Yildiz motor on public display in Geneva 10-14 April 2013

[EMdevices]

Yes of course, it's like the gravitational potential energy, the "sticky" point is the top of the hill, the HIGHEST gravitational potential energy, where the ball remains blocked, it's not the bottom of the valley towards which it could roll...

yes, exactly that's why its counter intuitive.   when you bring a magnet close to a ferromagnetic object,  does the magnet repel?   NO,  it attracts.  Which configuration has more magnetic energy?    

1)  When the magnet is close to the ferromagnetic material?
2)  Or when it is away?


If you integrate the B*H quantity, you will find that there is more energy in the magnetic field for option 1,  when the magnet has magnetized the ferromagnetic material and attracted itself to it, thus further increasing its own magnetic energy.


Magnetism is different in this regard.  And you said the sticky point represents less magnetic energy.


That's because you're too ignorant to understand these things yet pretend to teach others and laugh like a fool.  I would just shut up if I were you.  You've lost enough credibility to last you a whole year.

EM

[Allcanadian]

@EM

Which configuration has more energy?   

1)  When the magnet is close to the ferromagnetic material?
2)  Or when it is away?
If you integrate the B*H quantity, you will find that there is more energy in the magnetic field for option 1,  when the magnet has magnetized the ferromagnetic material and attracted itself to it, thus further increasing its own magnetic energy.

I'm not sure I'm pickin up what your layin down, Energy is Work (Force x Distance) over time so in option 2 a Force acts over a greater Distance for a longer period of time hence more Energy is available to do more work. It's hard to get around the fact that there is no energy unless there is an ability to do work and the ferromagnetic material further away will pass through the same space as the ferromagnetic material which was closer plus the space which was further away, "Nothing happens until something moves." --Albert Einstein.

As well we can throw some twisted logic at this scenario, Does the magnets magnetic field actually have energy?. If we take an iron core and a copper core placed three inches from a magnet and it's associated field then only the iron core will percieve an attractive force. In which case we could say the magnets magnetic field has no energy unless it can induce(magnetic induction) an opposite field in the material and the two fields interacting is the source of the force hence the ability to do work which is energy. If this is the case then the magnetic field has no energy in itself and the energy must be the product of the one applied field and the one induced, two fields.

AC

[exnihiloest]

yes, exactly that's why its counter intuitive.   when you bring a magnet close to a ferromagnetic object,  does the magnet repel?   NO,  it attracts.  Which configuration has more energy?    

The energy in a changing closed system is always less at the end position than at the start position.

It's a general rule in nature that all systems tend to evoluate towards a state of lower energy. This evolution is rendered possible by using the internal energy taken from the more energetical starting state.
A typical case is two distant magnets that attract one another, releasing the potential energy coming from their initial relative position.
Another typical case is two near magnets that repel one another, releasing the potential energy coming from their initial relative position.

If we had not the potential difference between the start and end point, we would have no cause for the system to change. This principle is so universal that a lagrangian is enough to describe a mechanical system evolution, without even to take into account the causal relations for the time evolution.

If you integrate the B*H quantity, you will find that there is more energy in the magnetic field for option 1,  when the magnet has magnetized the ferromagnetic material and attracted itself to it, thus further increasing its own magnetic energy.

That's false. When a magnet magnetizes ferromagnetic material, it provides work to change the orientation of the magnetic domains. This magnetic polarization transforms the ferromagnetic material into a magnet that acts as any permanent magnet, attracts the first magnet, and both move towards one another, reducing their magnetic potential energy.
You didn't yet realized that the potential energy in a system of two distant attracting bodies is more than when they are nearer. Same thing for the gravitational energy of distant masses, or of potential energy of distant unlike charges.
It's the contrary for repelling bodies: there is more energy when they are near from one another than away.
Moreover it's extremely simple to calculate, the potential energy difference is the work done by the force between the start and end point, we just have to integrate F*dl.

...
That's because you're too ignorant to understand these things yet pretend to teach others and laugh like a fool.
...

Your understanding of physics is at a so low level that you are now explaining us that there is more energy in a system after it has released its energy than before! Yes this is laughable.     Facing such an appalling stupidity, the only possible attitude is either to xxxxxx xxxxxxx or to laugh of it, and I prefer the second possibility.
You really need to be teached but it's impossible. I'm not teaching you, it would be useless, you consider that you are all-wise and all-knowing, the last stage of the Dunning-Kruger symptom. I'm just correcting your inappropriate approximations, your misinformations, your mistakes and your nonsenses that you are regularly and pretentiously spreading on this forum and that could mislead other contributors.

