magnetically driven engines

[mumblemumble]

So you ignore my post and all its points, because you don't like me saying watts? I'm confused.

My point is, magnets if lifting 1lb requires .7 watts,  that magnet is generating at least .7 watts to LIFT that object.

That lift does not come from anything else BUT the magnetic force.

Now since this force is irremovable from the magnet, you could harness it, with a wheel to propel it. The magnet pushes, or pulls part of the wheel towards / away from it, and as the wheel is turned, the other side of the wheel is now in the magnets range, and is also moved, making a continuous cycle until stopped by an outside force, or the magnet expires.

You need absolutely no outside force for a magnet to influence something, a magnet functions even if it is stationary, and pulls / pushes anything in range.

If you INSIST that a magnets energy comes from energy exerted at it, how in gods name does a magnet manifest more energy than that which was introduced to put the attracted object in range (ie, a gentle nudge from a mouse pushing a needle into range of a high power magnet, and the needle taking off like a bullet)? And what energy goes against the gravitational force of earth, to keep it from falling?

According to you, this should be impossible, as magnets contain no energy, and energy does not spontaneously exist. So magnets, by your reasoning, don't exist... If you do not mean this, please explain WHERE this energy, to keep an object attracted, comes from?

Also, you saying that units of energy and other stuff shouldn't mix is stupid, as its an existing calculation which does so, which is used in physics and engineering, to determine what can lift how much. .7 watts, for 1 lb is what I got, which could be inaccurate, but still. Energy, FROM SOMEWHERE, is required to lift things.

@Nom : Interesting idea, except this is kinda a dumb way to explain it. Magnets INDEED have different power levels, a refrigerator magnet has less power than an industrial magnet.

This magnetism, at different levels, propels things at certain velocities. Its a multiple of the magnetisms force, and the mass.


so by potential energy, your basically using a big fancy word for mass. Why not just say mass? This is just trying to sound smart.

The important thing is, all things have something to make energy happen, forces EXERTED on them to cause kinetic movement, ect. Gravity, magnetism, wind, water, heat, muscular output, THEY are all the causes for things moving, not because something is heavy or has energy. Yes, the mass of something is a factor, and as einstien stated, Energy = mass x velocity squared, but without some velocity, energy would not exist. And what makes velocity? Gravity, magnetism, wind, water, heat, muscular output, ect....  Things don't just have energy, otherwise we could generate power from a giant boulder.

Energy comes when mass MOVES, and mass is MOVED by a certain force.

Thus, if a magnet is being the catalyst to cause movement (as we KNOW exists) Then the magnet is indeed the source of energy for doing so, taking a static object, and making it move.

Your talk about "all objects have energy, its just not being used" goes against the law of conservation, they are incompatable anyway. If a 40 lb rock had x energy, and used y energy doing a task (falling). Then it SHOULD NOT have the same energy to fall next time. But, a rock which weighs 40 lb, assuming it doesn't break, will ALWAYS fall with the force of a 40 lb rock.

That really sounds like pseudo science, and more importantly, its not based off observations, its just some dude talking about stuff and making ideas, with no basis on what exists.

@14

So your saying its complex, but don't bother explaining. This sounds like an excuse, or just incompetence on the matter. You cant just say something is complex, but at the same time insist you know about it. If you are, either its not true, OR, your English needs to be improve to articulate the complexity of which you are knowledgeable about.

It might be unconstructive, but so is you saying its "complex" without providing anything objective about what you are talking about. I encourage YOU to rethink it.

Ok so, hypothetical : brick magnet. One end is stuck on a steel plate. The other is just in the open air. What is the other end interacting with? How does whatever its interacting with change anything?

Your last bit is very, very, VERY overly simplified. Obviously if 2 magnets on 1 stationary part are pushing / pulling (like the troll picture) then NOTHING will happen, because its equal push force in the EXACT opposite direction with exact opposite force

the difference comes with a frame BUILT for it.

