Please explain why magnetism is not a source of energy is this incorrect:

concept of magnetic energy or torque:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_energy

I believe this answers my question... a magnetic field stores magnetic energy. But now I have more questions... such as, what is the source of gravitational energy

“Magnetism is a force, but it has no energy of its own,” A lack of appreciation of the difference between Force and Work can lead to strange conclusions. Is adhesive tape 'an infinite source of energy'? It can stick to surfaces too.

The wiki article explains it much like I did. The potential energy:
"as the mechanical work of the magnetic force (actually magnetic torque) on the re-alignment of the vector of the Magnetic dipole moment"

Sure, the magnetic field stores energy as a energy transformation device.

 

@bogosort I appreciate your thoughtful response... certain forms of energy can be observed perhaps more easily understood like waves (oscillating energy) ... and yes the model is useful... I like to check limits to see if a model falls apart... and yes you're right within certain limits these models are very useful... but there are still so many holes...

What I'm asking is, is there a better explanation than something we just explain with a term like "gravity" which actually falls apart when you consider Lorentz invariant... or our expanding universe.

@nsaspook i'm not sure if you remind me more of being taught evolution or creationism... either way, neither have room for any alternative theories (I'm sure both can reference amazing articles) and therefore resort to calling the other crackpots or other interesting terms... let's stick to science.

 

@nsaspook i'm not sure if you remind me more of being taught evolution or creationism... either way, neither have room for any alternative theories (I'm sure both can reference amazing articles) and therefore resort to calling the other crackpots or other interesting terms... let's stick to science.

I'm not respectful or nice where possible pseudoscience is involved. This is not my first rodeo down the road of gravity, magnetism and energy discussions. There are plenty of alternative theories that stick to science. I'm doing you a favor by nudging you quickly away from a well traveled crackpot alley.

 

Should I thank you now or later? Hey how did you read my mind? I’m exploring paramagnetic and diamagnetic model which I believe is still in the realm of science. Just exploring a theory... may I have your permission to do so?

 

So what I’m trying to understand is if a diamagnetic object like the pyrolyitc graphite suspends over a magnet. What is the energy used to do this work. If it’s electromagnetic energy can you do a calculation of how long this would last? It seems like an interesting way to make a hover board. Or near frictionless bearings for a motor and ton of other possibilities.

 

Should I thank you now or later? Hey how did you read my mind? I’m exploring paramagnetic and diamagnetic model which I believe is still in the realm of science. Just exploring a theory... may I have your permission to do so?

Thank me now and later. What's powerful about Science is the power of prediction. You don't need to read minds, you only need to understand past trends, methods, models and present actions for a probability of a future outcome.

 

ok I will thank you later... so... can we stay on topic? Did you know that a scientist concluded a bee can't fly aerodynamically? Of course it'a mistake as he applied aerodynamics of airplanes to a bee and mathematically he was correct.

 

So back to science... what is this electromagnetic energy expended when a diamagnetic object is suspended over a magnetic field. If it is countering gravity there must be work being done... or am I missing something?

Edit - nevermind... I believe I found some answers here... http://www.physics.ucla.edu/marty/diamag/ajp601.pdf

 

So what I’m trying to understand is if a diamagnetic object like the pyrolyitc graphite suspends over a magnet. What is the energy used to do this work. If it’s electromagnetic energy can you do a calculation of how long this would last? It seems like an interesting way to make a hover board. Or near frictionless bearings for a motor and ton of other possibilities.

I don't think this weak diamagnetic effect would be more efficient than the current diamagnetic Maglev superconducting devices or conventional magnetic bearings.

 

who said anything about efficiency? I'm just trying to understand it. If you do please share...

Stable levitation of one magnet by another with no energy input is usually prohibited by Earnshaw’s
theorem. However, the introduction of diamagnetic material at special locations can stabilize such
levitation. A magnet can even be stably suspended between ~diamagnetic! fingertips. A very simple,
surprisingly stable room temperature magnet levitation device is described that works without
superconductors and requires absolutely no energy input. Our theory derives the magnetic field
conditions necessary for stable levitation in these cases and predicts experimental measurements of
the forces remarkably well. New levitation configurations are described which can be stabilized with
hollow cylinders of diamagnetic material. Measurements are presented of the diamagnetic properties
of several samples of bismuth and graphite.

