnet,and the resulting overall field
is the sum of both magnets acting together.

[Jasen Betts]

On 2012-04-13, Nico Coesel <ni...@puntnl.niks> wrote:

> HardySpicer <gyans...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If this energy would be for real, then a magnet would explode when
> heated beyond the curie point because of a chain reaction releasing
> the energy.

That can happen with superconducting magnets, Normal magnets don't have
sufficient energy density to vaporise metal (and eithout sudden
evolution of gas or plasma ther can be no explosion)

--
⚂⚃ 100% natural

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---

[CWatters]

On 13/04/2012 12:29, HardySpicer wrote:
> Suppose I have a permanent magnet and attract a nail a height h from
> the ground. If the nail has mass m then I have done mgh of work

> (potential energy) which must come from the field. If I then attract

> a second nail the magnetic attraction will be less since I have used
> energy when attracting the first one - which is still attached. If I

> keep doing this there is little energy left to lift anything more.
>
> I then pull off the nails which requires energy from me. That energy
> must be released back into the field since I can then replicate the
> experiment. Is this right? So energy is stored in permanent magnets.
>

If you dig a hole in the ground a lot of things (everything on the
surface of the earth!) gains energy (PE) with respect to the bottom of
the hole.

What happens when something falls in? All the objects on the surface of
the earth still have the same PE wrt the bottom of the hole. The hole
hasn't lost any energy but the object falling in has.

For the magnet to lift the nail it's magnetic PE must be greater than
the gravitational PE needed to lift it. Basically the nail falls upwards
into a into a magnetic "hole".

[CWatters]

By "gravitational PE needed to lift it" I mean the mgh gained by the nail.

[Nico Coesel]

I was talking about the properties of the magnet itself, not the
magnetic fields outside it.

[Nico Coesel]

So when you start with the nail away from the magnet you have put work
into the system.

>complex than putting a jar of pickles up on a shelf, and taking them
>down.

It really is so why is it so hard to see that the force of the magnet
is quite similar to gravity? If you move the jar up & down all day
your arm will get tired because it is doing all the work. Depending on
the height of the jar has more or less potential energy. So putting
the nail on a distance from a magnet gives it potential energy which
decreases as it gets closer to the magnet.

>>You could start your experiment by sticking the nail to the magnet and
>>then wind the windlass and see how much energy it takes to pull the
>>nail away. Does the magnet 'eat' that energy?
>
>The magnet is in a different state when there's a nail stuck to it, as

The fields outside the magnet are different but the magnet is still
the same.

>>A magnet is usefull as a catalyst when converting motion into
>>electricity and vice versa. However such a conversion will only work
>>when either electricity or motion is added.
>
>Catalyst? What does that mean?

"One that precipitates a process or event, especially without being
involved in or changed by the consequences."

[Nico Coesel]

Bill Beaty <bi...@eskimo.com> wrote:

>On Apr 13, 4:09=A0pm, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:
>> The thing is that conservation of energy has nothing to do with it
>> because there is no energy in a magnet to begin with.
>
>Tinfoil hat stuff, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of magnets.

You can always drag a more complicated model into a discussion but
does that help clarify things?

>Of course there is energy in a PM, just as there is energy in an
>inductor: stored energy proportional to I^2. Or do you also believe
>that an electromagnet stores no energy? Or believe that inductors
>store energy, but permanent magnets do not?

Its usefull to group magnets together. But tell me: does the energy
stored in a permanent magnet change when something is stuck to it or
not? That is was this discussion is about.

I say it does not because it would mean the magnet would de-magnetize
which the material would not allow.

[Nico Coesel]

The tin foil hat people often believe that a magnet is an infinite
source of energy or has many other magical properties. For those
people to understand you have to dumb things down a lot :-)

>The force on an object equals minus the gradient of the total energy of
>the system with respect to the object's displacement. You move the
>object, you change the energy. If the force is big enough to move the
>object by itself, it winds up in a position that gives lower energy to
>the whole system.

IMHO my statement is still true: the magnet itself doesn't change
(inside). It provides the same magnetic field strength only the field
'lines' outside the magnet change shape (which I never disputed!).

