On Sep 5, 2012, at 7:14 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[email protected]> wrote: > For example, there is potential energy stored in a "permanent" magnet, in the > magnetisation. > ... > The magnets, however, will lose their magnetization and the motor will run > down. > This is untrue. There is no such thing as 'potential energy stored in permanent magnet'. That is unphysical idea.
Magnetism is only about information and it emergences from the system if magnetic dipoles are aligned into right order. If we assume that there is no heat applied to the permanent magnets, then magnetisation will stay there forever. And video clearly showed that we can create easily rotational motion using permanent magnets. You can easily create your own replication with neodymium magnets and 3D-printer. Neodymium magnets are resilient enough for such demonstration, but you can increase the resilience if you cool the magnets to eliminate heat that causes misalignments of magnetic domains. Also it is important to understand that it does not take relevant amount of energy to arrange magnetic dipoles into correct order. Of course in practice it requires lots of energy, because we do not have means to manipulate crystal structure at nano scale. So in practice there is required lots of energy. But QM has nothing against it that we could assemble permanent magnets atom by atom. We could do this almost with zero energy cost. Of course there is slight energetic cost that is related to manipulating quantum information and entropy (see Maxwell's Demon), but that necessary cost is something in order of <<millijoules (perhaps picojoules). The problem with magnetism is that in classical mechanics the definition for work is wrong. It works, if we just assume gravity and electromagnetism, but if we try to explain electromagnetism as a force, then we end up in paradoxes. However if work is defined correctly and if gravity is defined as a force, then refrigerator magnet is doing endless work while fighting against gravity. That is: refrigerator magnet is a perpetual motion machine, if we define work correctly and if we define gravity as a force. We do not have absolutely no empirical evidence that would support the idea that gravity is not a force. Therefore we must conclude as a working hypothesis that gravity is a force. Hence ―> perpetual motion machine is plausible. ―Jouni