It comes down to this, the image I posted (crudely drawn, but whatever)

See, this is exactly what I speak of. The magnets never connect, as the magnets are fastened to the wheel, and the magnet beside the wheel is constantly repelling the magnets infront of it. and as it repels them, the force turns the wheel, thus bringing the next magnet into place, so on, so forth.

So far, I've seen no reason in the laws of magnetism why this would not function, it would imply magnetism CEASES TO EXIST in this setup, and this is just silly.  It also never runs into the "empty battery" problem, as they are constantly pulling, but never being allowed to come to a rest at one another.

[attachment deleted by admin due to age]

[14m1337]

@mumble great, you just did a step in my direction. so I will try to continue.
Yes, my technical English is somewhat limited. I'm only used to "everyday English".

My point is, magnets if lifting 1lb requires .7 watts,  that magnet is generating at least .7 watts to LIFT that object.

That lift does not come from anything else BUT the magnetic force.

Wrong. The magnet does not generate the Energy. YOU put the energy into the magnet by lifting it up to it's actual position. Just like lifting a stone, and then releasing the energy by letting it fall down. In the case of the magnet, the energy is released by pulling some other magnetic material towards the magnet.

Ok so, hypothetical : brick magnet. One end is stuck on a steel plate. The other is just in the open air. What is the other end interacting with? How does whatever its interacting with change anything?

The other end interacts with the steel plate, too. Only both poles together can force the molecules (yes, a magnet does not simply contain one north pole and one south pole. it consists of millions of small tiny magnets. basic knowledge about magnets, teached in lowest grade physics classes in school.) of the steel plate to take the direction of the magnetic field, and thus gain magnetic characteristics. see attached picture "magnetic steel.gif". in the lower half you can see how a simple plate of steel looks like normally. in the upper half you can see what happens, if you hold one pole of a brick magnet onto it.

It comes down to this, the image I posted (crudely drawn, but whatever)

See, this is exactly what I speak of. The magnets never connect, as the magnets are fastened to the wheel, and the magnet beside the wheel is constantly repelling the magnets infront of it. and as it repels them, the force turns the wheel, thus bringing the next magnet into place, so on, so forth.

So far, I've seen no reason in the laws of magnetism why this would not function, it would imply magnetism CEASES TO EXIST in this setup, and this is just silly.  It also never runs into the "empty battery" problem, as they are constantly pulling, but never being allowed to come to a rest at one another.

your drawn image may be crude, but it exactly hits the spot and helps to explain why it's impossible to work. in order to understand that, you must not only look at the magnet itself, but at the magnetic force fields (remember my advice to get some more knowledge about magnetic force fields ?). take a look at "Magnetfeldlinien.jpg". you can find many similar images describing the force fields. now I tried to sketch the force fields of the magnets in your drawing into it: "mag.forcefields.jpg". here you will see, that the magnets on the wheel will build up more or less a wavelike form, with hills and valleys. and the pushing magnet will get stuck in one of the valleys, preventing any movement.

[attachment deleted by admin due to age]

[Thyme]

I ignore it because it uses physical terminology in a careless manner too excessively.

Energy comes when mass MOVES, and mass is MOVED by a certain force.

1) moving mass has kinetic energy
2) mass is accelerated by force, not moved
3) when a force is acting upon an object, and this object is not moved, no work is done.

I never implied that magnets don't exist. I already explained that the energy for the work comes from the magnetic potential. In other words: energy is "set free/consumed" when moving to a place with a lower/higher potential. Nonmomentus Brain and 14m1337 have provided good explanations on how that works.

Mixing units with physical quantities is stupid. Sadly, many people don't even know the difference. I can't ask you how many kilograms you weigh, because you don't. You have a weight, and that can be expressed as number + unit. Everything else is wrong.

so by potential energy, your basically using a big fancy word for mass. Why not just say mass? This is just trying to sound smart.

