Harry, I think that conventional or classical physics is just wrong, because it just assumes gravity without explaining it. In real physics we cannot just assume such things, as giovanni mentioned. If you hold two 10 kg hand weights stationary with straight hands in horizontal orientation, then conventional physics says that you are not doing any work, but I would say that your muscles are burning more oxygen than your blood vessels can supply. Refrigerator magnet does exactly the same work as your muscles are doing, when they are fighting against the gravity.
Terry, of course Magnets will wear down, because they are imperfect. However neodyme magnets are very resilient and I would say that produced energy exceeds by far the energy required to make the magnet in the first place. I would say by factor of 1000 or more. And if system is cooled to near absolute zero, the factor should be many orders of magnitude larger. I was also pondering that could this magnetic motor be sustained with electromagnets, but I thought that it would not be very likely that it would produce OU. However permanent magnets are more interesting because in ideal case they do not lose magnetism when they are doing work. This ideal case should be good enough theoretical proof that perpetual motion machine is possible in principle. Giovanni, I think that fixed electron orbitals can be explained and understood with probabilistic interpretation of QM. This can give also sound philosophical explanation. ―Jouni On Sep 4, 2012, at 4:28 AM, Harry Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Jouni Valkonen <jounivalko...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> However I do not think that it is anymore complex idea than refrigerator >> magnet that is doing endless work >against gravity or electron that can >> orbit nucleus without losing it's energy. > > In your example no work is performed according to the definition of > work that physicists developed about two centuries ago. Unless the > magnet displaces itself upwards the magnet hasn't accomplished > anything from the standpoint of conventional physics. Unfortunately > physics has no concept of stationary work. > harry >
