magnetically driven engines

[mumblemumble]

Guess I was mistaken in them being in circulation, but an article from a few years ago suggested they were pheasable, and they DID actually craft one.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2548880/Scientists-create-ONE-poled-magnet-unlock-secrets-surrounding-birth-universe.html

So they DO exist it seems (or are, at least in the realm of plausibility), but merely are not in circulation, as they have to be specially engineered.

BESIDES THIS, why in gods name would a "monopole" magnet even be necessary? Please explain, because even if these DONT exist, there was 0 explanation why these were needed.

hell, for the sake of argument, lets say you are 100% right and monopole magnets are outside the realm of physics. Why would they be necessary?

[RickyMartini]

You are mistaken, reread your own source, they didn't make an actual magnetic mono pole, but rather simulated one using an ultra cold material mimicing a magnetic system. So they didn't actually craft an actual magnetic system.

Researchers at Amherst College in Massachusetts and Aalto University in Finland managed to simulate the behaviour in an ultra-cold material that mimics a natural magnetic system.

[mumblemumble]

ANNNNNNNND you going to answer my other question? Why is this mono pole even needed?.

[RickyMartini]

I was just chiming in to add that mono poles don't exist (yet). Surely the other guy who was saying why it was needed will further add to this.

[mumblemumble]

Ah, I see, sorry for the misunderstanding, and slight rudeness skissor.

I think they might be pheasable in a certain circumstance, but this is theorizing. But I can say little, until I get a reason why they are needed, I'm unable to say much else

[14m1337]

I've attached a picture with three example situations, which I will refer to, and hopefully will clear things up.

Situation A is quite simple: If there were no frictional forces, then maybe this thing would move forever, but as there will be frictional forces wherever something is moving, these forces would lower and lower the turning speed of the wheel until it stands still. Considering that you want to draw energy out of this system, the lowering of the turning speed will proceed very fast.
Situation B is much more complex to explain, as I don't know how deep you are into physics. Basically (and simplified) you must know that a magnet is not simply a magnet, but consists of many many micro-magnets. With this knowledge it's understandable, why the pushing and pulling forces are equal (like in A).
Even situation C is pretty much the same, as the magnet mounted to the wheel will have to be taken into account.

The only viable situation would be if all the magnets used could change their polarity at will (ok, monopoles would not be necessary here, but very helpful). Please get yourself informed on electrical motors, very deeply, if you want to discuss this further. The problem here is: changing the polarities would consume more energy, than one could extract from the system.

In the end, everything points to equilization: there can not be a force without an anti-force.

But I can say little, until I get a reason why they are needed, I'm unable to say much else

How would you construct a motor based on magnetical powers? If you manage to do so, the Nobel-prize will definitely be yours!

Whats wrong with having 1 pole of a magnet do the work, while the other end of the polarity fucks off in another direction?

Seems you don't know very much about magnetic force fields. Please inform yourself about this topic. A magnet always needs two poles (which besides makes real magnetic monopoles impossible - electrical monopoles (protons & electrons) are another topic) to be a magnet.

[attachment deleted by admin due to age]

[mumblemumble]

If you mean friction of the wheel itself as a generator, if you put in a higher force than the friction can stop, you still generate energy. If you mean because the magnet is equally pointed at both sides, this is because of that.

Situation B's explanation is silly. Are you saying the magnet in B would not push effectively, because it would pull equally on whatever its pointing? Is this what you are insinuating? Also, why it it pointed directly into the circle, and not at an angle?

I'm not going any further until you clarify.

How would you construct a motor based on magnetical powers? If you manage to do so, the Nobel-prize will definitely be yours!

Already exists, you can make one with an old computer fan actually. Just larger scale ones are a bit less common.

Seems you don't know very much about magnetic force fields. Please inform yourself about this topic. A magnet always needs two poles (which besides makes real magnetic monopoles impossible - electrical monopoles (protons & electrons) are another topic) to be a magnet.

I never said it wouldn't have another pole. I'm saying you just wouldn't need the other pole INTERACTING with anything. Take a brick magnet for instance


You could have its pushing (or pulling, either one) force exerting on a turbine, on a diagonal angle, the force would pushing the turbine out of the way, and naturally, as the wheel turns, it would bring the next blade into place, and do the same.

And having the OTHER end of the brick magnet just sticking out in the air doing NOTHING, wouldn't destroy the process. Just because both sides of the magnets aren't being used doesn't mean it stops working.

[Listen1]

Hey guys, I read much of the topic and as an engineer I gotta say, it is possible, it is not viable. You can't generate enough energy to make it worth it.

BUT, if you want to make it efficient, use this: Ferrofluid magnetic generator. There are alot of patents and other links in the internet, but this kickstarter sums up on how it can work. I think this will break the barrier of efficiency and generate more energy than it consumes on the magnets. It's only a matter of time right now.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1673957641/magnetic-siphon-electric-generator-mseg

[mumblemumble]

efficiency is indeed a subjective matter however. If you made it sturdy, with larger magnets, the generator would require pretty much nothing to keep running, and that is the beauty of it. You could have it contained, and have it run rain or shine, in the cold, without fuel, even in the middle of nowhere.

