[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Jed Rothwell
I do not know of any experimental evidence that demonstrates
excess energy from magnets or springs.
<><><><><><>
Okay, I have seen three. All involve magnetic gradients which most
certainly perform work.
Is Horace still active on Vortex? We could use a few words from him
here, I think.
I can't comment on any alleged closed-loop OU magnetic device using
ordinary magnets, beyond saying I don't buy the claims (which assertion
is not evidence, of course, and is probably contrary to the rules on
Vortex!). However, I certainly can attempt a more lengthy comment on
the magnets which lift steel balls and thus "certainly perform work".
This is area is extremely confusing and the claim, which I have made in
this forum, that magnetic fields do no work is utterly
counter-intuitive. As previously mentioned, that was my reason for
_emphasizing_ that claim in an earlier note. See also, for example, the
"little brain teaser" I posted last night, in which I describe a
gedanken experiment with a couple of stripped-down idealized objects in
a model system in which the B field both "obviously does work" and in
which the model system is so constrained that the magnetic field
obviously _cannot_ do work -- it appears to be a contradiction, until
you work out where the energy is actually coming from.
If you model a piece of ferrous material as a collection of tiny
superconducting rings, then you find that the apparent energy exchange
between a magnetic field and a piece of iron can be explained as changes
in the currents in the rings. The "work" apparently done by the field
on a piece of iron consists of extracting internal energy from the iron
itself; when "work" is apparently done on the field, by pulling a piece
of iron out of the field against the force of the field, energy is being
pumped back into the iron itself. There's no other source of energy in
the problem. (I'm talking about macroscopic effects here, not
microscopic permanent changes in the iron which may result after many
cycles.)
Again, this follows from the fundamental behavior of a magnetic field:
The field _ONLY_ affects charged particles which are in motion, and the
effect of a magnetic field on a charged particle takes the form of a
force which is _perpendicular_ to the motion of the particle. Since
"work" is the dot product of distance moved with force, when the force
is perpendicular to the line of motion, no work is done.
Once again, iron can be modeled as a collection of superconducting
rings. The electrons moving in the internal "rings" are in motion, and
are hence affected by the magnetic field; in fact they're the only thing
which is affected by it in a piece of iron. Stationary charges, and
uncharged particles, are not affected.
And at this point I need to cut this off, as I'm at the edge of my
ability to deal with macroscopic iron! I'm more at home dealing with
individual particles; a full picture of the constraints on the electrons
in a block of iron requires a lot more QM than I can bring to bear,
unfortunately. :-(
I will try, one more time, to explain the most simple one:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotidx.htm
In this image a ball is dropped from 31 mm and from 35 mm into a
curved glass tube which constitutes an inclined plane. This is done
with the fingers of the experimenter who eats food for an energy
source. The second drop causes the ball to roll further up the
inclined plane with an increased energy of 0.424 mJ. The earth
provides the kinetic energy.
Now the experimenter replaces his fingers with a permanent magnetic
field and gets the same result. He places the ball at the 31 mm level
of the field gradient and the gradient lifts the ball to 35 mm. What
does the magnet eat???
This device demonstrates a COP of 1.133. I have personally tested
another magnetic gradient field device which presently operates with a
COP of 2.33 and will soon operate with a much higher one. I will be
happy to arrange for you to view the device. It is here in the
metropolitan area.
Terry
- Re: [Vo]: Re: Read it again Stephen A. Lawrence
-
