Michel Jullian wrote:
----- 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?
Magnetism is one of the few effects which seems clearly to be a
"relativistic effect" but which occurs when velocities are far, far less
than C.
The predicted magnetic field of a current can be obtained simply by
Lorentz transforming the electric field from the rest frame of the
charges making up the current to the frame of the observer moving
relative to them. Remarkably, the result is a first-order effect --
first order in the relative velocities -- unlike just about everything
else predicted by relativity.
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