Pretty sure in the end, over several years, one could get more energy than put in, but perhaps have a lower initial BURST energy than gasoline or combustibles.

Remember, the magnets take hundreds of years to wear down, so if you make solid construction, it could last near eternally.

[Thyme]

As a physics student, I have to say that kickstarter build looks like a scam.
iame6162013 copy-pasta of the definition of the law of conserved energy should have ended the discussion immediately. Though, I find sadpickles troll physics much more amusing.

The reason you can't harness the power of magnets is that there is none. What you're actually looking at is the magnetic field, which as a conservative force field. That means that the amount of work you need/gain for moving between two points is independent from the path you take. Using several magnets, like 14m1337, does not change that (superposition). iame6162013 correctly assumed that the gravitational field and the magnetic fields are similar in that regard, which means you are essentially looking at: ** the picture below **
Click me for another physicist explaining why perpetual motion won't work.

edit: spelling

[attachment deleted by admin due to age]

[Kegereneku]

Long time I didn't come here,
As said:

copy-pasta of the definition of the law of conserved energy should have ended the discussion immediately. Though, I find sadickles troll physics much more amusing.

At least the EM-drive came with physical test and a paper on the theory behind it (and it's nowhere confirmed as true)
It's a little depressing to see people with little scientific knowledge convinced their evasive thought experiment debunked 50years ago is new and will revolutionize physics.

If only we could harness energy from overconfidence & illusion then we would have infinite energy[/img] and time travel.

[mumblemumble]

Thyme, you are playing with, and splitting hairs with definitions.

You say magnets have no "energy", yet a magnet going near another object magnetized or iron, will make it MOVE, and MOVING takes ENERGY. So WHERE does this energy come from? Do magnets violate the laws of physics in your opinion?

If magnets have no energy, what makes things move in presence of a magnet? If not from the energy in a magnet, which you say DOES NOT EXIST, then why does this energy suddenly manifest ALWAYS in presence of a magnet?

I'll just cut to the chase : Movement of mass is a manifestation of energy, which can transfer energy onto other things, via impact, friction, or torque upon something. Since magnets can, as we have stated, manifest MOVEMENT, you saying magnets "do not have energy" or more importantly "cannot make energy" is bunk. You guys are focusing on, and parroting a few lines from a textbook on "laws" which are stated, and not giving a single fuck about what actually happens in reality.

And heres the things which, in OBSERVABLE REALITY, we know as facts, which are relevant.

-Magnets exert force (energy) on materials effected by magnetic waves. This includes other magnets, irons, and to a smaller extent, other masses.
-Force exerted creates movement and momentum on said materials.
-Movement can very easily be transferred into harness-able power. Just look at the old river powered mills, where the river pushed a wheel which then did a task. this can be harnessed to a manual power, or turbines in dams. They both work on the same principle, taking a present force, exerting it on a wheel, which redirects the energy EXERTED from such force to either a manual task, or generation of electricity.
-Magnets can push, or pull materials at a decent range, depending on the scale of the magnet itself.  This push or pull, by itself is 1 direction, but with a wheel, the energy could be continually manifested  as the wheel would continually spin, the spin making energy, and never preventing the magnetic field from pushing / pulling new mass.

Also, I give no fucks about a scientist saying how perpetual energy by itself won't work, that irrelevant, I'm asking for why he says THIS will not work, and how you assume magnetism will someone cease existing when applied into a continuous cycle of self automation.

You guys are essentially saying that, while magnets last nearly forever, can exert force, push / pull things, the presence of a wheel, or means to continue the movement from one magnet to the next, in a continuous loop, would somehow make the magnetic field cease to exist, because "reasons".

And thats not good enough, at all.

As for the law of conservation of energy, how does this apply to magnets?

Well, lets look at this...

https://www.quora.com/How-many-watts-does-it-take-to-lift-1-pound-a-foot-off-the-ground

So a magnet which can lift 1lb, by THESE calculations, a magnet capable of lifting 1 lb, is generating a little bit of energy, at all times, to SOME extent, so this in and of itself should squish your whole idea that magnets have no energy, as the energy must come from somewhere, and the magnet is the constant factor.

Now looking at the law of energy conservation

"In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant—it is said to be conserved over time. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it transforms from one form to another."

Now, lets factor this into the life of a magnet. Roughly 1000 years to complete death, but lets cut it to 500 years just for the sake of argument.

Now lets look at price...magnets are incredibly cheap, and infact, even larger ones are. A 35 lb holding magnet is 7 bucks on amazon.

Now, I am HONESTLY, not a mathmatician, but if it takes .7 watts to lift 1 lb for 1 second, then with a bit of math, we can see this one magnet has an output of 24 watts per second. I might be horribly wrong, feel free to correct me on the exact number, but its certainly more than .7

Compared to the wats per hour for say...a double A... and this is SEVERAL TIMES that of the charge of many devices, flashlights, radios, ect.

And this is with one, very cheap magnet on amazon.

And this isn't even touching into the LIFE of the thing!

The battery lasts what, 24 hours of full force energy? being extremely generous?

