Re: Need help finding magnets for experiment...


"jim" <jim@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:4896B50E.9060807@xxxxxxxxxxx
| Androcles wrote:
| > "jim" <jim@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:489659B0.8020103@xxxxxxxxxxx
| > | Cwatters wrote:
| > | > "jim" <jim@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > news:Llpjk.134$XT1.59@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > >> Why not mount a lot of smaller magnets in "parallel" ?
| > | >> The result would be many "hills" and "valleys" in the magnetic flux
| > field.
| > | >> That type of magnetic flux field is not desirable for this
experiment.
| > | >
| > | > Square magnets?
| > | >
| > | > How uniform does it need to be?
| > |
| > | The theory that I was looking to experiment with was one whereby
| > | youtubers have tried to create motors utilizing permanent magnets as
the
| > | only source of power.
| > |
| > | The mag-motor experiments that they tried always used separate magnets
| > | to create the opposing magnetic fields.
| > |
| > | Even if you were to suppress one side of the magnets' fields, you
still
| > | have a magnetic field that is being resisted by every opposing
magnetic
| > | field (a hill) as it passes by.
| > |
| > | I simply wondered what would happen if you replaced their hills and
| > | valleys with a uniform magnetic field (say a disc magnet's end field)
| > | and then placed a magnet inside the uniform magnetic field, mounted on
| > | an arm (which can only move horizontally in a circle above the disc
| > | magnet) with the opposing field of the mounted magnet aimed at the
| > | opposing field of the disc magnet at an angle.
| > |
| > | My question was whether the two opposing fields would create sort of a
| > | "high pressure" magnetic field and move the arm forward along a
| > | circular, horizontal axis.
| > |
| > | The answer was that there is no movement.
| > |
| > | The reason is (my supposition here) that the force needed to compress
| > | the magnetic flux lines of the opposing magnetic disc as the arm moved
| > | forward cancel out the "high pressure" of the opposing magnetic flux
| > | lines I had thought may do the "pushing".
| > |
| > | The flaw in my model (and theirs) is that they (nor I) had taken into
| > | account the fact that movement is always from an area of high pressure
| > | to lower pressure (whether that be air or water or electrons or
magnetic
| > | fields).
| > |
| > | In order for their magnetic motors to work, there must be and area of
| > | high magnetic resistance and an area of lower magnetic resistance that
| > | constantly moves (as the magnetic field in an electric motor moves) to
| > | sustain movement.
| > |
| > | Although I have seen some real "outside the box" thinking on the
| > | subject, only one person has managed to lower the magnetic fields
| > | opposing the movement of the motor to any degree whatsoever. And, his
| > | experiment was not done in a way that may state emphatically that his
| > | method works (his equipment was not done to exacting measurements and
| > | those off placements of the parts may have accounted partially for the
| > | run-time that he did achieve - but which was also short lived).
| > |
| > | Until such time as somebody comes up with a way to mechanically turn a
| > | permanent magnetic field on and off at will, this mag-motor device
will
| > | not function as desired.
| > |
| > | It is also my opinion that no device can operate without some sort of
| > | outside energy (whether that be solar, wind or even the use of
| > | gravitational force).
| > |
| > | The idea of a permanent magnetic motor is intriguing. And, while I
say
| > | that nothing is impossible, a working mag-motor will take a much more
| > | complex design than is presently being attempted in the videos on
youtube.
| > |
| > | Thanks for your post!
| > |
| > | jim
| >
| > Ok, so now you've found out the hard way that there are
| > a lot of cranks out there. Some of them will go on seeking
| > the fountain of youth in El Dorado... nothing new in that.
| >
| >
|
| There are some "cranks" out there...in particular, those trying to sell
| a supposedly working magnetic motor since about 2003. Deliberately
| taking advantage of another's ignorance is despicable (and illegal in
| most civilized countries).
|
| But, cranks aside, don't you find it the least bit intriguing (the idea
| of taking energy from permanent magnets)?



No, I do not.
As with so many novices, you confuse force with energy.
At this very moment I have two permanent magnets on my desk shelf,
originally taken from an old hard drive. One is resting on the shelf, the
other underneath it, the two separated by the wood of shelf (1/2"),
held in place by the attractive magnetic force. Absolutely NO energy
is being transferred anywhere.

Don't you find it the least bit intriguing (the idea of putting something
under
a shelf to hold it up)?

|
| I don't believe such a device would violate the 1st law of
| thermodynamics as energy had to be used to create the magnets (just as
| energy is used to create batteries). And, permanent magnets are not
| really "permanent". The more work that they are used to do, the weaker
| they become - thus using up the energy used to create the magnet in the
| first place.

Where did you get that myth from?
No work is being done on my levitated magnet and no work is being done
by gravity on the objects suspended in space by the shelf.
It is a very simple matter to turn on and off an electromagnet, that
is the principle of the motor. The electrical energy is converted to
mechanical energy, but that in no way affects any permanent magnet.

| So, it cannot be considered the mythical perpetual motion
| motion machine either.
|
| Considering those points, there is not scientific law, that I can think
| of, that would be violated if a magnetic motor could be designed. (If I
| have missed something, please let me know.)


If you place a hammer on a shelf you've given it enough energy to do
work on your toe and break a bone. Where did that energy come from?
You lifting it.

Considering that point, there is not scientific law, that I can think
of, that would be violated if a hammer on a shelf could be designed.
(If I have missed something, please let me know.)


|
| IMHO, the problems that they face are both quite simple and quite
| difficult to overcome with our current understanding of magnetic fields.

What's this "they" and "our" business? That YOU are confused by
force and energy doesn't mean *I* am.

If you want a motor then you want motion.
A permanent magnet doesn't provide any motion. Yes, it can attract
iron, but once the iron has reached the magnet the motion has stopped.
Now you have pull hard to get it off again.
How, in principle, is that different to picking up the hammer and placing
it back on the shelf, ready to fall with a small sideways nudge and break
your other toe?



| They must create an unbalanced magnetic field in which a single magnet
| (or set of magnets) always seeks a position of balance (in accordance
| with the 2nd law) but which eludes it (as happens with the moving
| magnetic fields in an electric motor).
|
| I do not believe that it is impossible to do mainly based on the fact
| that we are still making discoveries like the Halbach arrays.
|
| However, I do believe that solving the issue of harnessing the power of
| permanent magnets will be done by chance.

To get the iron away from the magnet you do work on it. That's
the same as lifting the hammer onto the shelf. Gravity is there, ready
to pull the hammer (or a heavy book) onto your toe, but it does no work,
you did the work earlier in lifting it against the force.
Permanent magnets have no power. Therefore you cannot harness any.
All you can harness is the energy you put into pulling the iron away
from the magnet, and no more.



|
| So, I would encourage those on youtube to continue examining the
| problems of their magnetic motors, but to do so in as scientific a
| setting as possible so that they are not deceived by inaccurate
| measurements and are able to reproduce their results at will.
|
| Will they find the answer? Stranger things have happened.
|
| If not, at least they will find some answers.
|
| jim

You are encouraging stupidity... but that's ok, I enjoy a laugh.





.

Quantcast