Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Woo-Woo Why are there countless attempts to make magnets power generators..

Status
Not open for further replies.

BobK

Jan 5, 2010
7,682
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
7,682
A magnet can do work in the same sense that a rock can do work, or water can do work. The energy is not in the magnet or the rock or the water, it is in it's releationship to other objects. A magnet in a magnetic field is no more of a mystery than a rock or bucket of water in a gravitational field.

Take a universe empty except for 2 boulders (100Kg, say). They are right next to each other. They have no potential enery (ignoring the E=mc^2 engery) Now separate them by 100Km. The suddenly have energy due to their gravitational attraction. They will fall toward each other accelerating until the collide. Just before the collision they have no potential energy and all kinetic energy. How much energy? Exactly the same amount of energy it took to separate them.

You cannot create or destroy energy, you can only move it around. In a broad sense energy is what it takes to go from one configuration of matter to another. This can be either plus or minus, i.e. it might require energy input (lifting a boudler) or it might release energy (dropping a boulder) as you change the configuration. And changing it back again requires the same amout of energy with the opposite sign.

Bob
 

Moha99

Nov 18, 2011
261
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
261
A magnet can do work in the same sense that a rock can do work, or water can do work. The energy is not in the magnet or the rock or the water, it is in it's releationship to other objects.


I agree that the magnet do work.
But now I seem to forget the reason for the the work is from the field. Whether its the magnetic/electric field as Steve said work is done.

A magnet in a magnetic field is no more of a mystery than a rock or bucket of water in a gravitational field.

But you know whats good about that fact? You can manipulate the magnetic field easier than the gravitational field :D.

Take a universe empty except for 2 boulders (100Kg, say). They are right next to each other. They have no potential enery (ignoring the E=mc^2 engery) Now separate them by 100Km. The suddenly have energy due to their gravitational attraction. They will fall toward each other accelerating until the collide. Just before the collision they have no potential energy and all kinetic energy. How much energy? Exactly the same amount of energy it took to separate them.

Pretty much like to magnets attracted, you split them apart, and they attract each other back again because of the field doing work on both magnets. Until they collide.
Even after they attracted they still have potential but very very low, and the kinetic energy is at zero.

Not sure what you ment about no potential and all kinetic energy there...

You cannot create or destroy energy, you can only move it around. In a broad sense energy is what it takes to go from one configuration of matter to another. This can be either plus or minus, i.e. it might require energy input (lifting a boudler) or it might release energy (dropping a boulder) as you change the configuration. And changing it back again requires the same amout of energy with the opposite sign.

Agreed.
 
Last edited:

BobK

Jan 5, 2010
7,682
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
7,682
Pretty much like to magnets attracted, you split them apart, and they attract each other back again because of the field doing work on both magnets. Until they collide.
Even after they attracted they still have potential but very very low, and the kinetic energy is at zero.

Not sure what you ment about no potential and all kinetic energy there...
I meant exactly what I said. When the boulders, or the magnets are together they have no potential energy. They cannot do any more work. They only have potential energy when you seperate them. And they they have only the same energy that it took to seperate them. There is not energy in the rocks or the magnets, only in the configuration when they are seperated.

Bob
 

Moha99

Nov 18, 2011
261
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
261
Exactly the same amount of energy it took

I'd like to remind you all of an important point here! About Input = Output.
When you applied input X ,and got an output of 2(X) or 3(X) or 4(X).
That is no violation of any law, its just that there was a potential stored in the system that was un aware of.
 

Moha99

Nov 18, 2011
261
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
261
I meant exactly what I said. When the boulders, or the magnets are together they have no potential energy. They cannot do any more work. They only have potential energy when you seperate them. And they they have only the same energy that it took to seperate them. There is not energy in the rocks or the magnets, only in the configuration when they are seperated.

Bob

Thats the simplest way to put it, but aside from that its more complicated.
 

BobK

Jan 5, 2010
7,682
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
7,682
I'd like to remind you all of an important point here! About Input = Output.
When you applied input X ,and got an output of 2(X) or 3(X) or 4(X).
That is no violation of any law, its just that there was a potential stored in the system that was un aware of.
You are reminding me? Oy vey!

It is violation of conservation of energy. There are no loopholes. If there were, the universe would be an entirely different place.

Bob
 
Last edited:

Moha99

Nov 18, 2011
261
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
261
You are reminding me? Oy vey!

It is violation of conservation of energy. There are no loopholes. If there were, the universe would be an entirely different place.

Bob

WHAT?!

This is a violation? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! What explains any system doing more work than what you put into it? Let me give you an example... An old example that Steve used on me!

You in a car. The car is doing more work than what you put in to it while pushing that gas now why is that? Due to the stored potential of gas/batteries/diesel in your tank being converted into work.

Same example with nuclear power a little input is added and a HUGE output is given out why? Because of the atomic bla bla bla(have no proper explantion for it lol but YOU get the picture here:p).

