Where does a magnet get its energy?

Okay -- I get the point that a magnet has no energy. But where does a magnet get its "force" from?

Maybe it was posted a ways back in one of the links I didn't investigate. It seems to me that this question of "originating force" of a magnetic is really what is at issue here.

(I think there is some confusion about energy, power, and force, but the fundamental's of the OP are absolutely good, it seems to me. )

I'll check some of the links posted here in more detail, but I don't think there is a solid answer to that question.

reply to post by Freezer


The video looks fishy. If any energy was produced by the magnet, perpetual motion could be done easily by closing the loop. Definitely a hoax.

Something like this:

Originally posted by nablator
Definitely a hoax.

Naudin must have hoaxed it too huh? Please..

jnaudin.free.fr...

Originally posted by nablator
If any energy was produced by the magnet, perpetual motion could be done easily by closing the loop.

You are right, and Finsrud did exactly that.

video.google.com...
www.youtube.com...

www.galleri-finsrud.no...
www.keelynet.com...

And no this isn't hidden away, you can visit the gallery and see for yourself. If you care to look.

[edit on 13-7-2008 by Freezer]

Originally posted by Freezer
Thanks, thats all I wanted to hear. We can convert energy from gravity.

We can't convert energy from gravity, but we can convert gravitational potential energy. Pick a ball up - it now has gravitational potential. Drop it - you converted the potential energy to kinetic energy and eventually the kinetic energy will convert to heat. Nothing gained, nothing lost.

Now, explain why in the video the ball rolls further with the magnet installed.

In the video with no magnet the ball only starts with gravitational potential. With the magnet the ball starts with gravitational potential and magnetic potential, and therefore moves further.

There is no energy gain in the system, otherwise you could just loop the track back on itself and watch the ball spin round faster and faster...which you can't. It's essentially a trick, a scientific illusion.

It's explained in more detail here:

The device does not gather "free energy" as is sometimes advertised. It does convert potential energy in the form of the steel ball's distance from the magnetic source to kinetic energy as it rolls towards it - just as is done by any object when it falls

en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 13/7/08 by FatherLukeDuke]

Originally posted by nablator
The video looks fishy. If any energy was produced by the magnet, perpetual motion could be done easily by closing the loop. Definitely a hoax.

So if you don't believe it it isn't true? Is that how you have interpreted the scientific method?

Something like this:

Why not rather something related to the following?

In the battery, the Poynting vector is outward, indicating
the direction of energy flow. ~Note the sensitivity of this
result to the sense of the current through the battery.! In the
vicinity of the conducting wires and next to the positive terminal
of the battery, S is parallel to the wire. Perhaps surprisingly,
S is directed from the battery on both sides of the
battery. Along the resistor R, the change of direction of E
outside the resistor causes S to change as well, gradually
turning from parallel to perpendicular to the resistor axis
~and entering it!, at its middle point ~zero surface charge!.

However, the result of such an application
and the resulting energy transfer in the circuit apparently did
not satisfy Feynman. He wrote: ‘‘this theory is obviously
nuts, somehow energy flows from the battery to infinity and
then back into the load, is really strange.’’4 Feynman, however,
did not persist and left the problem for others to find a
reasonable explanation. Can we say more about energy transfer
in this simple circuit?

sites.huji.ac.il...

In physics, the Poynting vector can be thought of as representing the energy flux (W/m2) of an electromagnetic field. It is named after its inventor John Henry Poynting. Oliver Heaviside independently co-discovered the Poynting vector. Usually, it is defined as For example, the Poynting vector within the dielectric insulator of a coaxial cable is nearly parallel to the wire axis (assuming no fields outside the cable) - so electric energy is flowing through the dielectric between the conductors. If the core conductor was replaced by a wire having significant resistance, then the Poynting vector would become tilted toward that wire, indicating that energy flows from the e/m field into the wire, producing resistive Joule heating in the wire.

en.wikipedia.org...

For example, the Poynting vector near an ideally conducting wire is parallel to the wire axis - so electric energy is flowing in space outside of the wire. The Poynting vector becomes tilted toward wire for a resistive wire, indicating that energy flows from the e/m field into the wire, producing resistive Joule heating in the wire.

www.answers.com...

Why is energy observed to flow from the generator/battery in all directions and why are we only using that which is diverged into the circuit to power loads? Why are we in fact using half of what is intercepted by divergence to scatter the charges by virtue of having a closed circuit? Why are we building circuits that are designed purposely to require a perpetual input of mechanical energy?