MAGNETS LAST FOR DOZENS OF DECADES!

So even if a magnet won't last forever, why are you ignoring this energy potential inside it? I don't feel like doing the math, adjusting for the exponential  energy decline of the magnet "dying", but seriously, theres a LOT of energy there, and applying your law makes it obvious magnets contain an absolute fuck ton of energy.

Oh and, that magnet, for 7 dollars, using the equation for how much it takes to lift a lb, is always giving off, to lift that, 88200 WH, or 88 KWH. So this magnet, which lasts for years, by your conventional math, has that much energy, and can produce at that level, for a decade EASILY.

Magnets contain energy, since you INSIST it cannot be "created".

If you want to say magnets do not contain energy, Please explain where the energy comes from when an object is moved with them, as you are saying magnets contain no energy, and energy CANNOT be created either. So where does the energy even manifest from then, if not from the magnet? It can be contained in the magnet, or created, either explanation works for me, but it is manifested somehow, and you CANNOT say that neither the magnet contains energy, nor does energy come into existence, otherwise you would be saying the energy which is easy to test for, being created in a magnetic field, would also not exist, but we KNOW it does.

Besides, part of science is considering that current ideas may infact have flaws in them. So at least look at what we know in reality, with measurable, detectable factors (not THEORIES) and then form your opinion.  Telling me magnets have no energy, and conversation of energy law means its proof its impossible, then blatantly ignoring that a magnetic field can MOVE objects is being very ignorant guys

Now, I know I might be very off on math, and thats fine, I look forward to corrections. I just dont want you guys ignoring all of these issues and shelving the topic without examining this all. Even if I am HORRENDOUSLY WRONG, and magnetic fields interact or spiderweb into each other in a pattern which prevents this, I can accept this, but I want proof for that being a mechanic of magnetism.

I also would love to see someone calculate how much energy is contained in a magnet to exert that force, for that long.

[Thyme]

I stopped reading when I reached the link I didn't click. Watt is the unit of Power. Never mix units and physical quantities!

The reason I stopped reading: Repeated use of wrong terms. Magnets have a magnetic field and it's this field that exerts force on any object in that field (which includes the magnet).
To clarify: You need to apply force to accelerate an object (aka "set it in motion"), which requires energy. The energy comes from the Potential (from whatever field we are talking about, be it electric, magnetic, gravitational, ...). It's a mere exchange from potential energy to kinetic energy. I explain it that way, because that's how the mathematics of these fields works. (The math behind all those fields is the same, except for the constants.) Thoroughly use of mathematics is the reason we didn't have to stop at splitting hairs. We can split atoms.

[Nonmomentus Brain]

The movement observed isn't due to energy in the magnet, but due to the potential energy of the object that's moved. It's similar to gravity: If something falls down, that's not because the Earth has energy that it gives to that thing, but because the object has potential energy that can be released by falling down. And, obviously, you can't generate free energy from Earth's gravity because once something has fallen down, you have to use at least as much energy as was released in the fall to get it to its prior height again (in practice, inefficiencies like friction mean it'll take more).

In the case of the magnet, if something is attracted to it, you'll have to exert at least as much energy to move it away from the magnet as was released when it was accelerated towards it. For magnetic repulsion, it's the same, just the other way around. Of course, you could just have a big magnet, let it attract a lot of stuff and not bother with removing it again. In that case, of course, you'd gain energy, but only the energy that was already in the objects. Imagine asteroids falling towards Earth: They definitely do release a lot of energy, but they already contained it as potential energy because they were so high above the Earth.

I hope this clears things up. If you have any questions, just ask!

[14m1337]

Situation B's explanation is silly. Are you saying the magnet in B would not push effectively, because it would pull equally on whatever its pointing? Is this what you are insinuating? Also, why it it pointed directly into the circle, and not at an angle?

Basically, B is the same as A, but the force vectors are much more complicated to understand and imagine. THIS is what I meant with "more complex".

I'm not going any further until you clarify.

This is an unconstructive statement. Rethink this, if you really want to continue discussion.

Seems you don't know very much about magnetic force fields. Please inform yourself about this topic. A magnet always needs two poles (which besides makes real magnetic monopoles impossible - electrical monopoles (protons & electrons) are another topic) to be a magnet.

I never said it wouldn't have another pole. I'm saying you just wouldn't need the other pole INTERACTING with anything. Take a brick magnet for instance

as soon as the pole is there, it WILL interact. the pole is not interested in your thoughts, and does what it wants. you MUST take both poles into account.

as an engineer

As a physics student

I hope you two are more successful in bringing light into a dark and empty cave. My explanation skills seem to be too limited. And to be honest: my time is far better invested into playing Rimworld.


@mublewhatever: one last thought. magnets are not a source of unlimited energy: think of magnets as batteries. if you have two magnets that pull each other, this would be the equivalent of using the electrical energy stored in the batteries. as soon as the magnets touch each other, they can't move relatively to the other one any more. This resembles the empty battery. To make the magnets being able to attract each other again, you have to invest energy and divide them again. This would be "charging the battery".

now I'm out
you are right, and I have my peace