Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: [snip] > It's certainly complicated; too complicated to solve easily > and too complicated to model mentally with a simple picture.
Very true! That's why computers are so wonderful. IMHO the future of science is held within the computer, as they are great with mathematics, speed, and memory. Simulations will break us free from the limitations of the paper written equations and reveal higher truths of reality. :-) [snip] >> >> Energy Violation #3: >> Consider the intrinsic electron spin, which we'll call >> ES. Ferromagnetic atoms have unpaired ES, and therefore create a net >> appreciable >> magnetic field outside the atom. Consider two such atoms that are >> magnetically >> unaligned. Now allow the two atoms to align. We know from atomic scale >> experimentation from >> companies such as IBM that during avalanches the magnetic atoms rotate >> in magnetic >> alignment. Typically this can take a few nanoseconds in >> non-electrically conductive magnetic >> materials, and much slower in electrically conductive magnetic >> materials (due to >> eddy currents). Understandably this releases energy. On a larger >> scale, if we hold two >> PM's (Permanent Magnets) that are magnetically unaligned, we know they >> want to rotate so >> they become magnetically aligned. If we allow the two PM's to rotate >> they will gain >> angular kinetic energy as they rotate. In fact, if there's no friction >> the two PM's will >> continue to vibrate back and forth due to momentum and magnetic >> attraction. We gain kinetic >> energy, but also note that the net magnetic field actually increases >> as the two PM's >> rotate and align. According to the above equation, that also >> constitutes energy. > > Interactions between permanent dipoles are conservative, as I've > observed before in this NG. The action of a magnetic field on a > permanent dipole can be described with a potential function. You left out a world of detail. The net magnetic field from two nearby ***aligned*** magnetic dipole moments *increases*. The net magnetic field from two nearby ***opposing*** magnetic dipole moments *decreases*. Also you need to acknowledge the kinetic energy gained when two dipoles rotate to align. Again, if we replace the magnets with air core electromagnets then we *CLEARLY* see it drains energy from the current source. You need to ask yourself why two air core electromagnets that are rotating due to magnetic attraction gain kinetic energy while *increasing* the net magnetic field. You need to understand why that drains energy from the current source. The answer is simple. It drains energy from the current source because there is a gain in KE and net field energy. If we replace the air core electromagnets with permanent magnets we still gain KE and an increase in net magnetic field. So you need to ask yourself where that energy comes from. I've spent far too much time discussing this with QM physicists. They have no idea where the energy comes from once they grasp the issue. Regards, Paul Lowrance ____________________________________________________________________________________ The fish are biting. Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php