[exnihiloest]

@EM
...Energy is Work (Force x Distance) over time so in option 2 a Force acts over a greater Distance for a longer period of time hence more Energy is available to do more work.
...

Does the magnets magnetic field actually have energy?

There is energy in a field. For a magnetic field, we must integrate over the volume of all materials and space, the energy density 1/2*B²/µ or 1/2*H²*µ. Outside simple cases where the field is rather constant or with an easy and known gradient inside a volume of material of constant permeability, it's almost impossible to calculate because we know neither the exact field amplitude nor the exact permeability at any position in space and inside materials.

[EMdevices]

exnihiloest said:

The energy in a changing closed system is always less at the end position than at the start position.

In a closed system the energy is the same, before and after.  You surprise me, are you becoming corrupted by the OU community?  

There is energy in a field. For a magnetic field, we must integrate over the volume of all materials and space, the energy density 1/2*B²/µ or 1/2*H²*µ.

Now you got it, I hope that didn't take you too long to look up on the Internet.  

Your understanding of physics is at a so low level that you are now explaining us that there is more energy in a system after it has released its energy than before! Yes this is laughable.   

I'm taking about the magnetic field not the "system".  That's your erroneous assumption.


allcanadian,

Magnetic potential energy has a specific meaning in electromagnetism,  in a particular configuration we can determine it by integration over the relevant volume.  So when a magnet attracts to another, or to a ferromagnetic material, kinetic energy is delivered (if no force holds them back) but in addition, the magnetic potential energy has increased because the flux has intensified upon the closer approach and the ferromagnetic material has been magnetized.

EM

[BEP]

EM,

Your explanation is true when speaking from the magnetohydrodynamics specialty.

Ex's explanation is true for the general case.

At least, those are my opinions because I have had this argument before with non-MHD folks who required a little special reading.

[evolvingape]

allcanadian,

Magnetic potential energy has a specific meaning in electromagnetism,  in a particular configuration we can determine it by integration over the relevant volume.  So when a magnet attracts to another, or to a ferromagnetic material, kinetic energy is delivered (if no force holds them back) but in addition, the magnetic potential energy has increased because the flux has intensified upon the closer approach and the ferromagnetic material has been magnetized.

EM

https://www.hkcm.de/forcer.php?dna=1&sort=f

It is never quite that simple as the field can be intensified by focusing it, dependent on the shape:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNtZUFhjquw

RIM

[EMdevices]

EM,

Your explanation is true when speaking from the magnetohydrodynamics specialty.

Ex's explanation is true for the general case.

At least, those are my opinions because I have had this argument before with non-MHD folks who required a little special reading.

I'm talking about magneto statics, and quasi statics, and specifically about energy increase in the magnetic field energy, not a decrease.

In the general case, energy is conserved, and changes forms in a dynamic system.  With magnets, we need an awareness that energy is drawn from the subatomic world.

EM

[BEP]

I'm talking about magneto statics, and quasi statics, and specifically about energy increase in the magnetic field energy, not a decrease.

In the general case, energy is conserved, and changes forms in a dynamic system.  With magnets, we need an awareness that energy is drawn from the subatomic world.

EM

Yes, I understand that but remember that a classicist's view is that they are also considering the dynamics while all of the theory only deals with individual static points and all magnets are ideal magnets.

MHD folks tend to deal more with the reality of things such as, no magnet is 100% magnetized - there are always more magnetic domains to be flipped<Edit until saturation, of course> - the magnetic field strength of two magnets in attraction is more than the sum of both - the magnetic field strength of two magnets in repulsion is less than the sum of both.

Any of the above statements will set a fire in the belly of a classicist even when the simplest of experiments will show them to be true.

[exnihiloest]

...
In a closed system the energy is the same, before and after.  You surprise me, are you becoming corrupted by the OU community?  
...

You surprise me, is it the skeptics community which encouraged you to finally make a relevant remark?

(I will use strikethrough for "closed" ).

[exnihiloest]

...
In the general case, energy is conserved,
...

You mean, in a closed system?   
Until now, in any particular case also.
If you have a particular case without energy conservation, show it us, I'm sure you will attract a considerable attention from everybody.

[EMdevices]

You mean, in a closed system?  
Until now, in any particular case also.

It appears you are confused, asking about a closed system, than saying "in any particular case also".  So here's a direct question:

Do you need a "closed" system for energy conservation?  Yes or No?

EM

[EMdevices]

Here's what I'm wondering about this motor. 

What if he found a way to make it run based on the fact that permanent magnets can be cycled back and forth and weakened magnetically?  Thus dissipating their energy.  So, what configuration can accomplish this?

