Gravity and Permanent Magnetism as energy sources

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of using gravity and permanent magnetism as potential energy sources for a new form of motor. Participants explore the feasibility of materials that could disrupt magnetic fields and the implications for perpetual motion devices.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that if a non-magnetic material could disrupt the magnetic lines of force between two repelling magnets, it could lead to a new motor design that utilizes both gravity and magnetism.
  • Another participant argues that the idea of blocking gravity to create a perpetual motion machine implies the existence of impossible materials, suggesting that such a concept is fundamentally flawed.
  • A different participant reflects on the surprising advancements in science, citing examples like frogs suspended in magnetic fields and superconductivity, and expresses curiosity about what else might be possible despite established limitations.
  • One participant critiques the notion of magnetic energy holding objects in place, emphasizing that energy must be input to achieve such states, and discusses historical calculations related to magnetic levitation.
  • Another participant warns against the misconceptions surrounding perpetual motion machines, referencing specific cases of fraudulent claims related to similar concepts and asserting that blocking magnetic fields requires energy.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the feasibility of using gravity and magnetism in the proposed manner, with some supporting the exploration of new materials and others firmly opposing the concept of perpetual motion machines. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the limitations of current understanding regarding magnetic fields and energy sources, as well as the dependence on hypothetical materials that may not exist. There is also a recognition of the historical context of similar discussions leading to misconceptions.

exwso2001
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
I'm an IT person - non-scientist - but this problem has challenged me ever since high school physics:

If two permanent magnets - pole to like pole - repel each other, the magnet suspended possesses potential energy. If a material can be found (that is non-magnetic and without any power source) that can disrupt the magnetic lines of force between the two magnets to where the magnets' separation decreases, then gravity would be providing the second source of energy (kinetic energy). You would basically have a new form of motor. Would it really be considered a perpetual motion device since gravitity and magnetism are both supplying energy?

It seems like new materials are being developed everyday. I just read about pyrolytic carbon and diamagnetism. Has something (not yet tried) been developed recently that can address this question? Is it just not feasible?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If a material can be found
Similarly if a material could be found that blocked gravity you could make a perpetual motion machine with a pulley. That rather suggests such a material is impossible.

ps. This thread will get locked now, we don't allow discussion of perpetual motion machines since it tends to bring out the cranks.
Nothing personal and please don't feel got-at!
 
No offense. Like I said I'm no scientist. I just read about frogs suspended in strong magnetic fields and superconductivity where a current can last nearly forever, and wondered - No one would have believed these events possible in the past - so what else is possible. einstein mentioned it's impossible to go faster than the speed of light, but it doesn't stop people from trying to find ways to do it. Science is always full of new surprises.
Charlie
 
Since nobody has locked it yet ...
Magnets are weird (even to people who are supposed to understand them) so are a prime topic of crackpottery, gyroscopes are the other!

Suspending a frog above a magnet is the same as suspending a frog on a shelf, you put the energy in by lifting it up there - there is no magnet energy holding it.
The frog doesn't spin naturally you have to give it a nudge.

Actually the frog on a magnet is breakthrough in theoretical physics - it was calculated 150years ago that you couldn't do it without spinning the frog (it would fall out of the field) then it was actually tried and you can do it with a stationary frog. It turns out the moving charges inside the fluids inside a frog are enough, this led to a bunch of new discoveries!
 
exwso2001 said:
I'm an IT person - non-scientist - but this problem has challenged me ever since high school physics:

If two permanent magnets - pole to like pole - repel each other, the magnet suspended possesses potential energy. If a material can be found (that is non-magnetic and without any power source) that can disrupt the magnetic lines of force between the two magnets to where the magnets' separation decreases, then gravity would be providing the second source of energy (kinetic energy). You would basically have a new form of motor. Would it really be considered a perpetual motion device since gravitity and magnetism are both supplying energy?

It seems like new materials are being developed everyday. I just read about pyrolytic carbon and diamagnetism. Has something (not yet tried) been developed recently that can address this question? Is it just not feasible?
This is a common misconception (as mgb_phys points out) that has been the basis of many perpetual motion machines. A fellow named Richard Willis was hawking his machine on the CBC Dragon's Den program and a dragon (Brett Wilson, originally an engineer!) actually offered him a million dollars for it if it worked. No chance he will lose his million. See http://www.cbc.ca/dragonsden/pitches/magnacoasters.html".

The http://pesn.com/2007/02/18/9500457_Perendev_update/" is the classic case. It is a similar fraud. The principle is just as you described - he has a device that shields magnetism. The problem is that you cannot block magnetic field without using energy. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a fraud or a fool or both. Many people have lost a lot of money investing in this motor.

AM
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Welcome to the PF, exwso2001. Discussions about perpetual motion machines are not permitted here, so I'm going to have to lock this thread. Hope your questions were answered.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Is this analogy between Magnetic Force and Gravitational Force accurate in helping to understand what contributes more to a stronger magnetic force?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
High School Permanent magnets and energy question
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
Undergrad Motional EMF in Faraday disc, co-rotating magnet axial mean flux
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Undergrad Can trains use permanent magnets to be propelled?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Graduate PPMT, Magnetic Flux Switch, electro-permanent magnet generator
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
Graduate Work performed by a magnetic field
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
10K
Undergrad Magnetic levitation of a ball within a transparent tube
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Graduate Field Energy of Permanent Magnets vs. Magnetic Monopoles
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
Undergrad Speed of magnetic flux propagation?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Graduate What exactly is magnetism, anyway?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
13K