Potential energy = potential x mass
these are two different things

I might tell you tomorrow why your wheel won't work, I have a question for you in the meantime: Do you wonder why nobody built that wheel? I mean, the idea is not new, and there exist a lot of drawings, but I don't know any use for power generation. Could be a chance for you to turn the physics upside down. pre-post edit: 14m1337 already did. damn


My guess is that you read only Larrys answer. His answer is a mess, where confusing power with energy is not even his biggest mistake. Power is energy/time, which can't be calculated because there's no time given in the question. Joseph seems to do a better job, he didn't bother to remove all that phyton code though, which makes it harder to read.

[mumblemumble]

@14

Know what, fuck your symantic games, how about this : In the PRESENCE of a magnet, in range, and with proper force, an iron, or magnetic object will gain momentum, and thus, energy, towards that direction which the magnetic force propels.

Is that good enough, not saying "give" or "create"? Because nobody is arguing about a magnet having things move, your arguing about if the energy was always there, or was created or not. And this is stupid, really, the point is, in the presence of the magnet, MEASURABLE energy, in the form of velocity and force, is detectable, when it is not otherwise.

-----------

So you just spent an entire paragraph going on about how the entire magnet pulls one point, and how molocules work... ..This says jack as to why it would not work in my design, but ill get to the next part. Beyond that, your talking in very technical scale so I will rephrase : in the perceptions of the human eye, will the other end of the magnetic field, will it interact with anything on THAT side of the magnet?

----------

Your last bit, if anything, strengthens my point, heres why : First off, the valleys would be ignorable since momentum will stay on the wheel for a bit. Giving a wheel a good push, and it will spin for several second before friction makes it die down. Thus, these "valleys" Will be skipped over, and then get a boost, similar to how one runs, with each stride giving a boost, but otherwise, going along the ground carried by momentum. Just like a teather ball, it can spin from intermittent pushes and fly with the momentum. You see, an object in motion tends to stay in motion =P

NOT ONLY this, but your diagram makes me think theres a larger margin for error : I assumed magnets needed to be directly facing to pull, but it seems instead that one  could have the magnet pointed slightly away, but in close proximity, but STILL get propulsion. Regardless, I appreciate your post.

@Thyme

1: This is kinda rephrasing my quote. When mass is moved, pushed, it gains kinetic energy. In other words, energy (kinetic energy) is manifested when mass moves. This is literally what I said, but different word choice.
2: Please explain the difference. How can something move, without acceleration, or accelerate without moving. Sonic the hedge hog never went fast while standing still 
3: I guess this it technically true?... But unsure what this has to do with anything. Of course a man pushing a concrete wall will do nothing... I wasn't arguing that.

I'm concluding that your guys are saying "potential energy" as a fancy way of stating mass. I mean, your entire argument about it is that "ALL THINGS" have potential energy, but certain things release this potential energy, but only in certain amounts depending on what it is. But, all things have potentially infinite energy (except magnets, because reasons) but the energy inside these things only comes out if a force is applied. BUT, the energy DOES NOT COME FROM THE APPLIED FORCE!!! It comes from the object, which was always there. So a 357 bullet always, at all point of life, contained the energy to kill a person, but just spontaneously released it when fired...I guess

Is this what you guys are saying? Also, how do magnets fall if they dont have energy? I'm lost 

A big part if you are massively OVERSIMPLIFYING IT!!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy
You can see, an object doesn't simply HAVE it, its a hyper specific thing which is BECAUSE of the forces near and around it, SUCH AS gravity, magnetism, gunpowder, ect. An object doesn't just "have" potential energy, at all times, its relevant to what is around it in that certain situation. And the potential energy is BECAUSE of the force, thus, the movement, the energy is CAUSED by the force, because the potential ENERGY is cause by the force. Thus, you saying an object being moved by a magnet is just the potential energy, you must realize, this is just blabbing, because the potential energy was MADE INTO BEING, BECAUSE of the magnet.

Get it? So a magnet IS giving a steel pin energy, BECAUSE the potential energy is CAUSED by the magnet. Nothing else is making it manifest.

Also, what? Your now just arguing about words and definitions, which is dumb. Especially since you are wrong

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

Weigh : have a specified weight

So you are saying I do not have a specified weight. Fantastic. But I have a weight, a weight which is measured by a unit, but its NOT specified, even though theres a unit attached to it. If you don't have english as your first language, thats fine, but be honest.