[Nico Coesel]

Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:

>Nico Coesel wrote:
>>
>> HardySpicer <gyans...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Suppose I have a permanent magnet and attract a nail a height h from
>> >the ground. If the nail has mass m then I have done mgh of work
>> >(potential energy) which must come from the field. If I then attract
>> >a second nail the magnetic attraction will be less since I have used
>> >energy when attracting the first one - which is still attached. If I
>>
>> Magnets don't have anything to do with energy. They exert a force. The
>> energy comes from whatever is moving/holding the magnet or the object.
>>
>

>C'mon, Nico, don't you remember electrodynamics? The energy density of
>the magnetic field is proportional to the volume integral of B**2.
>(It's the volume integral of B**2/(8*pi) in godsown, I mean Gaussian
>units, and in SI it's something with a mu-nought in it that I always
>have to look up.)

Sorry, I'm too used to dumbing things down for the over-unity folks
:-)

[P E Schoen]

"HardySpicer" wrote in message
news:e0d1c6e3-1336-4f40...@p4g2000pby.googlegroups.com...

> I still refuse to believe this

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBB8puMtwJM&feature=related

> I can't figure out how it's done at present.

There may be batteries hidden in the mechanism. It is not really producing
significant power, so even coin cells will work. There are other
demonstrations where a fair amount of power is actually produced,
"apparently" from an unknown source which the perpetrators call quantum
fields and other catchy names. There is almost always some sort of
"specially modified" coil that somehow extracts this "free" energy. Some of
the related videos in the link above are "impressive", but of course there
must be something that cannot be seen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIuBpPD-9ww&feature=related
http://youtu.be/rk623noUevc

There was one video I saw a while ago where somebody had a generator powered
by a 100 watt motor, and he had three lamps connected to the output. He
measured the resistance to be about 10 ohms, and then when he ran it, he
read about 100 volts and the bulbs lit up bright, and he said that Ohm's law
proves that he is getting E^2/R or 1000 watts out. But he neglected to read
the current, which would have showed that the incandescent lamps were more
like 100 ohms when lit. THAT one was easy to debunk.

Paul

[HardySpicer]

On Apr 14, 10:59 pm, "P E Schoen" <p...@peschoen.com> wrote:
> "HardySpicer"  wrote in message
>
> news:e0d1c6e3-1336-4f40...@p4g2000pby.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I still refuse to believe this
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBB8puMtwJM&feature=related
> > I can't figure out how it's done at present.
>
> There may be batteries hidden in the mechanism. It is not really producing
> significant power, so even coin cells will work. There are other
> demonstrations where a fair amount of power is actually produced,
> "apparently" from an unknown source which the perpetrators call quantum
> fields and other catchy names. There is almost always some sort of
> "specially modified" coil that somehow extracts this "free" energy. Some of
> the related videos in the link above are "impressive", but of course there
> must be something that cannot be seen.
>

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIuBpPD-9ww&feature=relatedhttp://youtu.be/rk623noUevc

>
> There was one video I saw a while ago where somebody had a generator powered
> by a 100 watt motor, and he had three lamps connected to the output. He
> measured the resistance to be about 10 ohms, and then when he ran it, he
> read about 100 volts and the bulbs lit up bright, and he said that Ohm's law
> proves that he is getting E^2/R or 1000 watts out. But he neglected to read
> the current, which would have showed that the incandescent lamps were more
> like 100 ohms when lit. THAT one was easy to debunk.
>
> Paul

The coin cells would light the leds maybe but I doubt they would have
enough current to
provide torque for that contraption. Maybe I suppose for a few seconds
of the video. Has to be something.


Hardy

[HardySpicer]

On Apr 14, 9:21 pm, CWatters <colin.watt...@NOturnersoakSPAM.plus.com>
wrote:

U am getting the impression that magnetic fields are poorly understood
even now.
Here we have a scientific paper which talks of the energy in the
magnet and yet you claim there is
no energy there at all. Simply cannot be the case if it does work in
pulling the nail.

Somebody else says that the energy is still there after many nails are
attracted but the external field changes.
If that were the case, where is the energy coming from - it should be
used up. When you pull off the nails
the magnet is back to full strength. I wonder if anybody has does a
simple experiment of
mechanically pulling the nails on and off at a fast rate for several
hours or days and seeing how the field
changes (if at all) in the permanent magnet. Compare before and after.
You could measure the force
excerted perhaps and see if that reduces.


Hardy

[Energy-Ingenuity]

First, have you seen the documentary found here, http://www.energy-ingenuity.com/id37.html
It show how the Poles are used for generating AC and while after
current is taken, torque can be generated in this one device. It also
shows a different process of causing induction.

