----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 7:47 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Free energy in magnets? (was Re: Read it again)
> > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michel Jullian > > Work is performed indeed by the magnet, but why conclude that total > energy of > the system hasn't been conserved? > > <><><><><><> > > If the clip is lifted by a chemical reaction to the same height, you > would have conventional conservation. Chemical energy is nothing special, it's a combination of kinetic energies and electron-around-protons potential energies. > The magnet might be > conservative; but, not by any "conservative" explanation. :-) > > My point is simply that if you use an electromagnet to lift the clip, > the Lorentz explanation holds and you clearly have a relativistic > effect. Wait a minute, what do you mean by a relativistic effect? Is any particle moving at a sizeable fraction of the speed of light? > However, if the clip is lifted by the spin magnetic momentum > of an unfilled electron shell, we have an entirely different case, a > quantum effect. As posted earlier, these forms of magnetism are not > equivalent. > > Permanent magnet work might be an exchange between ZPE and mass, as > Robin opines. You mean permanent magnets are a challenge to current science? I have never heard them quoted as such. > This discussion is not dissimilar to Puthoff's explanation of why the > electron in angular accelerating around the hydrogen nucleus does not > radiate and collapse into the nucleus. Sorry to be such an ignoramus, but what is Puthoff's explanation of this non-collapsing phenomenon, which indeed contradicts classical electromagnetism (and was one of the main causes for inventing QM, and before that the semi-classical Bohr model)? Michel
