Energy and Electromagnetism

The point is that a ball bearing cannot stay suspended in air without some form of energy input to the system

Correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_force

With a correct feedback circuit implemented the electromagnet can levitate objects (be they steel or even frogs) using only gravity as the opposing force, but what do you think will happen to the rare earth magnet when it is exposed to a powerful electromagnetic field over time? Will it stay the same or will its magnetic strength dissipate as a battery's charge would when powering an electrical load?

I am not asking about "work" here because we understand no movement occured

What about the interaction between the two opposing two magnetic fields, what about gravity?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(physics)

Work is work, be it electrical or physical and you cannot get something for nothing (like suspending an object in the air against gravity) or get out more than you put in.

Does this answer your question?

Hello there, WJMFIRE. An interesting thread topic.

To be certain I understand your theoretical experiment: These two suspended magnets have NO relationship to each other. They may be is different rooms perhaps in different buildings. Correct?

If this is correct, and we assume coercivity of the REM as, gee I don't know, a billion (theoretical experiment), so after the century the magnetic attraction is the same. And both of the ball bearings became saturated within a minute of the experiment starting (theoretical), so the attractions, while not necessarily the same, were constant within each leg of the experiment...

Ya know, you just may be onto something... Can you think of any way to harness this 'Free Energy' that you may have discovered?

Please share with us any ideas you may have. I feel pretty certain the other members would LOVE to hear them.

While I am thinkin of it, the energy consumed in your example works out to about 27,400MW per day. That is one BIG electromagnet!

Enjoy the ride!

We all understand there is no free energy. There are currently in use material handling systems which use magnets to decelerate the materials. Take for example the Denver Airport baggage handling system (if they ever actually got it to work).Do you not agree that decelerating baggage is taking advantage not of "free energy" as you put it, but some form of energy? Incidentally, the rare earth magnets will lose a maximum of 20% power if placed under maximum stress over time.

How about simplifying the questions?

Let's assume one very strong magnet, hanging down from the ceiling on a string, the stalactite magnet. Now, the stalagmite , secured to the floor by a string, Mr. Ball bearing, positioned so that it is attracted to the magnet, with an air gap, between them.

Questions:

1) What's the source of the energy in the magnet that is opposing and overcoming the force of gravity? Monopoles?

2) will the magnet, given the general description, likely wear out, allowing Mr. Ball bearing to fall?

I am just curious because I saw an interesting piece of work in an art gallery. Inside a shadowbox was a pill bottle marked " anti-gravity pills", secured to the bottom of the frame with a thread, super strong magnet hidden in frame above, cute piece, you could poke the bottle and it would wobble around and return to center.

Packrat

As I have personally thought of it gravity is a definable energy itself. We use it to do work all the time without thinking about it. Hydroelectric power is a common example.

So by definition anything resting a work force is also another work force. To me that defines a permanent magnets magnetic field as an energy source being it can be used to resist gravity in some applications and an exact measurement of its force can be quantified and reproduced with an electromagnet.

permanent magnets can levitate a train if set up right and the energy they expend doing it is far greater than that which was used to make them.

The down side is that when energy's are defined on the quantum level stuff gets rather weird as I have understood it. And magnetic energy is a form of quantum something or other. (possibly a subcomponent of wibbley wobbly timey whimey stuff)The Doctor will explain later.

Nice little mind trap you've generated here. But you've made it a little to hard on yourself. First, with the permanent and electromagnet to be able to suspend the ball bearing without touching it you must have the magnetic attraction exactly match the gravitational force of the bearing and any other small incidental forces (i.e. wind, insect landing ) that happen over your 100 years. This is important because the net attractive force is very non-linearly based on the gap, if any, between magnet and bearing. So the slightest unbalanced force opening the gap will cause the gravity repulsing force to decrease and the ball drops. The slightest additional upward force on the ball bearing closes the gap, the upward magnetic force increases and contact is quickly made between magnet and bearing. Now with contact made, a mechanical Normal force gets generated between magnet and bearing of only enough magnitude so that gravity and this new normal force is equal but opposite to the magnetic force so that no further motion of the bearing occurs.

So lets instead repose your question with a permanent magnet strong enough that for 100 years the magnetic force remains greater than the weight of each ball bearing for both the electromagnet and permanent magnet. The permanent magnet does no work on the bearing for this 100 years for nothing moved in this inertial reference. While the electromagnet requires scads of power to do also no work on the equivalent bearing.

Where does the energy from the permanent magnet come from? Well there isn't any additional energy, there is an additional force on an object that is not moving. The subtle misdirection is by comparing the electromagnet's thermal waste power dissipation as a requirement to happen in a permanent magnet to create the same magnetic field. This is not how permanent magnets work. The "currents" in a permanent magnet are the mostly coherent spin alignment of the electrons of the atoms themselves. So these "currents" do not traverse across multiple atoms and thus there is no resistance. In contrast the electromagnet has the resistance of the wire, so it must dissipate waste heat while producing a magnetic field.