Second, it has been published that "the Poles swap on the Sun every 11
years and the cycle is completed every 22 years". No cause is given
for this effect! Look at the documentary and you may see the cause
and the effect that is reffered to on the Sun!

Third, after you see this FREE documentary, you tell me what is going
on. I claim that both torque and current can be generated with one
device using Mangets. US patent #7531930, Energy Producing Magnetic
Converter and US patent pending #...

Forth, they don't just give you a Patent on anything, it has to work!

Last of all, you can see that this other part of a Magnet has been
isolated from the Poles and that it relates to everything. Where does
this energy really come from? Is it really the Magnet or in the air
and in space?

Steve

[Robert Macy]

On Apr 13, 6:07 pm, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>...snip...

> Phil Hobbs
>
> PS to all over-unity enthusiasts:
> Despite all wishful thinking and short-lived scientific grandstanding to
> the contrary, conservation of energy continues to be confirmed by
> experiment, massively, every day.
>
> --
> Dr Philip C D Hobbs
> Principal Consultant
> ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
> Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
>
> 160 North State Road #203
> Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
> 845-480-2058
>
> hobbs at electrooptical dot nethttp://electrooptical.net

So,...where does the energy go when a black hole dies? ...after
sucking in all that material/energy?

[Robert Macy]

apples oranges
gravity field is monopole, magnetic field is not.

[Androcles]

"Robert Macy" <robert...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e1036e1e-8fee-4102...@l3g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...

======================================
Up the Easter Bunny's arse, of course.

[Robert Macy]

On Apr 14, 2:43 am, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:
>...snip...

>
> The fields outside the magnet are different but the magnet is still
> the same.
>

Right. Energy stored is stored in the AIR around the magnet, or in the
gap of an inductor, not in the material itself.

Just as the energy of an inductor is stored in the gap, the energy of
the magnet is stored outside the magnet in the AIR.

All ferromagnetic material does is 'allow' the transfer of the
magnetic field through it, very easily.

In a permanent magnet, all the poles align and then resist any force
to return them back to a random pattern. And as you know force with NO
motion is NOT energy. To conceive that there is little energy inside
the magnet, consider: place a keeper on the magnet and it remains
magnetized with less tendency to demagnitize. When originally making
the magnet, there was very little force required to align the poles
and therefore there is very little energy internally stored in the
magnet. In other words, there is little energy INSIDE the magnet.

[Helmut Wabnig]

On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 10:21:56 +0100, CWatters
<colin....@NOturnersoakSPAM.plus.com> wrote:

>On 13/04/2012 12:29, HardySpicer wrote:
>> Suppose I have a permanent magnet and attract a nail a height h from
>> the ground. If the nail has mass m then I have done mgh of work
>> (potential energy) which must come from the field. If I then attract
>> a second nail the magnetic attraction will be less since I have used
>> energy when attracting the first one - which is still attached. If I
>> keep doing this there is little energy left to lift anything more.
>>
>> I then pull off the nails which requires energy from me. That energy
>> must be released back into the field since I can then replicate the
>> experiment. Is this right? So energy is stored in permanent magnets.
>>
>
>If you dig a hole in the ground a lot of things (everything on the
>surface of the earth!) gains energy (PE) with respect to the bottom of
>the hole.
>
>What happens when something falls in? All the objects on the surface of
>the earth still have the same PE wrt the bottom of the hole. The hole
>hasn't lost any energy but the object falling in has.

Depends where you live.
In Europe apples fall down, in Australia apples fall upwards.
This is easy to visualize on a globus.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globus


w.

[Jasen Betts]

On 2012-04-14, HardySpicer <gyans...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I still refuse to believe this
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBB8puMtwJM&feature=related
>
> I can't figure out how it's done at present.

I reckon it's just a flywheel. and all those metal slugs are just
metal slugs and not magnets at all, and the LEDs are probably battery
powered.

Close inspection of the video reveals that the machine is slowing down

when he spins it up
frame 4484 to frame 4530 I count 17 full rotations in 46 frames

shortly after after he "engages the magnet rings"

frame 4923 to frame 4983 I count 17.2 rotations in 50 frames
it's slowed down a bit.

near the end of the video

frame 7403 to frame 7465 I count 16.8 rotations in 62 frames

that thing has good bearings, but it's not perpetual motion.

