exchemist

This is stupid. A computer is not just wires. Only an idiot thinks that. Nor is a brain just a mass of biochemical wiring, either. Try to apply a bit of sense, for goodness sake.

It's very simple. W=Fd is all you need to keep in mind. If there is no change in d, the distance in the direction of F, no work is done. Move them apart and you do work on them, causing energy to go into the magnetic field (a form of potential energy). Allow them to move closer and the reverse happens: they do work on whatever is holding them apart, with the necessary energy coming from the magnetic field. As for the magnet sliding, that is a distraction. It does not in fact alter the strength of the magnetic force holding it to the metal sheet. Any motion perpendicular to the force means d does not change, so no work is done. (What it may do, though, is reduce the frictional force parallel to the sheet which resists the magnet being slid. Typically the frictional drag between two surface that are sliding past one another is less that the limiting friction just before the force is overcome and sliding commences. This is to do with asperities on the surface interlocking, which does not happen to the same degree when they are in motion. But this is a tribological digression.)

That's interesting, I had not realised the extent of the outbreak internationally. But it went away on its own, apparently. At least, I don't recall any vaccination effort being publicised. I had thought that was because the transmission process was not such as to enable an exponential spread, so it became self-limiting.

Indeed. However, But when a magnet and something attracted by it move closer together, under the influence of the force of attraction between them, work is done. I am saying this comes from a reduction in the stored energy in the magnetic field.

Interesting about Chatham. I was surprised to see from the castle battlements an old (decommissioned?) submarine moored in the river, just downstream of the bridges carrying the railway and road. I might pop down the line from Victoria again some time and take a look. I think it's the next stop after Rochester. Back on the topic, yes there will be work done when the magnet and steel object move relative to one another under the influence of the force from the field. W= Fd, remember. But when the magnet is static, held to the beam by its magnetism, no work is being done. I think that is what @swansont meant by saying magnets don't do work, i.e. they don't do work when they are just sitting there, simply by virtue of being magnets, as it were! And there is no inexhaustible store of energy in a permanent magnet that you can draw on by incorporating it in a perpetual motion machine. There is finite (fairly small) energy imparted to it when it is magnetised and you can get a bit of that back, once only, by allowing an object to be drawn towards it. But if you separate them again as part of an operating cycle of some machine, you have to put the same energy back each time. So as I say, no free lunch.

Yes I think I recall smallpox vaccine was the solution last time it started to spread in a few Western countries. But it fizzled out pretty quickly, with or without vaccination. We had a few eyeball-rolling hysterics who thought it was armageddon, but it was a false alarm. It's going to take more than an article in the Daily Batshitograph (as I'm afraid it has now become) to get me to take this new story very seriously.

There was a minor outbreak of monkeypox recently, but I’m not aware it became a recognised epidemic. As I recall, there was no more than a few hundred cases.

I was out yesterday (visiting Rochester, on the Medway, a very interesting town with a Norman castle, a c.12th cathedral and a rather fine old high street with a lot of history) so have only just seen this. A permanent magnet has energy in its magnetic field. This energy was imparted when the magnet was first magnetised, aligning the magnetic dipoles of the atoms. A permanent magnet is thus in a metastable, higher energy, state, compared to one that has become demagnetised. What happens when a piece of paramagnetic or ferromagnetic material comes under the influence of this field is a bit complicated but I think in energy terms it is something like the following:- The magnetic dipoles in that material are induced by the field to align with it. This costs energy, relative to the previous field-free, non-aligned state and the energy required comes from the field of the permanent magnet. So there has been a potential energy transfer from the permanent magnet to the material that is being attracted to it. The potential energy of the system can be further lowered by allowing the two objects to move together. It is the stored energy in the field of the permanent magnet that is responsible. (This is made clear when you consider the work you have to do to pull the two objects apart.) But any repeated process involving separating and moving together permanent magnets simply moves energy into and out of the field. Energy can only be extracted from it once, in the phase in which they move together. After this there is no free lunch. Yes I suppose that makes sense. Does it make sense, I wonder, to speak of the radiation distribution having an entropy? What you seem to suggest is that the black body distribution has the maximum entropy of any radiation distribution.

Perhaps a short digression into the philosophy of science is appropriate. Science develops models of nature that enable correct predictions of the behaviour of nature to be made. Very often these models are recognised as approximate or incomplete and thus to have a certain scope of application which should not be exceeded. Newtonian mechanics is a good example. Nobody says Newtonian mechanics is "wrong" but it doesn't work at the atomic scale, nor when relative speeds are a significant fraction of c. We all know this and use Newtonian mechanics with those limits in mind. The magnetic circuit model is evidently quite successful for many engineering purposes, provided one doesn't stretch the analogy of its fictitious magnetic "current" too far. It is a scientific model insofar as it makes correct predictions for how nature will behave. If your model tells you a static magnet continually does work, though, you have a major problem, because you need to explain where this energy appears, what its source is and why this source never runs out. So at that point your model fails.

