Posted by Davis Landstrom (195.92.194.13) on January 23, 2002 at 10:01:19:
In Reply to: Re: Three SMOT theories posted by Christopher on January 22, 2002 at 12:01:23:
I fully understand that a magnetic force field acts to conserve energy and to carry out energy transformations that take place within it's field of influence. A good example of this is the generation of magnetic touque that occures when you try to 'levatate' one permanent magnet obove another one when they are both in opposition, the magnet that you are trying to levatate is 'flipped' over until both poles are in attraction mode and the two magnets come together, this is because of magnetic touque and the energy for this comes from potential energy that you give to the 'levatating' magnet by putting it in possition above the fixed magnet. There is no overunity here as the magnetic force is simply allowing the conversion of one type of energy into another.
The SMOT is however something quite different, it allows a ball to be impelled into the accelerating magnetic field gradient up the ramp and then through gravity the ball is allowed to drop clear of the zone of magnetic influence at the end of the ball's climb and move away from the ramp with no resistance, the ramp is driving the ball through it with zero input of energy on your part.
The first law of thermodynamics which talks about energy in a system always being conserved and converted as opposed to created and destroyed MUST be allowing the SMOT to aquire it's energy from some source. I have already been through a list of potential energy sources but I feel that I must clarify on the first suggested energy source.
I suggested that magnets were created with a quantity of electrodynamic potential, this would be a potential energy that is associated with the spins and alighnments of the electrons that generate the permanent magnetic field, I then went on to suggest that it was this energy that gave the ball the energy to move up the ramp.
There is a difference between what is being proposed as the energy source and 'magnetic' energy, as the energy source that I am proposing here is a form of potential energy that the magnets could in theory expend should they be made to do work for long enough. The magnetic force is simply the mechanism through which this potential energy is transfered the force it's self is not the source of energy so therefor the first law of thermodynamics is not violated.
Only a small amount of energy is required to move a small steel ball up a ramp, so therefor the associated decrease in the flux density would be practicaly un-measurable. Based on this I suspect that your standard anisotropic (ceramic) magnet would not last it's full life span. It would be like an uncoiled spring, with no more energy to expend.
The evidence for this is in the fact that Physicists quite often get anomolous excess energy from experiaments with 'spining' particles and magnetic dipole forces, but the energy is not anaomolous as physicists will tell you that the source of the energy is from the 'complexity' (Alighnment and electrodynamic exchange) of the 'spinning' electrons.
Some free energy people who claim to have built working permanent magnet motors often claim that after a period of long duration opperation the magnetic flux densities of the magnets are tested and there is no enhanced decrease as you would expect if the above were true, one famous example of this is in the case of Lee Bowman a Californian inventor who built a strange looking device that had three wheels with magnets possitioned around them, (the wheels were geared to each other to synchronise their movements) This device was apparently run for a year under load! after that Mr.Bowman took all his Alcomax magnets that he had used and sent them to the manufacturers, apparently there was no decrease in the field strength.
If Mr.Bowman's perpetuum mobile was genuine then it would suggest that it was extracting it's energy from somewhere else possably the active vacume. But we know too little about this machine or the active vacume to speculate, it is mearly a hypothesis.
: : I wonder if the magnets won't eventually wear out.
: I know that cheaper cerami as invisible spring' model flakes out (at least in my mind) in two areas:
: 1. When suspended (attracting upwards or lifting.) If you place a magnet on the ground and place a magnet above it, like poles facing each other, it will behave exactly like an invisible spring... but.. if you suspend a weight from a spring it will stretch the spring to some limit point and then bounce around that limit point. This means the spring's pull increases as the weight gets farther away from it. A magnet attracting another magnet (opposite poles of course) or a ferrous weight from above will decrease its pull as the weight gets farther away and increase it's pull as the weight gets closer. This is backwards from a spring.
: 2. A spring always just compresses if you push on it or stretches if you pull on it. That's just about all it can do. Depending on the material and/or the pole configuration, a magnet may actually help you when compressing (like poles opposing=spring, opposites opposing or ferrous material=opposite of a spring) This is also very un-spring like behavior.
: Don't know if this helps or just confuses but it sure is fun to talk about. Oh, and everything I know I learned from Mr. Wizard so if I got anything really wrong here feel free to correct away :-)