[John Larkin]

On 14 Apr 2012 08:21:24 GMT, Jasen Betts <ja...@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

>On 2012-04-13, Nico Coesel <ni...@puntnl.niks> wrote:
>> HardySpicer <gyans...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> If this energy would be for real, then a magnet would explode when
>> heated beyond the curie point because of a chain reaction releasing
>> the energy.
>
>That can happen with superconducting magnets, Normal magnets don't have
>sufficient energy density to vaporise metal (and eithout sudden
>evolution of gas or plasma ther can be no explosion)

A superconductive magnet can quench; I've seen it happen. It blows a
lot of cold helium out the vent, makes a little fog. It doesn't damage
the magnet. You've got to call the guy to come back and recharge it.
Nobody would make or buy hundred kilobuck, or even magabuck, magnet
that destroyed itself when it quenched. Some superconductive magnets
do destroy themselves from mechanical stresses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY3bgZY_nF4

In a particle accelerator tunnel or other enclosed space, the helium
could push the oxygen away and be a health hazard. They usually have
sensors and alarms for that.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 06:29:49 -0700 (PDT), Robert Macy
<robert...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Apr 14, 2:43 am, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:
>>...snip...
>>
>> The fields outside the magnet are different but the magnet is still
>> the same.
>>
>
>Right. Energy stored is stored in the AIR around the magnet, or in the
>gap of an inductor, not in the material itself.

So there's no magnetic field inside a magnet?

[John Larkin]

Do they have apples in Australia?

[Tim Williams]

"Nico Coesel" <ni...@puntnl.niks> wrote in message
news:4f89426f....@news.kpn.nl...

>>Not true. If your picture were right, the tinfoil hats would be making
>>money. The field contains energy, and the field does change when other
>>magnetic objects move around.
>
> I was talking about the properties of the magnet itself, not the
> magnetic fields outside it.

Samey samey. The field inside the magnet is continuous with the field
outside. Zero the field outside and the internal field drops to zero at the
surface.

John's example of coating the thing in ideal mu-metal (I specify ideal,
because normal stuff will saturate easily in most constructions one might
imagine) will force the external field to zero (assuming mu_r --> infty),
while carrying all the flux around the magnet. External energy, obviously,
is minimized (it's perfectly shielded!). What about internal energy?

If we go back to the circuit model, we can look at the magnet as a source of
ampere-turns (MMF). But the magnet's permeability is approximately 1
(typical of most hard alloys), so it also has considerable reluctance. In
effect, the magnetic "voltage source" has a source "impedance". The ideal
mu-metal covering has zero reluctance, so there is no MMF lost across it.
As a result, the MMF drops across the reluctance of the magnet itself.
Which actually increases the B field inside the magnet, and thus although
the external energy is reduced, the internal energy rises. By how much
depends on the effective volume of air an isolated magnet magnetizes.

[Ralph Barone]

John Larkin <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 15:31:06 +0200, Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- ---
> -.dotat> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 10:21:56 +0100, CWatters
>> <colin....@NOturnersoakSPAM.plus.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 13/04/2012 12:29, HardySpicer wrote:
>>>> Suppose I have a permanent magnet and attract a nail a height h from
>>>> the ground. If the nail has mass m then I have done mgh of work
>>>> (potential energy) which must come from the field. If I then attract
>>>> a second nail the magnetic attraction will be less since I have used
>>>> energy when attracting the first one - which is still attached. If I
>>>> keep doing this there is little energy left to lift anything more.
>>>>
>>>> I then pull off the nails which requires energy from me. That energy
>>>> must be released back into the field since I can then replicate the
>>>> experiment. Is this right? So energy is stored in permanent magnets.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you dig a hole in the ground a lot of things (everything on the
>>> surface of the earth!) gains energy (PE) with respect to the bottom of
>>> the hole.
>>>
>>> What happens when something falls in? All the objects on the surface of
>>> the earth still have the same PE wrt the bottom of the hole. The hole
>>> hasn't lost any energy but the object falling in has.
>>
>>
>> Depends where you live.
>> In Europe apples fall down, in Australia apples fall upwards.
>
> Do they have apples in Australia?
>

No. Since the apples all fell upwards (see above), no seeds ever made it to
the ground to propogate the species.

[HardySpicer]

Into a big bang in another universe - I am guessing.

