Magnetizim and Electricity

[Craer]

Do two stationary magnets, opposing or attracting, generate an electrical reaction at the field intersection?

 

It wouldn't need to be a strong magnet to test this.

 

Assuming yes

Could a conductive filament of a certain design, magnetic property, element, alloy or combination convert it into a current?

Would the current produced be a factor of the kinetic potential, magnetic field strength, nither or both?

[studiot]

You have posted this is 'Modern and Theoretical Physics'

 

Why?

 

Have you given any thought to your questions?

 

How can a stationary magnet (your words) produce kinetic potential?

 

What is kinetic potential?

 

What is 'an electrical reaction' ?

 

And why should this be produced?

 

Since it is so easy to test, why don't you test it, why assume anything?

Edited December 12, 2013 by studiot

[swansont]

Magnets will not induce a potential or drive a current in a conductor if they are stationary with respect to each other.

[Stetson]

Two magnets do not generate electricity on their own. However when you pass a magnet over a metal, the magnetic field causes the electrons in the metal to flow, but only for as long as you constantly move or change the position of the magnetic field relative to the metal.

Edited December 13, 2013 by Stetson

[Craer]

Thank you for the replies, what i'm looking for is some referance to the research done backing this particular statement.

 

Magnets will not induce a potential or drive a current in a conductor if they are stationary with respect to each other.

 

The rest is rather elementary and off topic.

[ajb]

Thank you for the replies, what i'm looking for is some referance to the research done backing this particular statement.

Any book on elementary electromagnetic theory will do.

 

You could just google electromagnetic induction.

[studiot]

Research?

 

Oersted's research should fit your bill

 

https://www.google.co.uk/#q=oersted%27s+experiment

 

 

The rest is rather elementary and off topic

 

Just because you posted nonsense doesn't invalid my other comments, they still stand.

[Stetson]

Thank you for the replies, what i'm looking for is some referance to the research done backing this particular statement.

 

 

 

The rest is rather elementary and off topic.

I do sincerely hope that my comments were not referred to as 'elementary' or 'off-topic', as your above inquiry appeared to be lacking of understanding in basic electromagnetic forces. How does one create energy with magnets alone? It can't be done as it violates the first law of thermodynamics (energy can't be created nor destroyed).

[Craer]

Elementary electromagnetic theory is just that theory. History proves that Electricity can be made through a coil using a varying magnetic field, which is known as Electromagnectic induction.

 

I'm refering to a static or compressed magnetic field on a much more complex conductor then coiled copper wire.

Energy is nither created nor destroyed, mearly transfered from one form to another.

Edited December 13, 2013 by Craer

[Stetson]

Well unless if this 'complex conductor' is static as well, then the principle is the same. Otherwise I've never come across any credible research that purports the flow of electricity in a static generator in the manner of which you speak.

[Craer]

The modern smartphone for example is useing a microchip which is composed of a conductive metal that coats itself in a non-conductive layer(I've been trying to find the referance materials on this work will post when I do)

This natural reaction this material has allows it to be layered so finely it changes the properties of electron flow. Similar to a superconductor.

And I do plan on testing this, this forum is an exercise in idea refinement. I've heared alot about the varied magnetic field induction. And various sources showing the strong correlation between electricity and magnets.

 

This idea may be more closely related to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin-exchange_collisions

 

or

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

The entire idea revolves around Potential energy

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

Edited December 13, 2013 by Craer

[studiot]

Perhaps if you stopped introducing pseudo physics terms and just plain impossible ones and actually stated your case this thread could progress.

 

You haven't answered my question about kinetic potential yet.

 

And now you introduce a 'compressed magnetic field'.

 

If English is not your first language then we can try to help you achieve the correct terms and descriptions, but arrogance and disrespect for those trying to help will not get you very far.

 

No one else here has yet seems to understand what you case is all about so it's over to you.

 

Incidentally even thin film materials move - they flex or exhibit other strain energy properties.

Edited December 13, 2013 by studiot

[Sensei]

The modern smartphone for example is useing a microchip which is composed of a conductive metal that coats itself in a non-conductive layer(I've been trying to find the referance materials on this work will post when I do)

This natural reaction this material has allows it to be layered so finely it changes the properties of electron flow. Similar to a superconductor.

