OK since no arithmetic seems plausible, what about actually obtaining the device in question and running the obvious test: Let it run for a very very long time?
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 12:58 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > An easy test to prove that the energy is not stored in the top magnet is > to hold the device while it slowly rotates in your hand. Locate the point > where the torque is minimum and let it go. Be careful to ensure that the > upper magnet is not at the top of the fixture at the release point. > > I expect that the device will rotate at a very slow rate under my test > condition. Eventually it will cease to move. If it accelerates as in the > test video then perhaps it is a perpetual motion machine. > > Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: Harry Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Wed, Sep 5, 2012 1:42 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Perpetual motion machine > > I think the question of energy stored in a permanent magnet is a redherring. > Replace the permanent magnet by a spring. The spring will lose its > springiness over time as it is repeatedly compressed. Do we say this > is because spring energy is being used up? > > Harry > > On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 12:41 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> For example, there is potential energy stored in a "permanent" magnet, in > >> the magnetisation. > > > > > > This is one of the quantities that must be entered into the arithmetic I > > originally requested of the system cited in the original post. > > > > If we can assign an inductance and current value to the contents of a > > permanent magnet, we can coservatively calculate the energy in a permanent > > magnet according to the equation: > > > > E = L*I^2/2 > > > > How might we go about assigning L and I values given a specific magnetism? > > >