[MarkK]

> >>>>
> >>>> I then pull off the nails which requires energy from me. That energy
> >>>> must be released back into the field since I can then replicate the
> >>>> experiment. Is this right? So energy is stored in permanent magnets.
> >>>>
>

The model I use to think of a PM magnet is a shorted inductor i.e.
electromagnet made with superconducting wire and a DC current flowing in the
wire. Some work was done to start the current flow and that energy is
stored in the current flow and of course creates a magnetic field. If the
wire resistance is ==0, that can sit in steady state forever like a PM..

If you move a hunk of metal near the (electro) magnet, it changes the
current flow because there is a change in the stored energy. Depending
on which way the mechanical force is going you can add or remove
current/energy. If you remove enough energy, the current will be zero.

While that model makes sense to me, I'm not sure however if it is correct
:-)


Mark

[Jasen Betts]

photons.

[John Devereux]

Only way it "dies" is via hawking radiation AFAIK,

So that is where the energy goes.


--

John Devereux

[Robert Macy]

On Apr 14, 8:40 am, John Larkin

<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 06:29:49 -0700 (PDT), Robert Macy
>

> <robert.a.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 14, 2:43 am, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:
> >>...snip...
>
> >> The fields outside the magnet are different but the magnet is still
> >> the same.
>
> >Right. Energy stored is stored in the AIR around the magnet, or in the
> >gap of an inductor, not in the material itself.
>
> So there's no magnetic field inside a magnet?
>
> --
>

> John Larkin                  Highland Technology Incwww.highlandtechnology.com  jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

>
> Precision electronic instrumentation
> Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
> Custom timing and laser controllers
> Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
> VME  analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
> Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators

One quenched at my friend's development lab. He lost $3,000 worth of
helium in a few seconds!

[Robert Macy]

On Apr 14, 2:29 pm, Jasen Betts <ja...@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

> --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to n...@netfront.net ---

uh, vanishes, as in fades away, does not supply a lot of photons. Oh,
right, it's a black hole so the photons can't escape.

[Robert Macy]

On Apr 14, 8:40 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 06:29:49 -0700 (PDT), Robert Macy
>

> <robert.a.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 14, 2:43 am, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:
> >>...snip...
>
> >> The fields outside the magnet are different but the magnet is still
> >> the same.
>
> >Right. Energy stored is stored in the AIR around the magnet, or in the
> >gap of an inductor, not in the material itself.
>
> So there's no magnetic field inside a magnet?
>
> --
>

> John Larkin                  Highland Technology Incwww.highlandtechnology.com  jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

>
> Precision electronic instrumentation
> Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
> Custom timing and laser controllers
> Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
> VME  analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
> Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators

Round off, down to almost nothing.

[ala]

"Nico Coesel" <ni...@puntnl.niks> wrote in message

news:4f8886a3....@news.kpn.nl...
> Magnetism is caused by alignment of molecules within crystal
> structure. Ofcourse it takes energy (effort) to align the molecules
> but the molecules don't need energy to have a certain alignment. Its
> like sorting eggs by size. It doesn't change the egg it just makes
> sure they can get more money for bigger eggs.
>

can you bury magnetism in a shallow grave to make hundred year old
magnetism.

i am REAAALLLLLY worried

[josephkk]

One AA in the LED display would be more than enough.

[HardySpicer]

On Apr 16, 5:08 am, josephkk <joseph_barr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 04:09:29 -0700 (PDT), HardySpicer
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 14, 10:59 pm, "P E Schoen" <p...@peschoen.com> wrote:
> >> "HardySpicer"  wrote in message
>
> >>news:e0d1c6e3-1336-4f40...@p4g2000pby.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > I still refuse to believe this
> >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBB8puMtwJM&feature=related
> >> > I can't figure out how it's done at present.
>
> >> There may be batteries hidden in the mechanism. It is not really producing
> >> significant power, so even coin cells will work. There are other
> >> demonstrations where a fair amount of power is actually produced,
> >> "apparently" from an unknown source which the perpetrators call quantum
> >> fields and other catchy names. There is almost always some sort of
> >> "specially modified" coil that somehow extracts this "free" energy. Some of
> >> the related videos in the link above are "impressive", but of course there
> >> must be something that cannot be seen.
>

> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIuBpPD-9ww&feature=relatedhttp://yout...