 

So back to science... what is this electromagnetic energy expended when a diamagnetic object is suspended over a magnetic field. If it is countering gravity there must be work being done... or am I missing something?

It's the same type of work done while placing a lead weight on top of a table from resting on the floor.

How much work is being done while the lead weight just sits on the table top?
The lead weight is effectively being levitated by the electrostatic and nuclear forces between the atoms of the table and weight.

 

who said anything about efficiency? I'm just trying to understand it. If you do please share...

You did in a round about way. "near frictionless bearings for a motor and ton of other possibilities."

These things already exist and use conventional magnetic bearings because they are efficient.
https://www.lesker.com/newweb/vacuum_pumps/magneticalpump_edwards_stp.cfm

 

you're missing what I have in mind... but that's ok. your comments have been noted.

thanks for the example it may even work in similar principals if you read the paper the diamagnetic is used to stabilize the magnets... this is what I'm trying to understand... again please elaborate... if they're already doing so then my intuitions as a hoaxster is good!

The real question again that this bring up is what is counteracting gravity and is energy being expended to keep things levitated against an opposite force (gravity) a visual analogy might be putting an object on a table which counteracts gravity and keeps an object "suspended"... so no expenditure of energy... is this what's happening with a diamagnetic object? Or like buoyancy so this object is being lifted by magnetic field? How about the superconductor being "flux locked" to me it looks like work but perhaps I'm mistaking this and it is at equilibrium. If this "locked system" is moved there should be some sort of energy being added or removed... wouldn't it pull or push against the fields? Again is this erroneous?

I understand you think I'm a crackpot and this is psuedoscience... would you mind either answering my question directly? I'm aware of current tech and it works... you are missing some of the reasons why I'm interested in this and hoping to share but these tangents are getting a little tiresome.

 

you're missing what I have in mind... but that's ok. your comments have been noted.

thanks for the example that does not look efficient to me but what do I know. It also looks like you need to super cool it to create a diamagnetic superconductors... yes it works in similar principals... which is what I'm trying to understand... again please elaborate... if they're already doing so then my intuitions as a hoaxster is good!

I understand you think I'm a crackpot and this is psuedoscience... would you mind either answering my question directly? I'm aware of current tech and it works... you are missing some of the reasons why I'm interested in this and hoping to share but these tangents are getting a little tiresome.

OK, you have no idea about how maglev Active electromagnetic levitation bearing work.
https://www.calnetix.com/sites/default/files/CALNETIX_HOW_MAGNETIC_BEARINGS_WORK.pdf

I don't think you're a crackpot yet but my spidery sense is tingling. I've no idea what your interested in because I asked and was given a "I have my own theories but might need some more thought before I feel comfortable saying more..."

The tangents are your responsibility for asking vague and nebulous questions as a background for some unspecified theory.

 

For a diamagnetic object suspended over a magnet what is counteracting gravity and is energy being expended to keep things levitated against an opposite force (gravity) a visual analogy might be putting an object on a table which counteracts gravity and keeps an object "suspended"... so no expenditure of energy... is this what's happening with a diamagnetic object? Or like buoyancy so this object is being lifted by magnetic field? How about the superconductor being "flux locked" to me it looks like work but perhaps I'm mistaking this and it is at equilibrium. If this "locked system" is moved there should be some sort of energy being added or removed... wouldn't it pull or push against the fields? Again is this erroneous?

Sonic levitation of particles make more sense to me as I know that energy is being expended to achieve this...

 

a visual analogy might be putting an object on a table which counteracts gravity and keeps an object "suspended"

I don't think that analogy applies here. What the experiment is doing is locking the object at a fixed distance from the magnet, and that is something that would also happen in space without the presence of gravity. So no, no work is being done there because the very definition of work is force multiplied by distance. The "stationary" magnetic force is there, but there is no distance being traveled by the object relative to the magnet.

 

That's also the conclusion I'm achieving... for flux locking. But if you consider Earnshaw’s theorem it is impossible to have an magnet hover over another magnet without expending energy... I guess he's mistaken... because it's been done.

