Wheel acceleration...

[Fletcher]

In a nut shell John you believe that gravity is exerting a force all the time - agreed - you see it as 'work' in the everyday sense - within the frame work of physics definitions it is only a force [you cannot describe or unitize force, only say what force can do to a body's state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line] vis-a-vis, unless a force can displace something then you cannot apply energy & work done calculations or assign units of joules to it.

I guess ateotd it is semantics to a degree but I see it as comparing apples to oranges - we all agree that gravitational force is acting on body's at all times - if that force of gravity is resisted by an equal up force then we have equilibrium of forces.

The real argument seems to be can we call that gravitational force energy ? - I don't think so for the explanation above but I don't think that's going to stop anyone soon trying to interchange at will an apple force with an orange energy - semantics ? - yes !

[evgwheel]

There got to be an answer to satisfy everyone.
Work has been around for a long time and most people understood for it to mean energy used, wasted etc. Now a physicists comes along and thought, that is too easy, let’s confuse people and say, hey work means as long as you shift, lift or displace things work is being done if you stand their and hold trusses up for your fellow worker you are doing no work. The boss comes along and says we won’t pay you for 5 hours today because you did not do any work holding up trusses.
This may even hold up in court.
Physicists, instead of misrepresenting the common understood English word “work�, should have used labora (Latin) or anything they liked and play with it until their hearts are content.
If "work" is there only for calculations find another word

[ovyyus]

Bill,
So we agree the people are expending energy....

We do agree: people do work just maintaining an upright stance, never mind straining against a rope. Work is done within the muscle fibres and one of the tell-tale signs of that work is heat.

A person straining against a rigidly fixed object does not do work on that object if there is no displacement of the object. But the Fxd formula and the scientific concept of work have no effect on a person who might choose to only see a narrow view of a clearly larger physical process. Isn't it common scientific knowledge that muscles do internal work just maintaining a fixed position against an applied force? I think it is.

... If the people are expending "energy" to maintain a static arrangement of forces, the Fxd formula just can't apply at the macro level. Then shouldn't the same reasoning be applied to the magnet? Molecules/atoms spinning not unlike the muscle fibres twitching. Isn't the magent/fridge scenario also (by that logic) doing work?

I certainly don't think so. A muscle is clearly quite different to a magnet in terms of internal structure, function, chemistry, energy, work, etc. Therefore, why would anyone assume that the same reasoning might apply equally to both? You won't find a fridge magnet heating up as it maintains it's static position sticking to the side of a frig - it's not doing any work.

Perhaps the concept of a superconductor is useful... an ideal superconductive loop can carry a current indefinitely - there is no resistance, therefore no I2R losses - the current does no work. Yet there exists an external magnetic field which can generate force. An ideal superconductive loop will stick to the side of a frig in a static position forever only because it does no work (no losses). Perhaps the molecular current loops within a magnet body are not too dissimilar to the superconductor analogy?

[daxwc]

Fletcher said:

The real argument seems to be can we call that gravitational force energy ?

Yes, that is my point. By science not letting gravitation take or give energy we have even come up with strange laws like there is no work done when the force is perpendicular to the motion. We do know gravitation will give us work, but only that it is limited to the PE we put into it during a change of height. Can we figure out how to get any more? I look at it like the atomic bomb... nobody 300 years ago could have imagined all that energy sitting in matter. After all the time humans have been on earth we finally figured out how to release it. Is there surprises left in gravity? Maybe since we know so little about how the force works. Then again maybe bessler was only just using the gravity to store his energy. If so what was his energy source?

[rlortie]

Bill,

An ideal super conductive loop will stick to the side of a frig in a static position forever only because it does no work (no losses). Perhaps the molecular current loops within a magnet body are not too dissimilar to the superconductor analogy?

I agree with your analogy; I have always considered a magnet to be an "ambient temperature super conductor". The field around a magnet is the exact same field built around a coil of conductive wire with a potential applied. The conductor will have line loss due to resistance emitted in the form of heat.

Magnets perform the same function with out line loss and to my knowledge loose no efficiency through heat created by their properties.

The statement that magnets will eventually die if exposed to a constant repel/ attract mode is yet to be proven and I have now reached my 12th year of experimentation without any sign of decay. And yes I have magnets on the refrigerator and some of them have been there longer than 12 years, but I do not consider them in a "working" or opposing gradient field.