I suppose that depends on what is meant by "brighter". In terms of radiation intensity, I'd have thought one could increase that beyond the intensity of the source, if it is an extended source. But clearly one can't change the frequency of the photons merely by focusing a beam, so the effective temperature (if is black body radiation) of the radiation can't be altered. in that way. Is that what you meant? Apart from the bit about separating coincident poles, which seems to make little sense, this may work fine for you, for macroscopic magnetic or magnetised objects. The weakness is it can't connect macroscopic behaviour to what goes on at the atomic level or connect magnetism to other scientific phenomena. So it's basically reverting to a c.19th, pre-atomic theory, picture. I've seen this before with some people from an engineering background on science forums. I suppose they prefer the mastery of nature which c.19th physics seemed to achieve, before the inconvenience of the invariance of the speed of light, the ultraviolet catastrophe and the photo-electric effect forced a rethink. If you are happy with staying in a sort of steampunk, H G Wells era world, well OK. Most of us prefer deeper explanations, that connect to other scientific phenomena.

OK I understand what you mean and I'm aware there is a "magnetic circuit" model used in engineering: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_circuit However this has drawbacks if used incautiously, as is in fact mentioned in the article. There is in truth no magnetic "current", as nothing flows. Whilst we habitually draw flux lines with arrows on, these do not indicate a flow of anything. The magnetic field is a vector field, i.e. it has both a magnitude and a direction at any point in space. The density of flux lines is used to denote magnitude and the arrows denote direction. That is all the arrows mean. A field is not a current. (This is explicitly stated in the section of the Wiki article subtitled "limitations".) As for whether this way of thinking of magnetism is a better description, we have just seen how it has given you the wrong answer, in the example of the magnet stuck to a beam. So clearly it has severe limitations. The circuit model may be fine for analysing the shape of the field in electrical machines and so forth but, as with many models in science, it has limits and if these are not borne in mind it can make you look a bit of a berk! 😀 I had not heard of Ed Leedskalnin (not Leedskillin), but I see he was a Latvian immigrant to the USA who was active in magnetism between the wars. I also see that indeed he was on the right track in interpreting magnetism as arising from circulation of charges within the substance, just as I described to you in my previous post. His understanding was thus a foreshadowing of what we understand today about magnetism from atomic theory, quantum physics and quantum chemistry. (Quantum theory was developed in the late 1920s and 1930s, possibly a little later than when he was writing about magnetism.) P.S. Curious fact: magnetism can in fact be shown to arise as a consequence of applying the theory of special relativity to electric charges in relative motion. I think that is rather cool.

I’m a chemist by training, so I am very much aware that chemical bonding is electrostatic. Every solid object gains its solidity due to electrostatic attraction, between atomic nuclei and their surrounding cloud of electrons. It is this that bonds atoms together in solids. Magnetism is only different in that it arises from electric charges in relative motion. In a permanent magnet the atoms have unpaired electrons, which have angular momentum, circulating and/or “spinning” and this motion creates a magnetic dipole on each one. These align and their collective dipoles combine to create the magnetic field of the magnet. Unless it is an electromagnet, in which case, the field arises from the flow of electrons (electric current) in a coil of wire.

Magnetic attraction. If you have a bolt screwed into the beam, all that holds it in place is actually electrostatic attraction, because that is what is responsible for the chemical bonding in the metal that enables it to keep its shape and resist deformation under stress. There is no difference in principle. Don't be fooled by how biological muscles work. Those do expend energy to hold a weight in a static position, but that's to do with the biochemistry of muscle fibres. My example of the bolt screwed into the beam is what you need to consider. That does not expend any energy, not even if the bolt supports a 1 tonne weight suspended from it! Or think of a concrete support holding up a weight. If you did that by your muscles, you would get tired, but the concrete is not doing any work to hold the weight up. Work is only done if something moves under the action of a force. So a crane lifting a weight does work against the force of gravity. But if the operator stops work for lunch and leaves the weight hanging there from the cable, no work is being done. So there's no energy accounting to do in the case of the magnet. A magnetic force or an electrostatic force can both equally hold something in position against the force of gravity, in the right circumstances. There have been a few on this forum. My favourite was Tom Booth's "ice engine". He got banned in the end but that was for failing to take in anything anybody said, not because he was proposing a perpetual motion machine. Unusually, that was a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd kind. But it was a crank classic in that it was all based on Tesla [groan]. I had not realised that among his many eccentricities, Tesla thought you could run a heat engine using ambient heat. There was also, on another forum, aJapanese who thought an IR photovoltaic cell could be put in a fridge, light a bulb and cool the fridge. So that was another 2nd kind example. Tom Booth was interesting in that he had researched the history of thermodynamics and put me onto a paper by Sadi Carnot (in translation) in which he, Carnot, was applying the idea of caloric, i.e. before the modern concept of heat even existed, and nevertheless was able to get the right answers!

That, we were all sure, was the intended joke. We hoped he would win , so that he would have to be announced at the prize-giving ceremony. Sadly, he got knocked out of the competition in one of the heats.

This comment of yours illustrates exactly what I feared about your grasp of physics when it comes to magnets. No work is done by a static magnet sticking to a beam. Mechanical work is a force applied through a distance, F x d. You would not think a bolt screwed into the beam was continuously doing work by staying there, would you? So why do you imagine a magnet sticking to a beam is doing work?

