Thread: Does a Magnet break the first law of thermodynamics?

1. The First Law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed; rather, the amount of energy lost in a steady state process cannot be greater than the amount of energy gained. This is the statement of conservation of energy for a thermodynamic system. It refers to the two ways that a closed system transfers energy to and from its surroundings  by the process of heat transfer and the process of mechanical work. The rate of gain or loss in the stored energy of a system is determined by the rates of these two processes. In open systems, the flow of matter is another energy transfer mechanism, and extra terms must be included in the expression of the first law.
What is the energy input to a Neodymium Magnet, N52 Strength, that allows for the pulling mechanism seen in the form of output energy?

It appears a stationary magnet can pull and constrain large pieces of metal, requiring large amounts of kinetic energy, in movement without energy input. Is this harmonic with the laws of thermodynamics?

(Similar Question)Also the kinetic energy in the form of gravity, what is the energy input of the earths magnetic core or gravity?  2.

3. I believe when a magnet is being energized, the electromagnet undergoes a voltage drop, hence 'giving energy' to the permanent magnet. This makes up for the potential energy observed when two magnets are allowed to collide. Pulling them apart requires energy so that when you let them collide again you have already put out the energy for that reaction to occur.

Gravity is a form of potential energy imparted when the universe formed. Just like the mass that was 'allowed to exist' the potential energy of gravity has 'already been paid for'. In other words, you could in fact get 'free energy' by extracting kinetic energy from an asteroid falling onto a planet.  4. Originally Posted by Cold Fusion
I believe when a magnet is being energized, the electromagnet undergoes a voltage drop, hence 'giving energy' to the permanent magnet. This makes up for the potential energy observed when two magnets are allowed to collide. Pulling them apart requires energy so that when you let them collide again you have already put out the energy for that reaction to occur.

Gravity is a form of potential energy imparted when the universe formed. Just like the mass that was 'allowed to exist' the potential energy of gravity has 'already been paid for'. In other words, you could in fact get 'free energy' by extracting kinetic energy from an asteroid falling onto a planet.
The constraint to which the materials attach is measurable and quantifiable in energy without further interaction though, it is a constant. Perpetual constraint, measurable in kinetic energy. Further the new metallic material attached formulates it's own magnetic field attraction creating new possible kinetic energy collisions by its physical extension.

Say if a magnet, in space, is ever increased in size by continual collection of magnetic and metallic material through space, does not its own continuous expansion autonomously require lesser input to do so?(If each collision is accounted as a kinetic energy, by a subjective desire for the collisions to occur)

The initial motions allow further exponential interactions and measurable kinetic movement. (Less energy input than following output)

A situation I'm trying to create is one were the initial offset creates an exponential effect on surrounding instances. The law of thermodynamics as I see it, limits this possibility, although the determination of desired interaction for quantifiable measure is subjective.

Also you made mention of the creation of a magnet as an input, to what extent can any experiment be calculated in this way if all origin account for? The point I'm trying to make is the current measures of energy is only in the form of what interaction is desired, at current. For example, there is a piece of metal of a set path of motion, a planet may inhibit a it's path and also allow for it, pending on the desired instance of following actions. Being that the desire of actions is in relation to the law itself, the same situation involving less or more energy meaning subjective interference.

If I undefine the parametres to which effect(Output) could be defined in terms of desire, initial movement could alter infinte future instances of interactions, it's only to the state of a desired effect is there limits assigning energy in a precise way. "The Butterfly Effect".  5. Say you have 4 magnets, each with potential energy 1. Upon utilizing this potential energy, you receive kinetic energy equal to it, 1.

Consider the available energy with all 4 magnets separated, it is 4. Now consider making two sets, or combing them to form a total of 2 magnets. Because adding one magnet to another of equal magnitude is a linear reaction, you now have 2 magnets each with an energy of 2. Two times two is equal to 4, the original amount possessed by the separated system.

So, when you add the magnets together, you are only increasing the energy density of the system in terms of magnetic pieces. Instead of 4 each with an energy level of 1, you have 2 each with an energy level of 2. Because it is linear, it does not exponentiate in such a way that you mentioned.

You can measure the difference in joule heating upon magnetizing Neo with the electromagnetic field. If the amount of heat generated by the coil goes down, then the energy is going somewhere else, namely the soon to be magnet.  Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement