Science Questions

Power of a Magnet

Sun, 9th Dec 2007

Listen Now    Download as mp3 from the show The Naked Scientists Christmas Special

Question

Brian Starkey asked:

From where do permanent magnets get their energy or power? I can put a fridge magnet on a fridge, and it seems as if it will stay there forever with no sign of any power source. Also, if I try to push the like poles of two bar magnets together, my arms will grow tired long before the magnets grow weak, yet again there is no power or energy source. Can we not harness this invisible and seemingly endless source of energy?

Answer

Alastair Rae, University of Birmingham

At this time of year, many of us decorate our fridges by attaching magnets carrying pictures of Christmas puddings, holly, Father Christmas, snowmen and so on. One advantage of these magnets is that they are easily removed and replaced when Christmas is over. Brian Starkey asks, ‘how can they stay on the fridges when there is no obvious power source?’

Magnetic lines of force of a bar magnet shown by iron filings on paperThe first point to note is that we don’t need any energy to stand still! A stationary car with its engine turned off doesn’t use any petrol!  Power is required only when the engine starts turning and the car starts moving.  What we have in the case of a fridge magnet is a magnetic force pulling the magnet against the iron door; this then leads to a frictional force that stops the magnet sliding down under gravity, but once the magnet is in place, no energy or power is consumed keeping it there.  It’s not very different in principle to sticking the magnet onto the fridge using glue.

When Brian pushes the two like poles of a magnet together, he has to apply a force and use energy.  If they are then allowed to move apart, this energy is released and converted into motion.  However, if he holds them together without letting them move, no more power is needed.  It’s perhaps easier to understand this if we think of the magnets being supported by a rigid frame instead of by a person. Why then do Brian’s arms grow tired if he is not doing any work?  This is all to do with biology and the complex way our muscles work: chemical energy has to be burned to keep them stiff and able to exert pressure.  But magnets are not like that: they exert a force pushing each other apart and do not consume any power as long as they don’t move.

Multimedia

Subscribe Free

Related Content

Comments

Make a comment

Every electron in the metal acts as a magnetic dipole.  Dipoles are the simplest sources of magnetic fields.  In order to generate a permanent magnet form a metal, you force all these dipoles to line up, so the tiny fields they each generate all add together to make a big field. 

If you stick this magnet to a fridge, I think the fields from the magnet should cause the electrons in the field to line up in an opposite direction.  This means if you have the north pole of a magnet near a fridge, the fridge will start to act like a south pole, and viola--your magnet will stick to your fridge.  If you try to push two like poles of magnets together, they repel because the electrons in each magnet are already aligned to repel each other and won't change direction easily. 

Finally, in terms of energy.  In physics, change in energy is defined as a force applied over a distance.  If you hold two magnets near each other until your arms get tired, you're not actually putting any energy into the magnets.  Similarly, by holding the magnets near each other, you're not getting energy out.  To get energy out, you'd probably have to let the magnets fly apart and use that motion to generate electricity or move something.  The simple reason why that isn't practical is that you have to put the same amount of energy into the system in the first place in order to put the magnets near each other!  jpetruccelli, Fri, 7th Dec 2007



I think this question can be addressed two ways: are we asking about the nature of magnetism itself, or about the "energy" source?

You could ask almost the same question but replace "magnet" with "spring". e.g. "If I squash the spring between my fingers it keeps pushing back; where does the power come from?" Or "If I pull the spring it keeps pulling back, seemingly forever without getting any weaker." As already mentioned, "work" (ie energy) is only done when something actually moves against (or as a result of) the force. You cannot extract any energy without there being motion, and since the force weakens as the distance increases there is only a finite and rather small amount of energy available. Forcing two repelling magnets together, or pulling an attracting magnet away from something merely stores energy (temporarily) in the field. You can only get back the energy which you put in previously. techmind, Fri, 7th Dec 2007

About "their energy" it depends on what you mean: every magnetic field has an energy associated with itself: U = 1/2 μ H2 where U is the energy density (energy per unit volume), so, to create a magnet, which in this case is equivalent to align those magnetic moments of which jpetruccelli wrote, you certainly have to give some energy to that system.

Let's make an example: you magnetize a piece of iron with a magnet; you approach the two bodies, and you don't have to make work for this, then (let's say the magnet magnetizes slowly the iron) at the end, they attract each other; now, if you want to take them apart, you have to make work against that attractive force, and that work goes to the system of the two bodies. lightarrow, Fri, 7th Dec 2007

You have beaten me by 20 seconds! lightarrow, Fri, 7th Dec 2007

We do harness this energy, its called a generator (or dynamo).  Check electromagnetic induction, Lenz's law and Faraday laws. How does the magnet get its magnetism? In the case of permanent magnets, there are magnetic domains where various numbers of molecules of the material "line up" in a particular direction. (These are not molecular magnets.) These domains exist in many materials in random directions but in certain materials, eg. nickel cobalt and iron they can be made to line up forming a permanent magnet. Fridgemagnet, Thu, 13th Dec 2007

I notice that nobody has actually answered the question yet.

It comes from electricity.

Magnets get their energy from the factory that they are made. Making a magnet involves immersing the magnet in a strong magnetic field, usually generated by an electromagnet. After this is done, the permanent magnet has stored some of the magnetic energy from the electromagnet in the form of its own magnetic field. The energy in the field of the electromagnet,  came from the electricity flowing through the coils.

Once it is stored in the magnet, it's fairly hard to make the magnet lose the energy, although a strong repetitive shock will do so, as will a sufficiently strong alternating field, or heating the magnet up to its 'Curie point'. However it is lost, the energy usually ends up as tiny increase in the temperature of the magnet.

The amount of energy in a typical bar magnet you might have on your fridge is not usually very much, just a few joules. This would be theoretically enough to run a 100W lightbulb for maybe a tenth or a hundredth of a second or so; and it would be possible with the right equipment to do this, by using the magnet to move itself towards a piece of iron, through a coil connected to the lightbulb for example.

Because magnetism is what is called a 'conservative force' the energy you need to remove the iron from the magnet would be as much as it took to light the lightbulb, so the magnetic energy is not used up by doing this, and you can get it back again and the magnet can be reused.

Other conservative forces include gravity- gravity never needs recharging either! wolfekeeper, Mon, 17th Dec 2007

These replies all seem to have come from a textbook which was written by someone who reads textbooks. The "irrational" mind would serve to at least stimulate here. Is it possible that our definition of "work" may be flawed. Is it possible that merely "acting" on a body, either in motion or at rest, does indeed constitute work? Is it possible that the energy is actually input into the magnet at a rate equal to the energy "lost". Is it possible that we humans have all the answers regarding physics, and no modification to what we "know" will ever be made? Is it possible that man cannot and will not ever "fly like a bird"? I think we had all better preface our statements with "I am told" or "I read" until we actually figure out some of our other seemingly unexplained mysteries, like where 75% of the matter (energy) in the universe resides. Wayne, Tue, 26th Aug 2008

hey there. i'm 18 years old and i stay in south africa... and i had a idea of building an engine out of magnets. does anyone think that this will be possible? and how can that work? i have had a few ideas already but they dont work properly, now im studying magnets so that i can find a way that magnets can change the world and no petrol or any energy is used to power things... if anyone has any ideas can you please help me out. my e-mail: michalecosta90@gmail.com thank you, Michael. Michael, Fri, 14th Nov 2008

Thank you for the answers to this question which has been bothering me for a while. I see how magnets are made, how they work through aligned mangnetic domains and how they form feilds. But some questions remain... A parked car uses no energy, yet I cannot stick it to a metal wall and hang it there in defiance of gravity for years at a time like I can with a fridge magnet. Where does the energy for this come from? You easily stick a magnet of several kilos upside down to a metal plate, that requires watts of power to hold there. If it were glued there, no power is used, but a feild requires energy. Neil, Tue, 27th Jan 2009


Where is the answer to this question? Chemistry4me, Tue, 27th Jan 2009

I don't pretend to know any better than anyone else the answer to this question, however I do have an idea. The Earth has a magnetic field, much like a magnet does. Hence the reason the compass points north and so on. Obviously a magnetic field has its own energy, anyone who would chose to argue that just doesn't know what they are talking about. You hear people talk all the time about renewable energy, and how it doesn't exist, and how endless power supplies don't exit. It would seem to me that the magnet is the answer to both of those, and mankind has chosen to ignore it thusfar. Its not too hard to see that mankind has a recent history of rejecting the obvious answers just because it requires a change in our way of thinking, and god forbit we figure out something that disproves anyones theory, that would just make them look stupid. So, magnets must be an endless source of renewable energy that we just haven't opened our eyes to. It would be my guess that it could be used as the greenest source of energy possible, provided by nature, which causes no known harm to the environment or humanity in any way. That being the case, I would also say that the reason we haven't decided to look into that in more depth, is because humanity is so stubborn, and would rather argue and fight over it for another 1000 years instead of just going with the flow. Timmy, Sun, 1st Feb 2009

Wow, I would agree. And here are some examples. MAGLEV, this is a magnetic levitation teqnique used to levitate and often propell trains. Perfectly clean, renewable energy as the magnets produce no exhaust, and use no energy. Harmless, Sun, 1st Feb 2009

To see an example of a working device you should check out youtube and search for the Minato magnetic motor. I find that Magnets are fascinating. I have two stacks of 1" disk magnets levitating inside of a transparent glass tube. They have sat on my desk for the last ten years without any loss in repulsion. The two stacks of 1" disks were set into repulsion mode and were carefully placed inside of a 1" diameter glass tube. Daniel Pearson, Thu, 5th Feb 2009

Some of the answers here can be summed up as "I don't understand the answer the scientists give me, therefore the scientists must be wrong". This is fallacious logic. It is however very understandable since the physics at work in magnets is very counter-intuitive. It seems only natural that magnets have their own energy source since you - among other things - can use magnets to transform physical movement into electricity. But they are just passive mediums. I have some science education from university and still have a hard time wrapping my head around this topic. However, I don't claim that scientists are wrong just because _I_ don't fully understand the theory. By production and implementation scientists prove daily that the theory of magnetic force is correct and accurate. This might help you understanding the principle of magnetic energy without the difficult physics: Magnetic fields have properties that resemble gravity. A car is attracted to earth just like two magnets are attracted to each other. A car standing on the ground doesn't use up earth's gravity, neither does lifting the car out to space outside the earth's gravity field. Pulling two magnets apart is similar to lifting a car from the ground: When you pull them apart you add potential energy equal to what is released when you let them fall back together. The anology of a spring is also quite good. It can be used for absorbing and releasing energy, but the spring itself doesn't have it's own power source. The fact that you use a lot of muscle energy failing to pull two strong magnets apart is equal to failing to pull a solid piece of rock in two parts. The muscle energy used is radiated into the air as heat, no energy is put into the either the magnets or the rock. Jørgen Bøckman, Thu, 26th Mar 2009

i don't think so from falling rock raghavendra, Mon, 6th Apr 2009


Where is the answer to this question?

Thanks for pointing it out!  It's now in the second post of the thread. BRValsler, Mon, 6th Apr 2009



What?? Madidus_Scientia, Mon, 6th Apr 2009



What??

Beats me!

-------

Where is the answer to this question?

Thanks for pointing it out!  It's now in the second post of the thread.

Not worries. Chemistry4me, Tue, 7th Apr 2009

Magnets do indeed seem to defy mr Neuton in a way. I bought a magnetic clamp for my table saw a while back. This device clamps onto the table with the simple twist of a knob which removes a simple baffle between the magnet and the table. The torque required to do this can easily be done with ones baby finger what 2 inch pounds over 90 degrees of twist, yet when in the clamp position I can literally lift hte whole table-- nearly 100 pounds . Thsi makes no sense whatsoever. I am exerting less than 1/50th of the force required to clamp the device. Something is missing no equal opposite reaction applies here...So there is no answer here (sorry) but a suggestion that we have to look deeper and with more humility and more of an open and more determined mind than science offers at this time.... lichardi, Fri, 17th Apr 2009

It doesn't take much force to apply glue either, which could have the same effect. Madidus_Scientia, Mon, 11th May 2009

It seems to me that the real question is about potential energy. When two magnets are set up in such away that they will try to pull or push each other, it's much the same as a heavy weight being positioned where it can fall downwards towards the Earth. The energy is stored as potential energy and can be converted to kinetic energy if one of the magnets or the weight is allowed to move. By raising a weight we can turn kinetic energy back into potential energy. When you compress a spring you also convert kinetic energy into potential energy which can later be recovered and turned back into kinetic energy.

When you store energy in chemicals, you make electrons move more energetically and the potential energy is manifested as this extra kinetic energy like a flywheel. In the case of hydrogen and oxygen gas, their bonds involve energetic electrons which hold potential energy in their speed: when these molecules are burned to make water, the electrons lose energy which is converted into movement of atoms (heat and travel).

I assume that magnetism and gravity store potential energy in some other way, but I've no idea what the mechanism is. David Cooper, Sun, 5th Jul 2009

the power comes from the magnetic force feild of the earth gurpal, Wed, 22nd Jul 2009

No matter what the question was this "the power comes from the magnetic force feild of the earth" was never the answer. Bored chemist, Wed, 22nd Jul 2009

I am trying to affiliate myself with people like you here to develop maybe not perpetual motion but something close to develop electricity, there are hundreds of ideas already in existance but not much on the market, perhaps I can intrigue someone to get in touch with me to help me develop further my ideas Michael L, Thu, 17th Sep 2009

So... I understand how all the static magnets behave. What I don't understand is how can this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PDeK6rprA4&feature=related work? Considering the friction and air drag, this fan shouldn't be working. Yet it does. Mike, Sun, 14th Oct 2012

I still don't get it. Suppose we had a weight on one magent that was suspended below another magnet and the weight was just enough to keep the weight suspended, but to keep the magnets apart. There must be some energy being expended to keep them in this position? amster, Fri, 22nd Feb 2013

I believe the magnetic force is caused by the accumulation of the aligned atoms within the magnet. these aligned atoms have electron 'clouds' which are polarized (north/south). the electrons are essentially 'speeding' around each atom (more or less. i don't feel like getting into quantum physics at the moment) creating and electron field or cloud. when all the atoms within a material are aligned with one another, the electron fields are shared as a common whole, more or less. electricity and magnetism are two aspects of one whole, the photon. as electricity flows, a field of magnetism is produced around it, and vise versa. so basically, the atoms all align, therefor creating one large electric flow of sorts, and thereby creating one large shared, magnetic field. So, basically what i'm trying to say is that the magnetic force itself comes from the nucleus of the atom, holding the electrons in orbit, compiling the fields together, creating a magnetic force. essentially, it's powered by nuclear force. electromagnetic force, and strong and weak nuclear forces (which bind the atom together) are all different representations of the photon. so the answer is basically that the magnet gets its power from the universal energy that binds all things together, the same source that causes fission and explosions, and chemistry, and teddy bears, and the sun, and...carpet ants. just another form of the energy, condensed into a specific orientation, combination, variation, etc ( you get the point i'm sure) to come together to form what we call a magnet with it's magnetic force. I hope that helps. malaki, Wed, 15th Jan 2014

if it is due to electricity in a factory then the electric energy must be constantly converted into magnetic energy. conversion of electric energy into other forms of energy takes place naturally only when the conductor has some amount of resistance to electric current. is this even true that electric energy is being the source of magnetic energy? if yes, does it mean that if the circuit has zero resistance it will not have the electric energy converted into magnetic energy and, as a result, will have no magnetic property? curiouskid, Fri, 21st Aug 2015

It is a cop-out to avoid the obvious fact that magnets do work as they act against gravity or forces that try to push them together or pull them apart. Newton's laws, Maxwell's 4 equations (edited by others from his 20 quaternion equations), and Lenz's law are not inviolate and represent distorted incomplete understanding of magnetic fields and EM. Tesla knew otherwise, as have and do many others that learn to think for themselves rather than accept dogma. Dendric, Fri, 23rd Oct 2015

I m not a smart guy but I do have imagination. I believe that we will soon be capable to travel on space time “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” .by Albert Einstein 
I think that the humanity is like a piece of metal on a large magnet, where, we are being pull down by gravity. The same way with our planet Earth that it being pull dawn by the gravity of the Sun and the Sun by another superior gravitational force.
When, we get to the point in which we are capable of building and space ship that could create a gravitational force strong enough to push the Earth gravitational force, the same way the earth pushes the Sun we are going to be traveling on space time. (Sun’s gravity +( - ( + Earth gravity)) +( - ( + artificial gravitational force  + mc²)) )…A magnet its capable to create + and - witch it creates a gravitational force in a small scale.
Dreamer, Wed, 2nd Mar 2016



Energy is force x distance moved. If the lower magnet doesn't move, no energy is being expended.

Consider replacing the upper magnet with a piece of string - is there any energy input whilst  the lower magnet is stationary? alancalverd, Wed, 2nd Mar 2016



Perhaps you are thinking of a human treading water, or a helicopter hovering?

In these cases, your hands (or the helicopter rotor blades) are pushing down on the water (or air), exerting a force. This force is exerted over a distance, and this takes energy.

This is all horribly inefficient - if you wanted efficiency, you would only swim in shallow water where you could stand up, and you would leave your helicopter parked on a high hill.

But the magnet does not move, and so does not consume energy to stay in place.

(With most magnet structures, the hanging magnet is unstable - any small movement of the air might move them slightly closer, and they will immediately stick together. Any small movement apart and they will fall apart. So you probably would need an active control system to stabilize it, which consumes some energy.) evan_au, Wed, 2nd Mar 2016

In magnetic iron, the outer most elections of the iron atoms, will align with the same spin. Same spin electrons repel each other. This will not allow the magnetic fields of the individual electrons to cancel, but rather it increases the magnetic potential of the electron grouping. This is the potential energy behind the magnet. This electron configuration within magnets is stable at level of the iron atom. However, it contains residual potential energy; magnetic, since this is not the lowest possible way to arrange these electrons in terms of energy.

If we heat a magnet, activation energy can be added to the electrons, so they can climb the energy hill and then lower potential by assuming a lower energy arrangement of the electrons. This involves opposite spin electrons which attract and cancel their magnetic fields. This type of iron will not show any magnetism.

In the diagram below, which is used for chemical reactions, but also applies to any movement between stable states of matter, the magnetic iron would on the left. It is higher up the hill (reactants) than the plateau on the right (product). It occupies a stable plateau, but with lingering energy potential. This is sort of unique in the sense we can see this lingering potential as magnetism. Heating will push it up the hill and once at the top, it freely slides down into the more stable non-magnetic plateau.

We can also go the other way; right to left or non-magnet to magnet,  by adding energy, such as electricity, to push the electrons up the hill from right to left. Once the electrons reach the top off the hill, they will assume the stable magnetic plateau, since this is more stable with energy environment of electricity. 

puppypower, Wed, 2nd Mar 2016

Magic. Obviously. Villi, Fri, 1st Jul 2016



Even the manufacture of gasoline and diesel is just a circular perpetual motion operation in itself. They use coal to take hydrogen from water steam actually, and then reclaim the carbon dioxide created during the operation, and re-burn the carbon monoxide for heat to sustain the reaction. They need a constant supply of coal and water, however in the end they end up with a lot high BTU fuels that are then burned and create water and carbon dioxide. The trees use the carbon dioxide and grow, and we take the wood and can make man made coal from the trees or corn or any source of carbon.

A helicopter hovering above the ground creating air pressure under the rotor and a vacuum above the rotor, burns a lot of fuel to do so. Why? Because it is fighting a constant force of gravity, which we know exists as a force that we can measure. So if a magnet can repel and levitate from another magnet on the ground, and stay aloft it is fighting the force of gravity constantly with a created sustained magnetic field, not actual material like a spring would be using. People have built some cool perpetual motion devices using magnets, they are just for the demonstration of perpetual motion though not for practical power. They do it by cutting or pulsing the magnetic field, in this way you can create constant movement with magnets.

The voice coil in a speaker does something similar.

Sincerely,

William McCormick



William McC, Sun, 18th Sep 2016

I was taught that magnets harness the ever present ever in motion ambient radiation. Magnets that are joined at opposite poles, do not attract one another, because our universe was designed without attraction forces. The magnets are pushed together by ambient radiation. Between the magnets a flow is setup from one magnet to another, and if you have ever put a short piece of hose up to a similar piece of hose that is flowing water, you can note a strange occurrence. As the short piece of hose moves closer to the hose spewing water, the small piece of hose is suddenly apparently pulled to the hose spewing water. In reality the water exiting the short piece of hose being moved closer to the hose spewing water, is pushed to the hose spewing water, by pressure at the exit point of the small hose.

Magnets work the same way, they create a constant flow of particles of electricity. If you ever doubt perpetual motion, get two large aluminum plates with a piece of thin glass between them, and lay the wires from a magneto that uses permanent magnets to generate electricity on one of the plates and give it a little spin. Measure the output and declare your wrist or the magneto perpetual motion.

Sincerely,

William McCormick William McC, Sun, 18th Sep 2016

The sub-atomic world is frictionless and can spin forever. This is the source of magnetic energy.
. Atkhenaken, Sun, 18th Sep 2016

This related discussion is quite informative:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=68131.msg496240#msg496240

The topic has also been explored here too:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=34290.0 chris, Sun, 18th Sep 2016


This sounds like an explanation for the Casimir effect; it doesn't sound like an explanation for magnets.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect evan_au, Sun, 18th Sep 2016

It's a strange thread this one. It's like asking "What is the power source for a shelf?"
"I can put a rock on a shelf, and it seems as if it will stay there forever with no sign of any power source. ".

Why would anyone think it needs power? Bored chemist, Sun, 18th Sep 2016



Yet go look at your shelves, in the closet and see if they are slightly dipped down in the center. Over time many shelves give way. The shelve is an electrical effect according to my teaching. I have seen the metal holders for ceiling fans over time slowly bend downward. There is a constant force from gravity that must be fought in order to hold something still. The springs on cars are constantly failing ever growing weaker and weaker.

I can levitate a block of aluminum with an AC electromagnet, and prove it requires energy to levitate it. I attached an image and this below is the whole link.

http://www.rockwelder.com/History/WorldsFair/WF.htm

Willam McCormick William McC, Sun, 18th Sep 2016


It is true that many macroscopic systems slowly decay over time.
- However, many atomic-level systems (defined by quantum theory) do not decay over time. The atomic-level magnetic field of unpaired electrons is one such system
- This is because macroscopic systems have many adjacent states, and they can easily decay from one to another, increasing entropy. Quantum systems have few adjacent states (especially if they are already in the ground state), and so they can continue for long periods without decay.

A macroscopic permanent magnet does lose strength over time, due to temperature and vibration.
- This occurs via the growth and migration of magnetic domains which oppose the general magnetic field of the permanent magnet
- However, the underlying quantum magnetic field of the atom remains just as strong (although perhaps reversed in direction).

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferromagnetism#Origin_of_magnetism
evan_au, Sun, 18th Sep 2016

JP'S answer seems very helpful to me.Electrons are magnetic dipoles,termed spin,if I am not mistaken.If we use a magnetizer to force all the electron dipoles to line up and make a big magnet as a group,they are like a stretched spring held at both ends.As long as it is held still,no more energy is needed to be addedTthe magnetizer added enough.The magnetic force is constant,No work is done.However if the electrons' alignments are allowed to go back to random,the stored energy of the magnetizer is released.Scientists are now intensely engaged in working with magnetic phenomenae and spin to create new effects.Electrical motors are actually using electromagnetic effects to produce motion,and the energy used is electrical energy,doing work.Friction and other losses keep a motor running on just still magnetic fields from staying in motion or doing work.It was the idea of perpetual motion. david.reichard, Wed, 21st Sep 2016

Is the repulsive force of the electromagnet as strong as the attractive one??? Mika Loiselle, Fri, 23rd Sep 2016

We humans tend to always consider mechanic energy as when refering with anything that is made of matter like a mechanic engine, but from a certain point of view, one has pushed two pieces of magnets one towards the other, but one magnet never has trully pushed one away from the other, they are only the catalistor for a field, magnetic field...
  Wherever lock on two magnets that are repeling one the other from an apropriated distance, now what do you have, a mechanic "system", trully there seems to be no motion, but there is, the particles are not stationary or static as the whole seems to be, the fields are constantly interracting one with the other, so one could say that the constant repeling of the two magnets are producing a inconstant magnetic field, that on itself has the "potential" to infinite energy...
  The elephant on the room is refering to "electrical energy" or any sort of energy witch we humans could harvest, isn't the topic subject but is the final product of the search...

Well to achieve a practical way to structure such convenience fields on a practical way that would allowd us to harves that into motion, thus electrical energy, one should set mobile magnetic fields from outside in the static repelant one...
We would want to harves the energy potential from that both repelant static magnetic fields, for that we need to give it "spin", not on itself, we need to cheat, keeping the magnets on the interior stationary repeling themselves just in order to produce a considerable repelant magnetic field, than on the exterior one should set a external layer os mobile magneticfields that when in motion would convert, not the "magnetic repulsive forces" but more like reshape the result, the repelant field, changing it from balanced to something resabling a hurricane, literally use the external magnetic rims to disrupt the center forcing it to take such shape, from that point on, we would not be harvesting the energy of the original static magnetic fields, witch we couldn't, one would be "shomehow"(trough vibration or high frequency), harvesting the potential of that new field, its hard to explain without the awnser of where does this forces come from, but surely the magnetic force is provenient from motion, is we can't see, means only that is happening in lower scale...
  In resume the trick would not how to harvest the energy from two magnetic field that are repepling one the other, but instead, how to restructure that very fields to be able to allowd a proper device to harvest the magnetic motion...

what cames to my mind is in principle a stationary internal magnetic system formed by a circle of repelant magnetics, and on the surrownding areas a spiral, not a complete or perfect spiral, but in purpose, incomplete spiral, like a coil, that is static around the inner ring, untill we start to set the inner ring to spin (the magnets not the field, it is still static). Such spining would force the "magnetic coild" to move up and down really fast, form that point on, all one would need is some sort of membranes that would be able to harves this very motion, converting it into electrical energy...

The not coerent possibility is to keep the inner ring completly stationary and produce the magnetic coild using perfectly alignets cilindrical magnets that would set themselves in motion, again up and down, just by being constantly repeling themselves, side by side, with the inner ring, little pushes that would generate a considerable motion, altough I'm not sure that his is possible, without a external source of impulse power, like the first one does require to set itself in motion...

For the last consideration pick up the image of such coild that is made from numerous cilindrical magnets, and prolong the coild lenght in order to form a perfect circle, inside of it set the conductive wire, and on the laterals of this circle set two spiral magnetic coils, just like above, that are working using the metod describled above, this wouldn't be a true infinite energy system, there is no such thing, but it would be more a trick, two small spiral sources, seting on motion another system, that is for it's turn, harvesting the "potential" of infinite energy that those two spiral sources have on themselves, but could never achieve on their own... For any purpose, one does not need to try to harvest the energy on the repulsive forces, there is non to be, one need to find a practical way to harvest their potential to, compensating eachother limitations by forcing one to interect with the other trought another one, and this one, would be trully infinite energy, "as long as the others are still spining on themselves" Alex Siqueira, Sat, 1st Oct 2016


Why do you think it is helpful to show that you can hold up a block of metal inefficiently?
Bored chemist, Sat, 1st Oct 2016


Why do you think it is helpful to show that you can hold up a block of metal inefficiently?


It is not inefficient to use an electromagnet at all. It is rather efficient, in fact they are using repulsion bearings in motors because it is so efficient. The mechanical bearing uses more energy than the electromagnetic bearing.

If we were talking about the security locks on doors that use steel instead of aluminum for the target of the magnetic field, and I hold up a piece of steel against the force of gravity, as it is used to keep bank security doors closed, because it is rather efficient, would there still be an argument?

Permanent magnets are creating a magnetic field constantly, they are redirecting flows of ambient radiation constantly. If you can flux or pulse the magnetic field of a permanent magnet you can cause continues movement of objects. People have done it but there is just not enough power to make it useful as a device in our lives. Which shows just how efficient AC magnetic fields are.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
William McC, Sat, 1st Oct 2016

Using an ac electromagnet to hold something up when yo could use a shelf is inefficient.
The use of electromagnetic locks is nothing to do with efficiency and a lot to do with remote operation.

Do yo have evidence for this "Permanent magnets are creating a magnetic field constantly, they are redirecting flows of ambient radiation constantly."
or is it just more of the woowoo that you keep posting? I guess I will find out when, like so much of your stuff, it gets dumped into the "that can't be true" stream. Bored chemist, Sat, 1st Oct 2016



We had the capabilities to go to other solar systems in a couple of years time back in the late sixties and early seventies, but no one was interested. We sent a ship, and it made it.  No one ever questions the speed of light because no one has a light speed meter or an experiment to prove it. Although I have heard some people that know, have shinned a laser to the moon, and when they blocked the laser on earth it instantly shut off on the moon.

There is no such thing as space time, space is nothing, an empty place for matter, and time is the comparison by the observer of moving objects to determine how much time has passed.

Atomic clocks can be effected by multiple harmless almost undetectable rays, to give inaccurate readings while sitting on a test bench.

We have no scientific limitations. We do have the crazy dreams of people that are trying to do the impossible rather than the possible. Which leads them to sit and spew crazy notions as fact. They even write books about those facts, and then sell them to schools. They do not realize that money comes from the printing press. If you want money so badly print it. You cannot get money anywhere else other than the printing press. I have seen people become physically ill for a few moments as they grasp that reality.

Sincerely ,

William McCormick William McC, Sat, 1st Oct 2016

"Although I have heard some people that know, have shinned a laser to the moon, and when they blocked the laser on earth it instantly shut off on the moon. "

How?
Practically nobody has access to bright enough lasers.
If someone had a laser bright enough to light up the moon so you caould see it from earth, cow come everybody on earth didn't see it change colour.

This site covers the maths for you
http://what-if.xkcd.com/13/


"No one ever questions the speed of light because no one has a light speed meter or an experiment to prove it."

Lots of people know about the speed of light- from the delay on international calls bounced via satellites.
And the SOL was first measured a very long time ago.

So, as usual, your posts are full of vague accusations- but devoid of any evidence.
Why not just stop? Bored chemist, Sat, 1st Oct 2016

70 years ago radio communication via moon bounce was all the rage, when Prof Lovell first got his large steerable dish in operation he demonstrated on TV its high gain by installing a taxi radio system on it , directing it onto the moon and received his hallo 2.5 seconds later.
The people who use the reflectors installed  for ranging use a high powered laser and get very little signal back. syhprum, Sun, 2nd Oct 2016



It takes about a second and a half to establish a beam of light to earth from the moon. However it takes no time at all to see that someone has blocked the laser from the moon. That was the experiment they did from the moon. And broadcast it all over the world, I dare you to find those tapes.

Once the beam is created it takes no time at all to transmit effects across the already established beam. But you do need that start up time. So if you bounce radio off the moon, you have to establish two beams one to the moon and one from the moon to the earth. What they did during the Apollo missions was create a radio beam between two dishes, and then basically transmit by shutting off power intermittently, that actually raises voltage a bit, back to the unfathomable voltage of natural ambient radiation, which transmitted instantly. They kept having to warn the astronauts to remember the 1.5 second turn around rule. That is why some thought  the mission was a hoax, because many times the astronauts would instantly reply, with camera men on the ground recording the mission control operators, you could see on TV, the mission control fellow, making a communication to the Apollo crew, and getting an instant reply from space. It was the radio system though, not a hoax.

If you have ever done any electrical wiring you know that you go to the old wiring guide to pick the right piece of wire. Well that works 95 percent of the time. They created that little guide because of horrific accidents created by the misunderstanding of the actuality. Circular mills, annealed copper verses hardened copper, can alter the outcome of your project drastically. So they created a 90 percent over all electrical guide that will take 90 percent of the people who use it to success. Unfortunately some of those guides leave out length of run, which is actually calculated at about 75 feet. In the old days this worked 95 percent of the time. Where it did not work usually in mansions or commercial applications an experienced electrician knew what needed to be done in most cases and threw away the book. So it always seemed to work. Today with everyone wanting to just do some wiring we have more and more accidents.

My point is that the real universe as it is, was too much for most to fathom. In the real universe there are no actual shortages of materials including gold. There are no real wars only political agendas. There is no real food shortage rather manufactured shortages. The scientists with total understanding of the universe had a hard time restraining them selves and their tongues about such matters. Since most could not face the real universe they created a play set of rules that will get you through most of the day to day things we do. Radio, x-rays, heat, have all been packaged into formula that are somewhat effective. However if you ask a businessman that is in the business politely, for the right reason, he will confide that they had to tweak and rework many theories thought as solid.  Some theories "laws" we hold high are just garbage.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
William McC, Sun, 2nd Oct 2016


No, once again you have misunderstood.

You are the one making outlandish claims so it's your job to supply the evidence.
YOU have to find the tapes- not us. Bored chemist, Sun, 2nd Oct 2016


William
What you have stated above is incorrect, or to give it the benefit of the doubt a New Theory. We have discussed this issue at length with the Box in other threads.

You are getting a reputation as someone who provides unreliable, incorrect, misleading and sometimes dangerous information.
The moderators do not have the time to monitor and move all your threads so we will ask you to confine your posts to the New Theories and That Can't Be True sections of the forum until further notice.

thank you


Colin2B, Sun, 2nd Oct 2016


No, once again you have misunderstood.

You are the one making outlandish claims so it's your job to supply the evidence.
YOU have to find the tapes- not us.


That is how hard they make it, they consistently remove evidence about the past. I fight with the conspiracy theorists that also heard what I mentioned about the 1.5 second radio turn around rule, and claim we did not go to the moon, we did. I fight with with people who claim to be scientists, and deny that there are particles faster than light when there certainly are. When does reality win? I fight with UFO believers that showed footage from the fifties of a hovering flaming UFO, just a few feet above the ground, claiming it was proof aliens were amongst us. It was beautiful footage with sound. It was actually my fathers boss's hobby moon rock collector. They used to show that all the time on the history channel. When I tried to get a hold of it, it too vanished.

As kids we watched the entire moon landing, hundreds of hours of video. They appear to be almost all gone now. But I can watch black and white footage from before World War Two. Believe what you like I have more than enough reality for myself.

Sincerely,


William McCormick
William McC, Sun, 2nd Oct 2016


William
What you have stated above is incorrect, or to give it the benefit of the doubt a New Theory. We have discussed this issue at length with the Box in other threads.

You are getting a reputation as someone who provides unreliable, incorrect, misleading and sometimes dangerous information.
The moderators do not have the time to monitor and move all your threads so we will ask you to confine your posts to the New Theories and That Can't Be True sections of the forum until further notice.

thank you


When you are searching for truth in a known disingenuous environment run by known disingenuous sorts. It would be foolhardy to assume that knowledge approved by such sorts and systems would be totally accurate. Because knowledge stamps out ignorance knowledge is certainly not in abundance around us.

As far as suggesting dangerous behavior it was other members who did so. And then denied that the inside of metal cylinders are coated with an oxide. If that is not dangerous and life threatening then it really matters not what I say or what actions you take against me. These are real accidents that have happened in scuba shops, self contained breathing apparatus gear, and in the work place. The amounts of oxide on the surface of just about any metal are actually great in volume and weight. That is why the gas added to those tanks can be so corrupted. It is the weight of the gas added compared to the weight of the contaminant on the walls of the tank. If this can be disputed it will not be disputed by knowledge.

I have warned a lot of people that use the scientific grade gases in gas cylinders that the gas put in although totally pure is not what comes out. I have personally used scientific grade gas and it is much better than the next lowest grade, that is much better than the welding grade. However towards the end of the bottle there are strange odors created by the last gases in the tank. This does not occur ever when using liquid Argon or Liquid helium.

These contaminants are not my imagination. If you go to a large manufacturer of liquified gases, and scientific grade pressurized cylinders of gas, they will tell you the same, if you tell them you want very pure gas for your research. They will only recommend liquified product. Because of the oxides or chlorates or carbon in the walls of the tanks. The very pure gases absorb these contaminants from the walls of the tank. I was just warning people of this.

And all I did to help them understand how I know there is a difference between the two gasses is mention that while working in plants that fill the liquid containers, and the pressurized cylinders, that I was exposed to the very pure evaporating gases of nitrogen and CO2. That I at first thought would be life threatening. But as the workers stood there in massive clouds of the stuff working as usual I started to become more comfortable with it. I then learned that the liquid product is certainly not immediately life threatening under the conditions I experienced it in. Even though I would have thought it would have been. Yet small amounts of gas in pressurized gas cylinder form were immediately life threatening by actual experience. From the pressurized cylinder there was an immediate burning of the respiratory tract. This is not the case of the pure evaporating liquid.

During hydronic pipe freezing operations using very pure liquid CO2, being poured onto a hot water pipe that was leaking, I was in a cloud of CO2 and water vapor for some time with no ill effect. Now I am in no way suggesting people do this for fun. I am just relaying what you might see or do if you perform those duties. Yet I was almost made unconscious by CO2 from a fire extinguisher in a confined space with no fire present. And also CO2 from very small cylinders had this same effect.

The CO2 in welding cylinders is also not pleasant to inhale and can irritate the respiratory tract and surely suffocate in confined spaces quickly. This is real stuff done by real people. I do not know how you can claim I am ordering people to do dangerous things. I am in fact warning them of the actual dangers of pressurized gas cylinders, the surface of said cylinders do contain oxygen and other contaminants. These contaminants are absorbed into the pure gases.

If that belongs in the this can't be true area, I am not the fool.

Sincerely,

William McCormick William McC, Sun, 2nd Oct 2016



You fight everybody.
If you had evidence, you would win the fight.
You make absurd claims about science the, when you are called to account, you wander off into nonsense.

You seem unable to understand that you are simply wrong.

How do you explain the observation that you think that science was better years ago- but nobody else thinks that?

If you think you are the only one who is right- well, let's just say there are words for that.

Lastly, I'm not going to let this (repeated) bit of dangerous nonsense pass.
You say"During hydronic pipe freezing operations using very pure liquid CO2, being poured onto a hot water pipe that was leaking, I was in a cloud of CO2 and water vapor for some time with no ill effect."

Well, if there was no air, you would be dead.
Also, liquid CO2 does not exist at atmospheric pressure. your stupidly dangerous claim to have been pouring it is physically impossible.
http://www.chemicalogic.com/Documents/co2_phase_diagram.pdf


It's not impurities in the gas that make the difference. It's the volume and how much air it gets mixed with.
Your statement clearly belongs in the "that can't be true" forum.
Others will judge on the issue of who is a fool- but anyone who implies they don't need air to breathe looks that way to me.
Bored chemist, Sun, 2nd Oct 2016



You fight everybody.
If you had evidence, you would win the fight.
You make absurd claims about science the, when you are called to account, you wander off into nonsense.

You seem unable to understand that you are simply wrong.

How do you explain the observation that you think that science was better years ago- but nobody else thinks that?

If you think you are the only one who is right- well, let's just say there are words for that.