In this situation ignoring the kinetic energy of it being pushed is there an expenditure of force to keep the object suspended? Again I can only try using analogies at this point. If this was air it would compress and create heat. Does the magnets heat up and expend energy?

 

@bogosortI like to check limits to see if a model falls apart...

Indeed, and this is how science progresses. So far, all models fall apart at some limit. But it's hard not to be impressed by how successfully we've been able scale physics in a few hundred years.

What I'm asking is, is there a better explanation than something we just explain with a term like "gravity" which actually falls apart when you consider Lorentz invariant... or our expanding universe.

General relativity, as a theory of gravity, doesn't fall apart under either of those considerations. Specifically, Lorentz invariance is a special case of the more general notion of frame invariance -- this is why SR is given the epithet special, while GR is called general. Whereas the Lorentz transformations require (locally) inertial reference frames, the various tensors in Einstein's field equation of GR transform in a coordinate-independent way, whether inertial or non-inertial. Put another way, the Minkowski metric -- which gives rise to special relativity -- is a solution to the GR equation when you set both gravity and the Ricci curvature tensor to zero (so as to make spacetime flat). In other words, Lorentz invariance is bundled up in GR, along with a whole bunch of other stuff (like black holes).

As for the expanding universe, that has a front-row seat in the Einstein field equation: the constant Λ parametrizes whether the universe is static, expanding, or contracting.

And if you're looking for a bit more intuition beyond the math, consider what Einstein called his greatest idea: gravity is indistinguishable from a proper acceleration. Suppose that you and I are part of an experiment where we agree to be put to sleep for a few days. When we wake up, both of us are in windowless rooms filled with sophisticated lab equipment, however, one of us is in a normal room at sea-level on Earth, while the other is deep in space in a rocket ship accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2. Einstein realized that no matter what experiments we run, there is no way for us to know if the weight we feel is due to gravity from Earth or acceleration from the rocket. (For all the those who like to find holes in such ideas, which is probably all of us , assume that the rocket ship has been outfitted such that it mimics being Earth-bound, e.g., engine noises, atmosphere composition, magnetic field, etc.)

Einstein's great insight was that acceleration is a fundamental invariant, which means that gravity is just a fictitious force, like the Coriolis or centrifugal force. The force only "exists" for those in an non-inertial (accelerated) frame: if you are in free-fall, you do not feel a gravitational force -- because it doesn't exist!

Notice that this runs counter to our usual notion of acceleration. If you jump out of an airplane without a parachute, you tend to think of yourself as accelerating toward the ground. But you are accelerating only with respect to the ground, which we say is fixed; in that coordinate system, you are indeed accelerating. But notice that you're free to choose an alternative coordinate system -- a co-moving frame -- in which you're perfectly still (while falling out of an airplane). Since you're not accelerating with respect to those coordinates, your acceleration is frame-dependent and so it's not a proper acceleration. In fact, neglecting air resistance, you have zero proper acceleration while falling from the airplane, which is why you don't feel the gravitational force in free-fall; in GR terms, you are falling a geodesic. On the other hand, you are accelerating while sitting in your chair!

Einstein worked out the geometry for all of this with spectacular results, but an underappreciated insight is that he showed us that acceleration has exalted status this universe because it is absolute. While velocity can only be relative, we can always tell if an acceleration is proper or not by simply looking for the fictitious force of gravity. No matter where I am in the universe, if I let go of a tennis ball and it moves, I must be accelerating; if I let go and it doesn't move, then I cannot be accelerating.

 

That's also the conclusion I'm achieving... for flux locking. But if you consider Earnshaw’s theorem it is impossible to have an magnet hover over another magnet without expending energy... I guess he's mistaken... because it's been done.

In this situation ignoring the kinetic energy of it being pushed is there an expenditure of force to keep the object suspended? Again I can only try using analogies at this point. If this was air it would compress and create heat. Does the magnets heat up and expend energy?

The theorem requires materials that have both repulsion and attraction. Diamagnetic's exhibit only repulsion against the magnetic field so bingo.

 

It was achieved using two magnets and diamagnetic material to stabilize so it does have both repulsion and attraction and obtains an equilibrium without external energy... as your motor example proves...