Ralph

[Michael]

Ralph tape two of your magnets, same pole to same pole together. Within a few weeks you'll notice a greatly reduced field strength of the magnets. Just having one hover over the other won't do it. Regarding heat the magnet must be heated to curie tempreture.

[rlortie]

Michael,

Taping to opposing magnets together is like deliberately short circuiting an electrical circuit! Why would one wish to deliberately do such a thing.

I cannot refute or debate the results of taping magnets in physical contact by opposing poles. I have never found a reason for such action.

You make the point for me! :-)

Just having one hover over the other won't do it.

Hover, suspend, repel, defy gravity, separated by opposing polarity, call it what you will, the magnets do not show any loss of flux. They will maintain there properties just as long if not longer than a table will support a book, and they are defying gravity in the same sense.

Magnets can do something that the book on the table cannot do, that is retain the same properties when set horizontal.

This also holds true when attracting or repelling creating motion which is "work" I agree that doing so in a closed loop or creating a motor by such means is still in question. And yes it is not considered "Work" as the action must be reset by outside force. It is work however if a full cycle or revolution is completed.

I and an associate have a wheel design that is capable of turning 622.5 degrees after a preset self start. It is not stopping where it started but 262.5 degrees later.

Now I ask you, did the wheel perform any work? I say it did! even if it was only performed within its self-sustaining motion

Ralph

[evgwheel]

Just another silly question from a not too bright member. As I do a lot of mechanical work (cars) I often magnetize tools, especially screwdrivers. Am I depleting/stealing power from the original magnet to the screwdriver?

[ovyyus]

EVG, given that a magnet can not do work then it will not be depleted in magnetizing your screwdriver. The work done comes from your arm pushing the magnet against the resistance of the screwdriver to be magnetized.

Does a crowbar do work or is it just a means of transferring work from the operator to the job?

[evgwheel]

I just hope that some idiot will not go around with his magnet and magnetize all steel and iron in the world, where would the poor bloke hide with an pacemaker implanted?

[DrWhat]

Evg, you'd be hard pressed not to stick it to the idiot who would do that. We'd need to put pressure on him so he adheres to our principles and doesn't get too attached to his idea. The world would be more attractive however... lol

[rlortie]

Ha! you have not experienced the fun of magnets until you try machining them with carbide tooling in a machine shop. Have you ever attempted cleaning the magnetic and metal chips (swarf) off a 42" lathe and a mill!

You don't even dare lay down a wrench or screw driver any where near the place. It can leap tall buildings and travel from the lathe to the drill press and othe stationary tools simply by using the same hand tools.

And yes I also have a Pacemaker! I work with rare earth magnets at arms length and request help when removing them from chest high storage. The biggest problem I have to be careful of is cordless battery powered hand tools. The cordless with permanent magnet stators is said to produce much heavier flux fields than the plug in corded type. If I inadvertently hold it to close to my chest for leverage purpose it usually wil put me down fo a day.

Ralph

[rlortie]

This should probably be in Evgwheels "to weird thread, but it seems fitting here. it is mainly for Fletcher and his reponse to john a the top of this page.

Most of us are familiar with Lenz law. The prime example is dropping a magnet in a non-ferrous conductive tube such as copper or aluminum at a vertical angle. Lenz reaction is created and the magnet does not fall at the rate of gravity's normal excepted applied force. The opposing field created in the conductor retards the fall building resistance against the force of gravity.

Question; did the magnetic resistance cause the force of gravity to do work until the magnet left the end of the conductive tube? Did the magnet perform work by creating resistance to gravity by altering/slowing its normal fall rate? The defensive will probably call it resistance, resistance creates heat and heat is a measurable form of work!

This is all hypothetical and should be taken as such, I do however post it as food for thought. IMO gravity is definitely a force and I know of no force that some form of energy cannot be derived from.

my research coincides with John, Gravity is a flow of force!

Ralph

[rmd3]

Bill, I think your superconductor example adequately showed that the Fxd definition of energy is lacking when trying to describe the generation and/or maintaining of forces. Welcome to the other side.

[evgwheel]

Ralph
This topic would have been very welcome in “too weird� thread.
Even better in a thread called “Magnets� as it would be a lasting reference point, instead of hidden in between other post.
Blame J J Hutton for not realizing his statement would be argued for the next 4 pages and divide members in an amiable way. Thanks J J Hutton. It gave me a few days of pleasurable reading.