Go outside. Find a rock that has been sitting on top of a pile of earth and rocks for at least a million years. Did that take energy? Same thing.

Energy isn't measured in megawatts, anyway. And, no matter how one slices and dices it, 1B MW is a grossly exaggerated number.

TVP45 is pretty much on the money.

Your sin is to mismatch energy and force - they do not have the same fundamental units. It is a force that suspends the steel balls in the air, not energy. No work is done.

However it is the case that to generate or create a force USING electricity in an electro magnet does require energy. Putting it another way, the electromagnet is an inefficient way to generate a force.

http://www.evsource.com/articles/mind_your_units.php

Very good answer. The work done by the electromagnet is only its heating of the air around it. In both cases, there is no work performed on the steel ball (after the initial lifting for positioning purposes).

I had to give you a GA, even though you are a guest.

I kept reading replies, wondering when someone would give the correct answer. Finally, I came to your post.

I have to shake my head sometimes reading these threads. Someone asks a question which has an obvious, simple answer, as this OP did. There are many posts, arguing semantics and going off on many tangents. People give each other GA etc., but nobody gives the simple, correct answer. Finally, someone gives this answer and is promptly ignored while the posts go on.

Sorry for the rant.

Well, Tad, I am not sure I agree with you...

OP tells us "100 years later we have consumed 1 billion megawatts of energy for the electromagnet."

Thus, the theoretical experiment has a definition of energy consumption. Is redefining the experiment parameters really the correct answer?

Doorman,

I thought that the Guest's answer was pretty clear, but let me elaborate:

The OP observes that 1 billion megawatts of energy (sic) is consumed.

OP assumes that this "energy" is consumed to keep the ball levitated.

Guest points out that the energy is given off as heat, and has nothing to do with keeping the ball levitated. No energy is consumed to keep the ball levitated.

Guest further gives the example that if the electromagnet had no resistance, no energy would be consumed, but the ball would still be held aloft.

How does this redefine the experimental parameters?

Exactly my point Doorman. The Guest did a much more succinct explanation. I got diverted into trying to explain the difficulty of levitation and how permanent magnets actually work.

Hello again, Tad.

As I recall, the only power consumed in a DC electromagnet is due to the resistance of the windings, and is dissipated as heat.

An electromagnet is a type of magnet whose magnetic field is produced by the flow of electric current. The magnetic field disappears when the current stops flowing.

"Guest further gives the example that if the electromagnet had no resistance, no energy would be consumed, but the ball would still be held aloft." Well, if the electromagnet had no resistance... isn't that called a short? Along that line, (we will disregard the low temperatures required for superconductors), superconductors exhibit no magnetic field... (the Meissner Effect?) [Head starting to hurt... did not know there was a test today... should have studied!] No magnetic field, ball will drop. No?

"Guest further gives the example that if the electromagnet had no resistance, no energy would be consumed..." Experiment is defined as consuming power. No power consumed is outside of the experiment definition. I just do not know how else to say that.

To be quite honest, electromagnetism is by no means my strong suit (I just hope some of my drivel is cogent, and close to accurate). That is why I enjoy this forum so much... there are so many things around us to consider; you just never know what you might learn today.

If some fatal flaw in my thinking, please let me know. Not trying to argue, just trying to remember... or learn something new!

Superconductors make great electromagnets. We use them all the time.

Thanks for that, redfred. I spoke before checking for more facts.

According to wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_magnet, they must be cryogenic for operation. Will they operate at all if at room temp? From what I see at link, the answer is no.

See? I DID learn some good stuff today.

Hi Doorman,

I enjoy these discussions as well, as an opportunity to learn.

You can read about superconducting magnets here. The discussion of persistence is particularly interesting. Power to the magnet can be shut off, and the magnetic field remains.

Other than that, I'm not sure where we disagree. OP makes an observation about energy consumption. OP makes the incorrect assumption that the energy went into maintaining the magnetic field. Guest points out that the assumption is incorrect. Energy is not expended to maintain the magnetic field, it is all lost to heat from resistance of the coil.

It seems that you object to the superconducting example. I see it as just that, an example, not redefining experimental parameters.

But to put a fine point on it, we all should have answered the OP's original question:

"The point is that a ball bearing cannot stay suspended in air without some form of energy input to the system. Or can it?"

The correct answer is:

Yes, the ball can stay suspended without any energy input to the system.

And thanks to you as well Tad. Well worded response.

To be quite candid about it, I have been a little edgy on this entire thread... not my usual style. This is quite apparent in my post #2.

Because of this, I owe WJMFIRE (as well as everyone else) a little bit of 'hat in my hand' time. When I read original post, I had just finished reading several posts from scott712, and individual thumping one of many non-conventional energy projects. As I read this OT, all I could think was "Well, another free energy idea... what is it gonna be this time?"