>
> >> There was one video I saw a while ago where somebody had a generator powered
> >> by a 100 watt motor, and he had three lamps connected to the output. He
> >> measured the resistance to be about 10 ohms, and then when he ran it, he
> >> read about 100 volts and the bulbs lit up bright, and he said that Ohm's law
> >> proves that he is getting E^2/R or 1000 watts out. But he neglected to read
> >> the current, which would have showed that the incandescent lamps were more
> >> like 100 ohms when lit. THAT one was easy to debunk.
>
> >> Paul
>
> >The coin cells would light the leds maybe but I doubt they would have
> >enough current to
> >provide torque for that contraption. Maybe I suppose for a few seconds
> >of the video. Has to be something.
>
> >Hardy
>
> One AA in the LED display would be more than enough.

For the LED's but not for the motor though I expect it is slowing down
anyway.


Hardy

[Jasen Betts]

On 2012-04-15, Robert Macy <robert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 14, 2:29 pm, Jasen Betts <ja...@xnet.co.nz> wrote:
>> On 2012-04-14, Robert Macy <robert.a.m...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> > So,...where does the energy go when a black hole dies?  ...after
>> > sucking in all that material/energy?

>> photons.

> uh, vanishes, as in fades away, does not supply a lot of photons. Oh,
> right, it's a black hole so the photons can't escape.

When a black hole dies it's by hawking radiation: photons.

--
⚂⚃ 100% natural

[Robert Macy]

On Apr 16, 1:59 am, Jasen Betts <ja...@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

If the dieing flash represents ALL the energy inside the black hole,
then that must be SOME flash, eh?

[John Devereux]

It doesn't come out all at once - the effective temperature is inversely
proportional to the mass. And it can take a long time, a solar mass
black hole lasts 2E67 years...

But yes there is a big flash at the end.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation>


--

John Devereux

[Tim Wescott]

Hawking radiation isn't all photons. But it is (per current theory at
least) how a black hole dies.

No one's gotten close enough to a black hole to prove out Hawking
radiation one way or another, although if it doesn't exist it would
require some rearrangement of quantum mechanics, relativistic physics, or
both.

--
Tim Wescott
Control system and signal processing consulting
www.wescottdesign.com

[spamtrap1888]

On Apr 14, 8:45 am, John Larkin

<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 15:31:06 +0200, Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- ---
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -.dotat> wrote:
> >On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 10:21:56 +0100, CWatters
> ><colin.watt...@NOturnersoakSPAM.plus.com> wrote:
>
> >>On 13/04/2012 12:29, HardySpicer wrote:
> >>> Suppose I have a permanent magnet and attract a nail a height h from
> >>> the ground. If the nail has mass m then I have done mgh of work
> >>> (potential energy)  which must come from the field. If I then attract
> >>> a second nail the magnetic attraction will be less since I have used
> >>> energy when attracting the first one - which is still attached. If I
> >>> keep doing this there is little energy left to lift anything more.
>
> >>> I then pull off the nails which requires energy from me. That energy
> >>> must be released back into the field since I can then replicate the
> >>> experiment. Is this right? So energy is stored in permanent magnets.
>
> >>If you dig a hole in the ground a lot of things (everything on the
> >>surface of the earth!) gains energy (PE) with respect to the bottom of
> >>the hole.
>
> >>What happens when something falls in? All the objects on the surface of
> >>the earth still have the same PE wrt the bottom of the hole. The hole
> >>hasn't lost any energy but the object falling in has.
>
> >Depends where you live.
> >In Europe apples fall down, in Australia apples fall upwards.
>
> Do they have apples in Australia?
>

New Zealand, but does that make any real difference?

[spamtrap1888]

"A Globe in Every Home"

http://www.replogleglobes.com/aboutReplogle.php

[spamtrap1888]

On Apr 16, 1:59 am, Jasen Betts <ja...@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

> On 2012-04-15, Robert Macy <robert.a.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 14, 2:29 pm, Jasen Betts <ja...@xnet.co.nz> wrote:
> >> On 2012-04-14, Robert Macy <robert.a.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > So,...where does the energy go when a black hole dies?  ...after
> >> > sucking in all that material/energy?
> >> photons.
> > uh, vanishes, as in fades away, does not supply a lot of photons.  Oh,
> > right, it's a black hole so the photons can't escape.
>
> When a black hole dies it's by hawking radiation: photons.
>

I pictured a little hawker's stall: Photons for Sale: 5 Cents