In reply to Jouni Valkonen's message of Wed, 5 Sep 2012 20:27:51 +0300: Hi, [snip]
I'm not sure whether or not it represents stored energy, but if you multiply the MGO of a magnet by it's volume, you get a number of Joules (it's not much BTW). >On Sep 5, 2012, at 7:14 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> 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 Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