 

???

 

Do you even know what is superconductor?

 

Electrons in circuit have some kinetic energy. When they flow through conductor they're giving material part of their kinetic energy, and heating that material. We read lost of kinetic energy of electrons as drop of voltage. When metal used for wire is receiving too much kinetic energy from flowing electrons it's melting and circuit is broken. This is basically what happens when direct current is too high (I>Imax). Electrons flow through conductors easier than through dielectric, but it doesn't mean that they cannot flow through them entirely. When electrons is too much and have too high kinetic energy, they will break through dielectric, if they won't find easier path through conductors.. Air is good dielectric, but after using couple thousands volts, spark is flowing through oxygen and nitrogen ionizing them and producing plasma and electrons find way through dielectric.

 

Superconductor is not behaving like that. Electrons can flow without giving their kinetic energy to superconducting material, so closed loop of electrons can flow "forever". If it's placed on top of regular magnet, it's levitating (because electrons are in constant movement inside of superconductor).

 

Modern smartphones, cpus, highly integrated circuits, don't melt just because direct current (read it: quantity of electrons in unit of time) flowing through them is quite low. Pass higher I than their Imax and they will be broken, some weak path in them will melt..

[Craer]

@studiot please refer to Potential Energy for your answers, I may have called it by other names earlier. If you google Potential Energy and still have questions I would be happy to discuss.

 

http://www.superconductors.org/Type2.htm

I only used superconductors as an analogy.

 

This could very well be speculation, i'm not sure if I grasp all of the implications of the properties of these new conductors.

 

Or if the information I remember is flawed, I was hoping someone would be familiar with the conductors.

.

Edited December 13, 2013 by Craer

[studiot]

 

@studiot please refer to Potential Energy for your answers, I may have called it by other names earlier. If you google Potential Energy and still have questions I would be happy to discuss.

 

I don't need you to tell me what potential energy is, thank you. But this is much better discussion.

 

With proper discussion we can maybe rephrase your ideas in proper scientific English.

 

I do need you to explain your case without referring to a whole raft of unrelated websites.

 

First question are you looking as a molecular to subatomic level as implied in one part of your posts?

 

If so what would you make this conductor out of that is as small as an electron?

 

Or are you looking at the scale of materials greater than this, in which case a conductive filament makes more sense.

 

Further the only thing you get when two (or more) magnetic fields intersect is a more complicated magnetic field.

Magnetic fields are vector fields and as such add vectorially under superposition. Normal mag fields are also conservative.

Does this mean anything to you or do you need further explanation?

[Endy0816]

There's repulsion and attraction. I'm sure some contraption could be made to remove energy from magnets using those effects, but it'd be somewhat pointless.

 

You can steal the same energy with just a moving conductor in a magnetic field or alternatively rotating the magnetic field and keeping the conductor stationary.

[Craer]

.

Edited December 13, 2013 by Craer

[studiot]

 

Posted Today, 02:42 PM

Quote

 

@studiot please refer to Potential Energy for your answers, I may have called it by other names earlier. If you google Potential Energy and still have questions I would be happy to discuss.

 

I don't need you to tell me what potential energy is, thank you. But this is much better discussion.

 

With proper discussion we can maybe rephrase your ideas in proper scientific English.

 

I do need you to explain your case without referring to a whole raft of unrelated websites.

 

First question are you looking as a molecular to subatomic level as implied in one part of your posts?

 

If so what would you make this conductor out of that is as small as an electron?

 

Or are you looking at the scale of materials greater than this, in which case a conductive filament makes more sense.

 

Further the only thing you get when two (or more) magnetic fields intersect is a more complicated magnetic field.

Magnetic fields are vector fields and as such add vectorially under superposition. Normal mag fields are also conservative.

Does this mean anything to you or do you need further explanation?

 

Well I don't see any personal attack in the above, only offers of help at several places in the text.

 

But I don't like being threatened so I will report this discussiion myself and then leave this thread.

 

go well with your inquiry.

[CaptainPanic]

!