And no, it wont help if you try to explain it mathematically so please stick to principles and sources such as those above.

Thanks!

Stellar

reply to post by FatherLukeDuke


So the ball rolling further with the magnets installed was an scientific illusion.


First you guys say that magnets can't do work, then when provided with evidence that they do, its called a hoax. How unpredictable. Funny how the conditioned mind works.

From the top of that wiki page you cited -

"The factual accuracy of this article is disputed"

I would definitely agree..

[edit on 13-7-2008 by Freezer]

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
In the video with no magnet the ball only starts with gravitational potential. With the magnet the ball starts with gravitational potential and magnetic potential, and therefore moves further.

If the magnetic potential is greater at the starting point than at the ending point of the experiment, then yes I agree. As I don't know what the potential curve looks like, I assumed the opposite, because of distances: the starting point at the left is near the magnets, the end point on the right is much further away from the magnets.

The device does not gather "free energy" as is sometimes advertised. It does convert potential energy in the form of the steel ball's distance from the magnetic source to kinetic energy as it rolls towards it - just as is done by any object when it falls

I am not surprised that the magnets accelerate the steel ball. I am surprised that it doesn't decelerate even more in the longer distance after passing the V shaped gate. I understand the setup is asymmetric, but...

Originally posted by StellarX
So if you don't believe it it isn't true? Is that how you have interpreted the scientific method?

What scientific method? The Youtube video looks too good to be true. It's a question of potential. There must be a point where the potential on the right equals the potential on the left. Gotta do some calculations.

Why not rather something related to the following?

Nice completely irrelevant quote.

Originally posted by Freezer
Naudin must have hoaxed it too huh? Please..

Slightly different experiment. Every detail counts.
I see at least one reason why the video with magnets installed performs better. Greater speed at the SMOT gate exit makes the ball fly instead of rolling on the inclined part of its path, resulting in less friction.

You are right, and Finsrud did exactly that.

I've seen this before. A pendulum will move for a very long time if it is heavy and if friction is reduced. Not perpetual motion, but close.

If magnets lose their charge, how come we can still dig up lodestones (Magnetite)? How long have they been sitting in the ground?

Okay -- I get the point that a magnet has no energy. But where does a magnet get its "force" from?

I'll assume you're talking about "ferromagnets", what the public thinks of when they hear "permanent magnets".

This is an actually quite an interesting issue. From normal electromagnets you know that moving charges (a current) create a magnetic field.

In a ferromagnetic, the intrinsic magnetization is caused by the "spinning" of elementary particles, in particular the electrons. It is simply a fact of Nature that electrons have an intrinsic magnetic moment meaning that they make magnetic fields always just as they make electric fields always. This never goes away.

However, in most materials, the spins are averaged to zero (pointing in all different directions) so that on a human scale, there is no big magnetic field because all of the tiny ones add up plus and minus and in different directions and they cancel.

In a ferromagnet, however, this doesn't always happen. Due to some peculiarities of quantum mechanics you can have an effect where the Pauli exclusion principle outweighs the usual classical electromagnetic effects (which would result in cancellation as one magnetic moment would prefer to align backwards from its neighbor), and so you can get a certain category of electrons all wanting to point in the same way even in the lowest energy state. This is a ferromagnet.

The hypothesis that permanent magnets come from intrinsic spinning currents goes all the way back to Ampere! And it was validated by Einstein / DeHaas (en.wikipedia.org...) which in modern terms means that the spin angular momentum of electrons which creates ferromagnetism really is somehow interchangable with "real" classical angular momentum.

By the way, lack of knowledge about the EdH effect may explain certain "free energy" setups which appear to the naive inventor to be violating some physical laws.

Originally posted by nablator
I've seen this before. A pendulum will move for a very long time if it is heavy and if friction is reduced. Not perpetual motion, but close.

Great, I see you neither read the articles, and completely ignored the rest of the device. Didn't expect that you would delve any further.. Your loss, not mine.

Originally posted by Freezer
Great, I see you neither read the articles, and completely ignored the rest of the device. Didn't expect that you would delve any further..

Your loss, not mine.

Which article? Finsrud's gallery has no article AFAIK. I know about Naudin's website. The experiment is different. He takes the magnet away and puts them backwards, at a different place, and then claims he gets more energy???