EM

[BEP]

Here's what I'm wondering about this motor. 

What if he found a way to make it run based on the fact that permanent magnets can be cycled back and forth and weakened magnetically?  Thus dissipating their energy.  So, what configuration can accomplish this?

EM

For any method I can think of, the configuration would require a lot of work.

[Allcanadian]

@Em

Here's what I'm wondering about this motor.

What if he found a way to make it run based on the fact that permanent magnets can be cycled back and forth and weakened magnetically?  Thus dissipating their energy.  So, what configuration can accomplish this?

I like where your going with that thought and I think we all understand that "normal" cannot apply here if the device works. I think the laws of physics still apply however he would have to be doing something very different that we have never considered and it's probably simple.
I believe I read a patent or an article where they proposed this very thing and claimed energy could be stored then released at a later time from a permanent magnet not unlike a battery. The losses would probably be high but it is very interesting to consider the possible mechanisms of how this process this could take place.
Any thoughts on this?

I have also read some articles on degaussing where an alternating field decreasing in amplitude will remove a remnant magnetic field. Now if the actual material could resonate at near same frequency as the demagnetizing field it could theoretically form a parametric relationship and act similar to an induction generator through the phase differential. Individual domains sequentially collapsing in time with the demagnetizing field. It is sheer speculation but interesting to consider a possible mechanism.


AC

[exnihiloest]

When you post a comment at PESN (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Article:_35%2B_Reasons_Why_I_Think_Yildiz'_Magnet_Motor_Really_Works) and they particularly don't agree your comment (the more relevant, the more they fear), they slice it now by adding their own remarks inside your comment instead of replying apart. This is an unfair method, falsifying what you say, and creating an unbalance between we and them because we, readers, can't insert comments inside their articles.

Moreover my following reply to their comments has been censored. Only the last sentence has been published, and the reader is not informed that the text has been cut.
Although almost all the matter at PESN is highly disputable, I appreciated it because the skeptics views were also tolerated and this is rare in the "OU community". This time is over. PESN is now an place for supporting the scammers or the cranks, without possible contradictory viewpoints or with contradictory viewpoints devastated by  texts added inside.

Here is what has been censored, which were my comments to the censor's comments (in blue, my first comments; in red, the censor's inside comments; in maroon my censored second reply, only the last sentence being published):
----------------
35+ reasons discarded (reply to comments):
- "Confidence in Muammer Yildiz": not a "reason" but a feeling. A feeling is often misleading.

[Come off it....Business is done everyday based on feelings and judgements]

Non sequitur.
Business is not science. Business is also lies.
Many things are based on feelings and judgements, especially things where the arbitrary makes the law, not the truth. Science is beyond a question of viewpoints, it's a question of "reason" therefore of facts, observation and logic. So we see that "reason" as used in the title of the article, is overrated.

- "The start/stop performance of the motor is consistent with an all-magnet motor": as we have no experience about "all-magnet motors" for the reason that not one alleged PMM has been confirmed, this statement is a pure non sense.

[In fact Sterling has had a lot of dealings with all magnet motors, so this statement is nonsense]

1) An argument of authority is not an argument.
2) If he has a magnet motor that works, he should give us the plans! And if he has not one, then he has no experience in magnet motor for the reason that there is not yet a magnet motor, a not working magnet motor being not a motor.

and so on...

If I accept the free speech, I consider that to publish a reply denatured with inside comments by an anonymous author is an unfair method and a kind of censorship.
Please would the moderators reply in separate comments if needed.
----------------

[exnihiloest]

...
Do you need a "closed" system for energy conservation?  Yes or No?
...

There is no binary answer to unprecise questions.

When you said "in the general case, energy is conserved", the general case of closed systems for which this statement is true, applies also to any particular case of closed systems.
And if you meant by "general case", the general case of not closed systems, then the energy conservation inside the system generally doesn't apply.

[exnihiloest]

Found on ou.com, relative to the Yildiz question:

"Sterling's responses and general tone lately have made me think that he actually has cynically "gone over to the dark side" and is more or less actively and consciously supporting the scammers and false claimants that bring traffic (and revenue) to his webmaze"

The rising of the censorship is a point that supports this view. The skeptic position is an obstacle for the business, it removes the wonderfulness that was attracting the gullible visitors (who belong to the majority of humans, those wanting believe in an eternal life or in gifts from Santa Klaus, see the success of religions and sects all over the world).

[giantkiller]

As soon as a listener has attached what they heard to feelings they cannot be brought to truth easily.

[Allcanadian]

I believe T.H.Moray said it best--- What is the truth when the truth is unacceptable?.