This thread has certainly not gone that way. For that misassumption, and for my somewhat rude post (posts?), I do apologize to all concerned.

Back to Tad: My objection to the superconducting example was based (mostly) on my ignorance of the subject. Even with that being cleared up, there remains (in me) a fragment of objection to the introduction of elements not defined at the onset of an experiment; I believe that may invalidate any results (which here are completely theoretical anyway). I do accept your clarification; it was an example, not a distortion of the parameters.

Has the question been answered, WJMFIRE? It does seem there may be a lot of discovering to be done. Bye for now...

Just to add one more observation to this. There is very little difference between a permanent magnet, and, a magnet formed with a perfect superconductor. The first has all the electrons flying round in circles about atoms with no resistance and the poles lined up; the second has the electrons flying round in circles about the whole device with no resistance.

As I read this OT, all I could think was "Well, another free energy idea... what is it gonna be this time?"

I will admit to having exactly the same reaction. This reaction was reinforced by the several clear misunderstandings of simple physics on the part of the original poster. It is hard to avoid being skeptical when a post says, for example: 100 years later we have consumed 1 billion megawatts of energy for the electromagnet.

If the poster confuses power and energy, (1 billion megawatts not being a measure of energy) then he probably also confuses force and work -- and obviously has, by the nature of the original question itself. I struggle to remain tactful in these circumstances, because so often these threads segue into absurd arguments for "magnet motors", HHO boosters, etc. in which the various laws of physics are claimed to have been overturned or not applicable. Far too often, those threads become heated, because the promoter has a lot of ego or financial investment in the imaginary device being promoted. (I am not, however, suggesting that this thread will take that course, or that the OP is doing anything other than making a few mistakes in thinking or wording.)

Here is an example of how things can go badly: Walks-in-Storms evidently has a very heavy ego investment in certain ideas, so much so that he was oblivious to the remarks of those pointing him in more fruitful directions. By the time he posted a thread on the Second Law of Thermodynamics, he had been reminded many times by others that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not Newton's Second Law of Motion. WIS seems to have left us, but not before cyber bullying several members in an attempt to prove that some second law of something has nothing to do (in his mind) with his HHO devices. Far too often, these threads about devices that rely on overturning basic chemical and physical laws end up turning rude. So it is hard to avoid your reaction or mine: "Yikes, not again!"

Perhaps we come across as nit picky. But the simple fact is that in physics, the nits must be picked. Claiming that F=M (oops, left out the A) or that work = force (oops, left out the distance moved) is just plain grossly and fundamentally wrong.

It's hard to sugar coat that. If we used similar thinking in engineering stuff, we'd have more bridges collapsing and more space craft crashing. Grams... pounds... What, there's a difference?

I think this stuff should matter to us. I became aware, recently, of a pretty well-educated (but not in physics) and successful guy who lost $1,000,000 invested in an HHO "business". Steorn is still going strong, and Zenn motors has a market cap of $140M or so, all based upon their connection with EEstor and the EESU, the physics of which are very questionable, and for which there has been no demonstration of a prototype, despite promises of going right into production (on a huge 3200V capacitor!) without any prototypes. There need to be more people saying: Wait... how the heck is this going to work?

Rant over.

You can actually try out a simple experiment. Take an ordinary horseshoe magnet (why in the world my horse needs a magnet I'll never know), spray paint the keeper (What? Oh, Ed the cat says most keepers are already painted.), then put the keeper on the magnet poles and watch it for five years. Well, you don't have to keep a literal eye on it, just set it aside in a cool, dark place. So, the keeper isn't touching the magnet (there's paint in between) and it stays in place, and the magnet is as strong as ever.

This post has certainly shown how diverse we are. In attempting to answer, we've seen more angles than you find in a vector mechanics textbook. I guess that's why we are forced to call it Electrical "Theory". In order to answer the question, we have to postulate the observable and repeatable (and therefore calculable). I suggest that in time we will discover that we didn't know everything in 2009, and some polishing still remains for this Theory of ours.

You've added a neat collection of non sequitur conclusions.

Maxwell's laws of electromagnetics are well known and solve all of this problem. Convincing everyone that this is well known is an impossibility. Sigh.

IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE, ONE HAS TO LOOK AT EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE. THE CONSTANTS ARE: EVERY THING IS IN MOTION, ALL BODIES ARE ACTING FORCES AND REACTING TO FORCES, AND ENERGY IS CONSTANTLY CHANGING STATE. IN THEORY, WE ARE "CONSUMING THE EARTH'S ENERGY" BY STANDING ON IT. I USE THAT TERM ONLY FOR THIS COMMENT. WHEN THAT ENERGY IS DEPLETED, WE WILL FLY INTO SPACE TOWARDS ANOTHER BODY WHOSE ENERGY IS NOT DEPLETED. THINK ABOUT THIS ONE. "CONSUMPTION OF ENERGY" IS A MAN MADE TERM.

Welcome, but please turn off the "Caps Lock" button.