I recall a competitor in one of the single sculls events at Henley Town Regatta who registered to race in the name of H Janus. This was in the days before the Amateur Rowing Association insisted on ID membership cards. Calling your son Janus seems an invitation to trouble, whether or not you know your Roman deities.

Jan, for men at any rate, is not a nickname but a full name, being how John (Jean in France, Iain in Scotland, Yann in Brittany) is rendered in a number of Continental languages. Jan as short for Janet is a female nickname, though.

Well, as someone who once long ago trained as a patent agent, I rather like perpetual motion machines. It can be fun sometimes to analyse them mechanically, without resorting to the easy thermodynamic way to dismiss them, just as an exercise. But at the same time I have some sympathy for the moderation at this other forum you mention. When one sees an apparently pointless machine like yours, which has a shaft output nominally the same as the input but with a needlessly complicated mechanism, especially one involving magnets for no obvious reason, alarm bells ring, (especially if one has been around on science forums for a few years as I have) and one tends to think, "Hello, that smells like a perpetual motion machine to me". Some of the stricter forums don't encourage mental exercises with perpetual motion cranks. By the way, it seems to me your machine can pass power backwards: if you were to give your rotor a spin so its arms passed through the magnet gap at a rate similar to the rate at which the magnets were made to reciprocate by turning the output shaft, I think it would align its speed with the reciprocating motion, rather like a synchronous motor aligning with the frequency of mains AC.

The advantage of considering the energy changes in a physical system is that it is often the simplest and most powerful way to analyse it, without the need to get bogged down a mass of in tricky mechanical calculations of forces etc. I learned this in the 6th form at school. The "reflexive insistence" you refer to is simply people applying this principle, to save getting into the weeds of mechanical calculations. Such calculations, though far more complicated, would in any case rely on other laws of physics (laws of mechanics and electromagnetism), which are on an equal footing with the laws of thermodynamics. All are equally as reliable as each other, so it really doesn't matter whether you choose the mechanical route or the energy route, from that point of view. But free energy cranks are all the same, really. They come up with a contraption that is just complicated enough to exceed their powers of analysis - and then claim they have broken the laws of thermodynamics. Magnets are often involved, as magnetism is particularly poorly understood by such people. (Tesla often comes into the picture too, though thankfully not in this instance.) By all means build your machine. It won't output more work than the work input. That is guaranteed.

Simple application of the laws of thermodynamics will tell you that the energy input cannot be less than the energy output. If this device is an attempt to get more out than you put in, it won't work.

As others have pointed out it's a terrible video. Pointing a camera straight at the sun with no filter is a lousy way to see an eclipse - all you get a bright splodge. As to your (strangely naïve) question, you can measure the speed of motion of the clouds, relative to the zone of maximum brightness, by comparing its position with 2 clear areas in the cloud. At 0:05 there is a clear area above the zone of max brightness and one below and a bit left of it. On my screen, these areas have moved ~5cm relative to the zone of max brightness by the 1:05 mark, i.e the clouds are moving at 5cm/min relative to the sun, on my screen. The magnification (zoom) of the camera also changes. On my screen these two clear areas are 2cm apart at the start of the video, 4cm apart at 0:13, 6cm apart at 0:15 and 10cm apart at 0:44, indicating an increase in magnification from 1 to 2 to 3 and finally to 5x. So at 5x, the rate of apparent motion of the clouds will be 25cm/min, i.e. ~4mm/sec. Later he zooms in even more, leading to an even faster rate. But he's holding the camera unsteadily and tends to keep it trained on the clouds, rather than fixing it on a stand so that it points steadily at one point in the sky, where the sun is. So that makes it look as if it is the sun that is "moving" diagonally down and right, whereas in reality it is the clouds that are moving up and left. And obviously, if you magnify the image by 5X or more, the rate of relative motion, of clouds w.r.t sun, will increase 5x or more too. So there is nothing strange going on here. As with the credulous stories some of us have seen previously of spontaneous combustion, or people being strangled by their own thymus glands, a bit of analysis is all one needs to make sense of it.

"Nick" as a noun means a small cut to an object or a person, and to nick something is to make such a cut. It is also English slang for jail (gaol). As a slang verb, to "nick" someone is for the police to arrest them. Assuming you mean nickname, there are quite a few androgynous ones, especially involving originally masculine names that have been feminised e.g. Jo for Joseph, Josephine or Joanna (N.B. "Joe" almost always refers only to Joseph), Pat for Patrick or Patricia, Lou for Louis or Louise, Charley/Charlie for Charles or Charlotte, etc. Nick itself can be a nickname for Nicholas, but I have never heard it used for Nicola or Nicole - Nicky tends to be used for the feminine forms. (Old Nick is a nickname for the Devil, by the way.)

What snails do is fertilise one another, I understand.

But you also get that with hermaphrodites like garden snails.

From what I read, the evolution of sexual reproduction is one of the unsolved problems in evolutionary biology. So a good question that is still awaiting a convincing answer.