I concede the SMOT on Youtube is not a hoax (except the accronym SMOT, clearly IS a hoax!). You will notice the comment, in German says "10% verbesserung". I studied German in school a long time ago, and forgot 90%, but it means 10% improvement with magnets installed. The author is not claiming over-unity, only a more efficient setup, minimizing friction when speed is the highest, at the exit of the V-shaped magnetic gate. Without the drop at this point, the experiment would not work. In short the ball's path is rigged to perform better friction-wise with a higher speed near the magnet and a slower speed further away. No mystery there.

reply to post by nablator


Glad you fabricated an explanation that puts your mind at ease. Again, its not my loss, only those who choose to ignore it. I am glad we have real experimenters like Naudin who actually do the experiments, rather than read how it can't work in a text book. Again I didn't expect to open your mind and give it a chance. Funny how you construct your own theory to suit your preconceived notion of how it should work,..I found that hilarious..

Originally posted by nablator
Without the drop at this point, the experiment would not work. In short the ball's path is rigged to perform better friction-wise with a higher speed near the magnet and a slower speed further away. No mystery there.

How much friction is this wheel suffering from?

video.google.com...

Must be rolling downhill huh?

You can lie to yourself all you want, but in the end nature doesn't have to conform to made-man laws.

[edit on 14-7-2008 by Freezer]

Freezer, I thought I could have reasonable debate with you, unfortunately you just insist on spamming "laughing heads" in place of an argument.

Originally posted by Freezer
So the ball rolling further with the magnets installed was an scientific illusion.

Yeah, of course nobody posts misleading videos on youtube do they...?

First you guys say that magnets can't do work, then when provided with evidence that they do,

What evidence? Do you really not get magnetic potential? If I pick a ball up drop it do you think the Earth is doing work? No? But if I put a steel ball near a magnet and let go you think the magnet is doing work?

You mock our explanations, but offer little of your own. If you think that the magnet in the video is doing work then you are saying that we over-turn models that are at the heart of all physics. If you want to do that then I would suggest that you come up with some new models we can work from, rather than just laughing.

Funny how the conditioned mind works.

Funny how the rational mind works.

"The factual accuracy of this article is disputed"

I would definitely agree..

Though not disputed by you I notice. I'd be very interested to see how your assessment of how a so-called SMOT works differs from the explanation in the wiki article.

The Finsrud device is no more OU than a wind up clock is, and Finsrud doesn't claim any different. If it was OU then it would, by definition, gain energy every cycle - if it did this then you could apply a load to it...which you can't.

Good luck chasing shadows in the "free-energy" world...

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
Freezer, I thought I could have reasonable debate with you, unfortunately you just insist on spamming "laughing heads" in place of an argument.

I'd hardly call it reasonable when at every instance the negative perspective is chosen. Sorry I don't argue, and am not here to walk you to reality. I've taken the time to do the research and experiment and have listened to what these people have to say, I don't just dismiss it outright and call it a hoax based on preconceived notions. Give it a chance, and you open the door to a new reality.

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
Yeah, of course nobody posts misleading videos on youtube do they...?

Sure, but does a guy sign up an account and hoax two videos about smot? I think not.. Besides there are many videos of that same experiment, one of which I linked and was done by Naudin who I for one respect. I've also done the experiment myself..Wasn't that hard..

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
If it was OU then it would, by definition, gain energy every cycle

So the energy created couldn't possibly equal the energy needed to sustain the balls motion? I guess we could call it unity? Does the word even matter?

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
Funny how the rational mind works.

Isn't that the same thing? Sorry I like the laughing head.

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
If you think that the magnet in the video is doing work then you are saying that we over-turn models that are at the heart of all physics. If you want to do that then I would suggest that you come up with some new models we can work from, rather than just laughing.

Working prototypes have already been built, yet nothing was done. The very fact that it breaks laws means that no educated effort would touch it. I really don't want to get into the whole economical implications as well as suppression tactics either, as that would take 20 pages minimum.

Would you actually build it or dismiss it off as a hoax. I would say the latter, which is why if I came up with a working prototype, this would be the last place I'd post it. Why would I want to endure the ridicule, and regurgitation of misinterpreted laws, and how its sooo impossible, blah blah. How many people are actually serious about bringing this about and actually do the experiments? The word, can't, impossible, against the laws, hoax, and the all famous, "you can't get more out than it" gets kind of tiring no? I like talking with people who are open-minded, and who think for themselves. That where the ball starts rolling. These will be the people who actually change the world, and make those necessary gains which will save this planet from the impending doom we've brought upon ourselves.