Lastly, I'm not going to let this (repeated) bit of dangerous nonsense pass.
You say"During hydronic pipe freezing operations using very pure liquid CO2, being poured onto a hot water pipe that was leaking, I was in a cloud of CO2 and water vapor for some time with no ill effect."

Well, if there was no air, you would be dead.
Also, liquid CO2 does not exist at atmospheric pressure. your stupidly dangerous claim to have been pouring it is physically impossible.
http://www.chemicalogic.com/Documents/co2_phase_diagram.pdf


It's not impurities in the gas that make the difference. It's the volume and how much air it gets mixed with.
Your statement clearly belongs in the "that can't be true" forum.
Others will judge on the issue of who is a fool- but anyone who implies they don't need air to breathe looks that way to me.


If you are aware of pipe freezing apparatus, you know that there is a siphon tube in the liquid CO2 container, that brings liquid to the collar through a hose, that is applied to the pipe that you wish to freeze. There it evaporates absorbing heat from the pipe, just like in refrigeration systems. I do not know where you get your information from, I personally do this stuff. You can buy the equipment to do this stuff commercially from large manufacturers. So I do see any need to prove myself.

As far as liquid CO2 coming out, it is liquid I have gotten it on me several times it is cold. There is a certain amount of pressure and a certain lowered ambient temperature created by the release of liquid CO2. Again if you have doubts try google.

If you are worried about danger you would warn of oxides on the surface of metals. And other contaminates. When you remove the surface of what most would call a clean or totally sanitary stainless steel surface, there is a lot of oxidation present. That is how the metal exists. Without the oxidation there would be no metal. It would react to nothing.

The tank the pure liquid noble gases are put in have contaminants, however the liquid product, will expand exponentially creating a ratio of noble gas to tank surface contaminant that is extremely high. Much higher than a cylinder with the same contaminants and a small amount of pure gas input. The amount of contaminants in gaseous cylinders has surprised highly trained experts.

You should acknowledge oxides and other contaminants on the walls of all metal cylinders, that can save lives.

Sincerely,

William McCormick William McC, Sun, 2nd Oct 2016



You fight everybody.
If you had evidence, you would win the fight.
You make absurd claims about science the, when you are called to account, you wander off into nonsense.

You seem unable to understand that you are simply wrong.

How do you explain the observation that you think that science was better years ago- but nobody else thinks that?

If you think you are the only one who is right- well, let's just say there are words for that.

Lastly, I'm not going to let this (repeated) bit of dangerous nonsense pass.
You say"During hydronic pipe freezing operations using very pure liquid CO2, being poured onto a hot water pipe that was leaking, I was in a cloud of CO2 and water vapor for some time with no ill effect."

Well, if there was no air, you would be dead.
Also, liquid CO2 does not exist at atmospheric pressure. your stupidly dangerous claim to have been pouring it is physically impossible.
http://www.chemicalogic.com/Documents/co2_phase_diagram.pdf


It's not impurities in the gas that make the difference. It's the volume and how much air it gets mixed with.
Your statement clearly belongs in the "that can't be true" forum.
Others will judge on the issue of who is a fool- but anyone who implies they don't need air to breathe looks that way to me.


You are playing dangerous word games. You claim that my understanding that basic science was better years ago, is only understood by me, and that some large body of amazingly intelligent sorts that account for everyone else do not feel that way. Well if this large body of geniuses exist they should try building something of quality. Or some of the things we built in the 50's.

As far as needing a medium to remove carbonic acid from your lungs you certainly do. As far as needing 21 percent oxygen, some deep sea sub experiments put that into serious question.

Cowardice and intelligence are on two different ends of the spectrum.

Sincerely,

William McCormick William McC, Sun, 2nd Oct 2016



I take it that you don't understand how to read a phase diagram like the one I cited.
Liquid CO2 does not exist at atmospheric pressure.
On the other hand, I have used one of those pipe freezer kits.
It was based on freon.
http://www.free-instruction-manuals.com/pdf/p3071591.pdf

That's my point; you simply keep getting stuff wrong and introducing irrelevancies like hyperbaric conditions in an attempt to cover up for your mistakes.

For the record re. "If you are worried about danger you would warn of oxides on the surface of metals."
Metal oxides are generally not volatile and will stay stuck to the wall of the tank. The other dominant contaminants are water - which isn't toxic and grease which tend to stay put (like the oxides).
I'm willing to be that  you have never had occasion to analyse the inside of a gas cylinder. I have.


Re."You claim that my understanding that basic science was better years ago, is only understood by me, and that some large body of amazingly intelligent sorts that account for everyone else do not feel that way. Well if this large body of geniuses exist they should try building something of quality. Or some of the things we built in the 50's.
"

I presume that, since you think science was better in the 1950s you are using a 1950s computer to type this.
Or do you accept that, in fact, we do science better now. Bored chemist, Sun, 2nd Oct 2016

Magnets gentlemans, magnets...

I got a question, if it's possible to use a secundary magnetic field, wich the magnets are in motion (spining), in order to use this secundary magnetic field in order to interact with another static one, in consideration the static field I'm refering is compost by two por more equal magnets locked on so that their fields are constantly repeling one the other, use the secundary field that is spining to disturbing it's balance, shaping and redirecting  it?

I'm imaging two repelant magnetic field as forming partial waves like when two rocks fall on a lake, if so, could another field exerce disturbance enought to reshape such waves into a spining, perhaps conic flat surface (Field)?

Like if the lake had no depth, and the rock instead of falling on it more like hovering the lake, producing the same effect but with motion, would this create some sort of spiral over the lake surface?
Or magneticfields only seems to behave like spherical fields, how do a magnetic field really looks like on a practical model? Alex Siqueira, Mon, 3rd Oct 2016

See the whole discussion | Make a comment

Not working please enable javascript
EPSRC
Powered by UKfast
STFC
Genetics Society
ipDTL