And I can go on and on and on...
 

Moha99

Nov 18, 2011
261
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
261
You can have multiple inputs of energy in a system and get an output. It might seem shocking at first! But eventually its due to a potential that was unknown of...
 

BobK

Jan 5, 2010
7,682
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
7,682
So, basically, you went off and "studied" this for a year, and you learned nothing.

What you put into the car is not your physical effort, it is the fuel. And you do not get out more energy than was contained in the fuel.

A magnet does contain a very small amount of energy in the arrangement of it's molecules. If you extract that energy it is no longer a magnet, just like there is no longer any fuel in your tank after you drive 400 miles or so. And to get it back to being a magnet would require the same amount of energy as you extracted, just like you would have to fill your tank.

Bob
 
Last edited:

Moha99

Nov 18, 2011
261
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
261
So, basically, you went off and "studied" this for a year, and you learned nothing.

I would usually be annoyed by this comment, but really... I'm exited to see comments like this, it ENCOURAGES me to refute you and use my experience and knowledge to back me up here. But to shed light on my "study" it wasn't only energy in systems but much more than that. Don't take that as an excuse, just keep that in mind.

What you put into the car is not your physical effort, it is the fuel. And you do not get out more energy than was contained in the fuel.

I see someone not understand my point at all from this analogy? Obviously the physical effort was not from me, it was from the fuel that was "STORED" in the tank, when the tank is full with fuel that a lot of potential energy waiting to be converted. You could pretty much say its stored potential energy too...
When you want to move a car, do you simply just put the fuel in and wait till it magically moves? Or do you apply an "input" of energy that is your foot pushing the peddel to release a bit of that fuel into the engine?
Indeed, the input was both you and the fuel, that was eventually all converted into motion. But wasn't that output way more that what you've put in (your foot) the system in the beginning?

The only thing "physical" I said was you pushing the peddel to start the "chained reaction" of the system.

A magnet does contain a very small amount of energy in the arrangement of it's molecules. If you extract that energy it is no longer a magnet, just like there is no longer any fuel in your tank after you drive 400 miles or so. And to get it back to being a magnet would require the same amount of energy as you extracted, just like you would have to fill your tank.

Bob

I'm trying to make sense of what you said, but should I respond about the electrical power used to magnetize the magnet? And you some how able to extract that power out to demagnetize it? What's the point? If this is done I no longer have the "permanent" field that I need.
I'm more interested about the field's interaction with magnetic objects, without it... Its pointless.
 

Moha99

Nov 18, 2011
261
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
261
About the topic of "Energy", I dug up an article that is very useful.

But for the moment, suffice it to say that energy is not itself an object. An atom is an object; energy is not. Energy is something which objects can have, and groups of objects can have — a property of objects that characterizes their behavior and their relationships to one another.

Speaks about the Matter and Energy, and their relation.
 
Last edited:

Moha99

Nov 18, 2011
261
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
261
From that article I derived the conclusion that all objects have potential energy, why? Will you can apply energy to move them right? Isn't that work being done? Where did that object's Kinetic energy come from? From the Potential that is converted FROM my input.

Now lets try to relate this with magnets?
Have to magnets away from each other facing opposite poles, they are at a state of HIGH Potential energy waiting to be converted into Kinetic energy. That rate of PE and KE is determined from the magnetic/electric field that apply the force of attraction throughout that displacement...
 

Moha99

Nov 18, 2011
261
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
261
When the magnets are attracted there is still potential energy even if they are slammed up to each other.
 

BobK

Jan 5, 2010
7,682
Joined
Jan 5, 2010
Messages
7,682
Moha,

I think you are speaking to no one at this point.

Bob
 

Moha99

Nov 18, 2011
261
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
261
Steve...
Or Dave...
Can one of you please close this thread.
And let it just die and fade away with my past...
 

(*steve*)

¡sǝpodᴉʇuɐ ǝɥʇ ɹɐǝɥd
Moderator
Jan 21, 2010
25,510
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
25,510
When the magnets are attracted there is still potential energy even if they are slammed up to each other.

Sure, if you were to crush them into small pieces, they could form an even lower energy state.

But to separate them, you have to pump energy back into the field (or rather, the effort involved in separating them is the energy that is pumped back into the field.
 

(*steve*)

¡sǝpodᴉʇuɐ ǝɥʇ ɹɐǝɥd
Moderator
Jan 21, 2010
25,510
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
25,510
I would usually be annoyed by this comment, but really... I'm exited to see comments like this, it ENCOURAGES me to refute you and use my experience and knowledge to back me up here. But to shed light on my "study" it wasn't only energy in systems but much more than that. Don't take that as an excuse, just keep that in mind.

You seem to be working like a conspiracy theorist.

The more arguments you are given against your position, the more you are convinced of the truth of your position.

It's a symptom of what I call "Magical thinking"

I'll close the thread for you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top