You want a magnet motor? Here you go.. If it's the youtube format that bugs you, I can give you a difference source. If you are actually serious about replicating it, I will link you to the interview, with Naudin and americanantigravity site owner who conducted the interview with a better, more complete video, along with the explanation of how it works straight from the inventor himself. I even have it on my harddrive for reference.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by nablator
What scientific method?

My point exactly.

The Youtube video looks too good to be true.

That is not a scientific analysis and you should bloody well know as much. If your predispositions results in something 'looking to good to be true' that is your business but i would you not share that type of opinion with me.

It's a question of potential. There must be a point where the potential on the right equals the potential on the left. Gotta do some calculations.

It's a question of believing what your seeing unless known laws ( not your presumptions about them) gives reason to be suspicious. Since there is so much trickery and deception, much of it probably staged to discredit legitimate questions, i would appreciate a proper analysis instead of just more opinions. Since i am not aware of any laws being violated in the first place you should probably start there.

Nice completely irrelevant quote.

Maybe to the experiments in the U-tube videos but i would still like your opinion as to why what is clearly being observed has been disregarded in every circuit in use today?

Stellar

[edit on 14-7-2008 by StellarX]

Originally posted by Freezer
I'd hardly call it reasonable when at every instance the negative perspective is chosen.

There is nothing negative about not believing in perpetual motion machines, just as there is nothing negative about not believing in pixies.

I don't just dismiss it outright and call it a hoax based on preconceived notions.

I certainly don't - I've been following the "free-energy" world for quite a while now.

Sure, but does a guy sign up an account and hoax two videos about smot? I think not.. Besides there are many videos of that same experiment, one of which I linked and was done by Naudin who I for one respect. I've also done the experiment myself..Wasn't that hard..

I didn't call it a hoax - I called it misleading. There is no energy gain demonstrated in the videos you post, otherwise the video makers would "close the loop" and watch the ball accelerate...which they don't.

So the energy created couldn't possibly equal the energy needed to sustain the balls motion? I guess we could call it unity?

Exactly??? Except it doesn't sustain the ball, Finsrud's sculpture winds down with time.

These will be the people who actually change the world, and make those necessary gains which will save this planet from the impending doom we've brought upon ourselves.

Spare me the melodrama please. I'm going to be following, and cheering on, the real scientists researching nuclear fusion or other alternative energy sources.

You want a magnet motor?

I already have a doorstop, thanks.


I'm done here, good luck chasing the shadows of the free-energy world and try not to end up like the obsessives on overunity.com who lose wives and families as they tinker endlessly in their garages pursuing the impossible dream.

"just one more tweak and it's there"
...
"once I'm past the sticky spot it will work"
....
"perhaps if I rotate the magnets 45o"
....

Originally posted by mbkennel

Okay -- I get the point that a magnet has no energy. But where does a magnet get its "force" from?

The hypothesis that permanent magnets come from intrinsic spinning currents goes all the way back to Ampere! And it was validated by Einstein / DeHaas (en.wikipedia.org...) which in modern terms means that the spin angular momentum of electrons which creates ferromagnetism really is somehow interchangable with "real" classical angular momentum.

By the way, lack of knowledge about the EdH effect may explain certain "free energy" setups which appear to the naive inventor to be violating some physical laws.

Great answer! I spent quite a bit of time following your above link, and will look at it some more today. I see how these currents must be extremely localized, because obviously there is no resistance to this current. (By localized, I mean they are taking place at the atomic level.)

Quite a revelation really, thanks. I am continuing to investigate and will post back if I come up with any significant new idea.

Originally posted by StellarX
That is not a scientific analysis and you should bloody well know as much.

I am done explaining Newtonian physics to people who don't listen, and like to feel superior by denying basic science.

Since i am not aware of any laws being violated in the first place you should probably start there.

I am not aware of any law being violated either. Don't the overunity cultists claim the law of conservation of energy is broken? I don't think it is.

Maybe to the experiments in the U-tube videos but i would still like your opinion as to why what is clearly being observed has been disregarded in every circuit in use today?

No idea. Ask someone more qualified. I'm an engineer.