My guess for the whole mag-engine not being mainstream, is because it would fuck the economy hard. Same reason hyper efficient cars were made illegal in the united states, as are sonic washing machines IIRC. Think about it, if a person could have a generator which works for years with almost 0 maintenance cost, how would they charge us for it?

[Thyme]

The difference is that acceleration sets an object into motion. Acceleration is the transfer of energy, if you will say so. Mathematically, acceleration is the derivative of velocity (motion).

Nonmomentus Brains explanation was good, read it again, especially the second paragraph. I'll try a different approach: Go to a trampoline (imaginary will do, if you can follow me), go in the center and watch how the sheet bulges down where you stand. It's a simplified visualisation on how the gravitational potential of any object looks like*. Now, take a ball and put it anywhere on the surface. It should start to roll towards you.** Neither the force, nor the acceleration come from you, it's the curvature of the trampoline sheet that makes it happen. In fact, you're also attracted towards the ball, because the ball also bulges the sheet (though, friction is too high to allow acceleration). If you're using a lightweight ball and can't see that, use a sibling instead. The friction is still too high, but you're both attracted to each other.
The magic that happens is that the magnetic field of your magnet (be it permanent or electromagnets) induces a magnetic field in the objects within that field. That induced magnetic field has the same orientation for ferro- and paramagnetic objects and the opposite direction for diamagnetic objects. Same orientation -> attraction; Opposite direction -> repelling; That's why you can levitate frogs in a magnetic field You can visualise that in the trampoline by pushing it upwards. Mathematically, it works with the superposition principle.

Keep in mind that the gravitational and the magnetic field exist seperate from each other. They do not influence each other. BUT, they work the same way, which is why we come up with those analogies.

The weight thing was bad translation, sorry. I meant to say "... kilograms you have". I wanted to clarify that it is important not to use units where they don't belong.

Sonic washing machines? Ultrasonic or supersonic? Anyway, using Ockham's Razor answering my rhetorical question, the most probable answer is that such a thing can't exist. The electricity companies could use such generators to produce electricity much cheaper, with less personell and sell it to you for the same price. Why do we still have to pullute the environment with fossil fuels, risk our health with nuclear power?

*the potential exists in R³, while you and the ball exist in R². Potentials of objects in R³ cannot be visualised, because they're in R⁴. Rⁿ is the n-dimensional vector space.
**you can try to get the ball to orbit you, but that's tricky

[Fluffy (l2032)]

forces near and around it, SUCH AS gravity, magnetism, gunpowder

gunpowder is definitely not a force.

@mumblemumble, I hope you're trying to troll, in which case; congratulations.
Otherwise, please stop wasting time. Several people have tried to explain to you the importance of using the correct terms and the mathematical and physical reasons why your idea won't work. Simply because you 'feel' it should work is not enough of an argument for it to actually be true.

If you insist on having this argument without learning the proper theory, then at least take the engineer's approach; build it.

Your wheel is simple enough that a piece of plywood, some magnets and a bearing are all it takes to move. Build it, then show us a video. (but if it works, you might want to patent the shit out of it first!).

[RickyMartini]

Hahaha hilarious mumble, just concede that you were absolutely wrong. Fantastic.

[mumblemumble]

@Thyme :

But as you say, acceleration begins movement, and movement starts with acceleration. This is why I say its pretty much the same thing, the only difference is you are saying acceleration is the CAUSE for movement.

Actually, the bulge is NOT the cause, the cause is gravity. You see, to identify the cause, you test for ALL factors, removed for all others. If you say, put the trampoline against the wall, it would not roll towards center, because gravity is not facing that way. So its NOT the bulge, its the gravity, which is facilitated BY the bulge. allowing a downward path FOR gravity, but still....the gravity is the cause, the reason, the catalyst, the entire cause for WHY the ball goes downward.  The bulge itself generates no force on it, lest you were to  suddenly jump and the ball got flung up by the rubber-banding surface.