Moderator Note

 

 

studiot, already in your 1st post in this thread, your tone was aggressive. You could have made a friendly suggestion. Instead you chose to write down a (veiled) accusation that the OP has not spent sufficient time thinking things over. There are more examples where you chose to come across unnecessarily aggressive. Stop that now.

 

FYI, there is no rule against placing a thread in the wrong forum. If you think it is placed in the wrong spot, just report it and we'll move it. There is also no rule that says you can't be wrong. So, if you disagree with someone, please be polite and explain.

 

Craer, instead threatening to report something, just report it straightaway. Reporting is not visible to any other members, and will therefore not add any extra fuel to an already burning fire. A post such as your last one is aimed only at the person you're having a fight with, and is totally irrelevant to any other person. If you ever notice again that your post is not relevant to a third person who isn't involved in your disagreement, do not post it.

 

You can find our rules here.

 

Do not respond do this mod note. If you have any problems with it, report it and the (other) moderator(s) will have a look at it.

[Enthalpy]

Do two stationary magnets, opposing or attracting, generate an electrical reaction at the field intersection?

[...]

Could a conductive filament [...] convert it into a current?

 

The fields of two simple permanent magnets (like ceramic, neodymium, or samarium) simply add, with the only subtlety that magnetic fields have a direction. No electric current flows through air due to the permanent magnetic field, and two magnets instead of one have no special effect.

 

----------

 

Only a type I superconductor carries a current in reaction or the permanent presence of a magnetic field. This current prevents the flow of the magnetic field through the type I superconductor, up to a limit which is weak, for instance 20mT.

 

A hole in the superconductor permits the magnetic field to pass through there; for instance the center of a coil is such a hole.

 

A type I superconductor expels also a static magnetic field, if the field preexisted and the material is cooled after. So it's not only a consequence of induction in a lossless loop.

 

----------

 

This current can be useful. In a so-called Squid, it gives measureable effects which are extremely sensitive to the magnetic field. Squids make fantastic sensors for many things, like gravity.

 

Though, if one tries to obtain a power from this current - which a Squid does not - then the current brakes and stops. This holds for type I and type II superconductors as well as for metals, semiconductors, plamas.

 

To obtain durable power from the induced current, the flux of magnetic field through the loop must vary, so that new current (and voltage) is induced as the old one vanishes. This is done by varying the field strength quickly (for instance 50 - 60 - 400 times per second in a transformer) or its orientation (in an alternator).

 

This implies that only magnetic fields changing over time make electric power. This change requires itself power if electricity is obtained: power coming from a shaft in an alternator, or from a primary electric circuit in a transformer. It also implies that the created current varies over time in most machines: just alternating current in simple machines; those that provide direct current normally have a rectifier or a commutator.

 

----------

 

In contrast, a permanent current makes a permanent magnetic field. And while a magnetic field contains energy, it does not demand power to perpetuate. A permanent magnet alone consumes and produces no power, a type I superconducting coil neither; normal conductors waste power in that task only due to their imperfection, not by the nature of electric and magnetic fields. But without something else, like a movement that introduces power, no electric power is obtained from the magnetic field.

 

----------

 

"Elementary electromagnetism"... If only it could be! After several decades of non-trivial electromagnetic designs, I wouldn't call it "elementary".

[Craer]

Could a magnetic field cause direct current to travel between two plated micro-filaments?

Edited December 13, 2013 by Craer

[Sensei]

Could a magnetic field cause electrons to travel between two plated micro-filaments?

 

Magnets and electromagnets are used to bend path of electrons inside of discharge tube, vacuum tubes, cathode ray tube etc.

It's used in CRT obsolete televisors, and analog oscilloscopes.

Edited December 13, 2013 by Sensei

[swansont]

Static fields do not cause current to flow.

[Craer]

Static fields do not cause current to flow.

What about the charge in a type 1 superconductor?

Edited December 13, 2013 by Craer

[swansont]

What about the charge in a type 1 superconductor?

 

You weren't talking about superconductors. But AFAIK type 1 superconductors reject magnetic fields; this is the Meissner effect. So I don't see how you could assign the current flow to a magnetic field when there is no field.