I'm not sure if its ultra or super, but I know they exist, using no soaps at all, just water and sonic waves.

You give too much credit to companies and governments. Why would you honestly buy electricity when you could afford to make your own generator?

companies cannot charge you if you do this, so they label it as "fake" or make videos saying its a scam, or such. I've seen this a lot with videos saying its fake, saying "oh, well this person actually put an REED switch inside here, connected to a battery, and THATS why the engine goes, not because the magnet pushes it". And this is what pisses me off, nobody answers the very basic question of, if the magnet is pushing or pulling a WHEEL, which is fastened, why would it not CONTINUE to spin?

The valleys explanation is false, the "no prepetual energy" thing is a cop out. Best I heard was its inneficient, but even so, I would like to see tests done on how much energy you could get from a generator sized mag turbine.

Also you completely missed the point on where potential comes from. Essentially potential energy is a hypothetical thing, which only exists as "we predict / know that if this event happens, this energy will be released". The energy isn't actually THERE sometimes (like a rock on a cliff), but is "hypothetically" there, to explain that yes, if someone shoves it, it will fall with x energy. and this energy is given by the force enacted on it, like gravity, magnetism, gunpowder, ect. The energy is not actually inside the object, its merely a benchmark, a thing which is a hypothetical measure of a thing not technically in existance till MADE into existance when the force is enacted, and turned into kinetic, or thermal, or other energies.

Its a concept, not a physical thing, similar to risk. Risk is not a physical thing, but is a concept of recognizing patterns with a high likelyhood of damage / danger.  This doesn't mean the danger is guaranteed to happen, just that its likely to happen.

@Fluffy : You don't know how guns work do you? gun powder is commonly used as the force behind firearms of all kinds, exploding and propelling the bullet. The explosion of gunpowder is indeed the force, and you can measure how much gunpowder will produce how much force (+P rounds).\

Just because you call someone a troll doesn't make them one. If thats all you have to bring to the thread, I suggest you leave, considering its FLUSTERING you. The explanations given are flawed, or not accounting for many factors, and frankly im STILL getting new information, so I don't care if YOU think everything has been said, I KNOW it is not.

As for building it, that exists too : you can build a functional model supposedly with a computer fan, dime magnets, and a larger brick magnet. Put the dime magnets on the blades, put the brick magnet at an angle pushing the dime magnets away, and the fan spins with the constant pushing. This, alone, can power an old style light bulb, possibly more. And this is with a 3 inch fan. I imagine larger ones could power much more.

But as stated before : people come out the woodwork, seeing these to say its "fake" or "fraud" or "scam", supposedly trying to expand "the magnet industry" or even saying the video actually had a carefully tucked away battery powered by an REED switch to detect the "powering" magnet. But I've NEVER seen someone explain why the magnetism would cease to work in that circumstance.

the best attempt I saw was someone mentioning the valleys of magnets, but even THAT is not a way to stop it, as the valleys are an absence of force, NOT a force the other way.

@Skissor

Why? I'm still talking about it. And I'm still waiting for a reason why magnetism would cease to exist when put into a wheel....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKBtiRmcjXg

Sad part is, theres a million and one people shouting "fake" and even one dude who literally makes a video who CONSTRUCTS a "fake", using metal discs, I imagine cut out of aluminum from a dye cast punch machine and a reed switch, and then proclaiming all videos doing this use that....but at no point, do they actually build it to specs, and show that it does not function.

But hey, maybe you guys can dust off comments from the you-tube to try and argue me.

Actually I look forward to that.

[Thyme]

Thank you fluffy.

mumble²: saying that the derivative is the same as the antiderivative only works for e^x, not when talking about acceleration and velocity. Don't drink and derive!

[attachment deleted by admin due to age]

[mumblemumble]

Thyme, what part of my post(s) are you even talking about.

Please explain yourself, in context, and stop relying on catch phrases.

If you mean how acceleration factors into velocity and movement, it does. Velocity (how fast something traveled) comes from acceleration, and is stopped by friction.

What part of this are you even contesting?

Unless you provide context to what you are saying, you cannot expect anyone to understand what you are on about.

[Thyme]

Ugh, you definitly keep on asking questions. Though, the wrong ones.

But as you say, acceleration begins movement, and movement starts with acceleration. This is why I say its pretty much the same thing, the only difference is you are saying acceleration is the CAUSE for movement.

if I were to take that logic one step further, position is "pretty much the same thing" as velocity (velocity is the derivative of position).
Where is the literal use of definitions you state to have a fetish for in your sig? What you write is a mess. I'm not willing to explain electrodynamics to someone who doesn't even know basic calculus and keeps defying to use the proper physical terminology.

[Fluffy (l2032)]

@mumble; This is exactly what I'm talking about.

First off, gunpowder is not a force. It's a propellant, and when it burns it creates an expanding cloud of gasses. When this happens in the barrel of a gun (or any area where the expanding gasses can't expand), the expanding gasses create pressure, and the bullet is propelled. The actual force here is pressure (probably, I'm not a physicist, so if someone knows better please correct me). And yes, if we know the chemical properties of the propellant, and size and shape of the barrel+chamber, we can determine how much force is generated by burning the propellant. You're taking shortcuts that are simply not permissible if you want to have a proper discussion.
Second, guns haven't actually used gunpowder (or black powder) for around a century now, so perhaps you should stop trying to explain how they work.

In similar vein, acceleration and velocity are two completely different concepts. Sure, they're related, but they're most definitely not the same.
Velocity is the speed at which something moves, which will remain the same, unless some other force acts upon the object. Acceleration is an increase in velocity, brought about by some force. The units of these two are also different, velocity is (in the metric system, no idea about imperial) generally measured in m/s (meters per second), whereas acceleration is measured in m/s² (meters per second per second), or in other words the increase in velocity per second. If they're measured in different units to which there is no direct translation, they are not 'pretty much the same thing'.

A meter and a yard are pretty much the same thing - you can directly translate them, they're both measures of distance. A meter and a minute are not even related, as they're measures of two completely different things. The same applies to m/s and m/s², or velocity and acceleration.

Your posts are littered with terminology mistakes like these. You take shortcuts when it suits you and present them as evidence. You ignore accepted scientific theories when it suits you. You pretend to be arguing from science, but really you're arguing from ignorance.

I implore you, please take some physics classes if you want to continue this argument. If you don't want to do that, just try and build the magnet-powered fan described in the video you linked. It looks easy enough, just try it! It's amazing to me how willing you are to accept the arguments from the 'free energy' side of this debate, yet you're completely disregarding the arguments from the accepted scientific side.

And before you say I should proof you wrong and try and build it myself; I'm not going to do that for two reasons. First off, I don't believe it will work - the overwhelming majority of what I deem to be serious research says it isn't possible. Second, you wouldn't believe me if I did it anyway.

One last remark to prove my point, you state "But I've NEVER seen someone explain why the magnetism would cease to work in that circumstance". Yet in this post 14m1337 went so far as to sketch out for you precisely why it won't work. It's not that the magnetism suddenly ceases to exist, it's that there is an equal and opposite force acting in the other direction.

[mumblemumble]

@ Thyme

The thing is, you act like something accelerate without having movement, or have movement without acceleration happening. They are inheriently irremovable from each other, which is why I think its stupid to fuss over it. If something gains new movement, it OBVIOUSLY has acceleration. And if you have acceleration, you OBVIOUSLY have movement.

So you correcting me is nitpicky as hell, because in actuality, detecting movement, and detecting acceleration from something sitting still, is exactly the same thing.

This is why I don't care, in the context, NEW movement, and acceleration are synonymous.  Theres little, if ANY difference between something accelerating from a stop, and gaining new movement from a stop.

@Fluffy : You too, actually. Your splitting hairs. This is like saying cars aren't powered by gasoline at all, and gasoline isn't what makes them go, but what actually makes them go is the explosion formed from the gasoline via the spark plug, forcing the cylinder to move thus generating torque to make the vehicle move via the drive shaft. This is very technically true, but the gasoline is still the main part which is absolutely necessary, and is the provider OF the energy to do so, as is the gunpowder.

Besides that, I never specified if it was modern of old style bullets, so your point is moot. Yes modern bullets use smokeless fuels like cordite or whathave you, BUT, often gun people WILL REFER TO smokeless powder, or other powder fuels as "gunpowder" anyway, and refer to old gun powder as "traditional gunpowder". It happens, its not uncommon at all.

With velocity I will reiterate my other point : Theres no distinguishing between acceleration, and movement, in an object which is sitting still. That object, when moving, is accelerating, and by accelerating, it is moving. In the terms of "does it move", a yes or no question,  the difference is moot. Acceleration is mainly to take in the speed of an object, something which I was never testing for. And so its kind of irrelevant.

The yard and meter comparison is also dumb, because, again, I was only ever saying "movement" because I was trying to state if an object would move, accelerate, or otherwise change position in any way, due to the magnetic force. It is not a measured factor, its a yes or no, where are yards are PRECISE measurements. You could say for instance, is it further than 1 yard,  but you would have to state a precise distance. In my question it boils down to, is there perceptible movement, yes or no. The exact level of movement, acceleration, velocity, was not part of the question, and so is unimportant. you wouldn't for instance, write down the range of accelerations on if you are seeing if a sign is fastened into the ground well enough, you would see if there is movement, if so, you make it sturdier, to within a small enough RANGE of movement inside a tolerable angle of flexing within x amount of force exerted on the sign, and when its within tolerances, its finished. The acceleration of the sign, when pushed, is absolutely irrelevant to the testing and serves only to waste time.

These "terminology" mistakes are nitpicks at ABSOLUTE best... your whining about how your personal definition fits, even when in reality, both apply to the context just fine. Like velocity, and movement. If I'm detecting if a magnet moves something, I don't need to say im detecting "velocity" just because you say so. Both words fit for what I'm detecting.

Your last bit actually brings up a interesting point, though one could insulate the magnet to minimize this if this were to be a problem.

And before you start riding my ass about "magnetic fields cannot be blocked!!!", magnetic fields can be "rerouted" through another path, which is ESSENTIALLY blocking, as it does not go through.

I mean, if you want to go down that path, literally nothing blocks anything, it just redirects it.

[14m1337]

And if you have acceleration, you OBVIOUSLY have movement.

What happens if you have negative acceleration? Do you then also have negative movement?

NEW movement, and acceleration are synonymous

correct. but "new movement" is not the same as "existing movement"
to create new movement, you have to do work. after having done the work, the movement exists - which is now energy.



@mumble, just for verification ... what will happen if you prise a brick magnet apart? right in the middle, like shown by the blue arrow in the attached picture.

[attachment deleted by admin due to age]

[Fluffy (l2032)]

mumble, if you want to have a discussion about what is essentially a perpetual motion engine in a meaningful way, it is absolutely essential that all parties involved agree on the term to be used, especially when they are related to motion, energy, forces, etc.

Similarly, if we were talking about creating a new high performance engine, it would be essential that we're clear on all the moving parts - everything you just mentioned included - and not just say 'lets increase the power of the fuel'.

Another example, in the beginning of railway travel, people were genuinely worried that travelling at high velocity would be lethal to human beings. That is, simply travelling at speeds over - let's say - 50mph would be lethal to humans. I hope you'll agree that it's actually not the velocity that is dangerous, it's deceleration, e.g. hitting something and suddenly slowing down. Sure, deceleration will be higher when velocity is higher, but these things are absolutely not the same.

My main point is still the same, if you want to have a real discussion about this, we need to agree about terminology. Feel free to invent your own if it suits you and you can meaningfully define the terms, but don't mix and match terms that mean different things - it's confusing for the rest of us, and means we cannot engage in the discussion. You can call that splitting hairs, I will call that science.