The Cole Siphon

[Guest Aemilius]

Edited July 21, 2013 by Aemilius

[C1ay]

I say no rules have been broken....

But that's not your say here at Hypography. The rules here require you to back up your assertions and you have not, therefore you ARE in violation of the rules here.

 

BTW, you could test your theory with an electromagnet without a mortgage from a major financial institution. If it works with an electromagnet then it should work with a permanent magnet.

 

Here's a related experiment you could try for even less money that would help you understand some of the hydrostatics involved:

 

Imagine your inverted tube for the cole siphon fabricated from some clear, flexible vinyl tubing. The intake to the siphon is a straight down tube into the water as you have it now. The output is a long downhill spiral winding of tubing that is 2 or 3 times the length of the input. The weight of the water on the downhill side is then 2 or 3 times the weight of the intake causing an imbalance between the 2 sides. Prime the tubing and get it in place with the ends closed. Once there open the two ends at the same time. What do you think will happen when you open the ends?

[Guest Aemilius]

C1ay "But that's not your say here at Hypography. The rules here require you to back up your assertions and you have not, therefore you ARE in violation of the rules here."

 

I think I'm backing things up reasonably well. For example, here's an update on the conversation. CraigD indicated earlier he didn't think the magnetic field could just be "turned off" in a region of space near a magnet....

 

CraigD "As I and wikipedia have noted before (I used the phrase “terribly difficult”, wikipedia the more understated “non-trivial”), modeling magnetic fields for a give arrangement of permanent magnets and material materials such as your latest magnet + “magnetic shield” is … err … terribly difficult, so I won’t try to do that - or if I do, I’ll try it privately, ‘til I’ve got something presentable. I’ve found “gravity simulators”, in the form of simple human-readable computer programs, useful and convincing for explaining the impossibility of various gravity-based perpetual motion machines, so would love to have a similar “magnet simulator”.

 

Let’s assume (falsely, to the best of my understanding – which is that, despite requiring more complicated equations, magnets in magnetic fields obey the same energy laws as charged bodies in electrostatic fields) that there is a way to just “turn off” the magnetic field in a desired volume of space...."

 

I'm backing up (directly above your last post) my assertion about what the interaction will be between the Magnet and the Shield as predicted by an animated computer model/simulation as a rebuttal. See? I provided a magnet simulator. I provided a given arrangement of permanent magnet and magnetic material.

 

 

And what I provided directly corresponds to the diagram (CraigD's Loop). If he has a problem with that as supporting evidence for my assertion (from what I know of CraigD) I'm pretty sure he'll let me know.

 

 

When it comes to you, I'm still not even sure who I'm talking to.... Who am I talking to?

 

C1ay "Here's a related experiment you could try for even less money that would help you understand some of the hydrostatics involved:"

 

I know.... Let's turn it into a multiple choice question!

 

C1ay "Imagine your inverted tube for the cole siphon fabricated from some clear, flexible vinyl tubing. The intake to the siphon is a straight down tube into the water as you have it now. The output is a long downhill spiral winding of tubing that is 2 or 3 times the length of the input. The weight of the water on the downhill side is then 2 or 3 times the weight of the intake causing an imbalance between the 2 sides. Prime the tubing and get it in place with the ends closed. Once there open the two ends at the same time. What do you think will happen when you open the ends?

 

A. Nothing.

B. Just a little nothing.

C. A whole lot of nothing.

D. All of the above.

Edited July 21, 2013 by Aemilius

[CraigD]

As I and wikipedia have noted before (I used the phrase “terribly difficult”, wikipedia the more understated “non-trivial”), modeling magnetic fields for a give arrangement of permanent magnets and material materials such as your latest magnet + “magnetic shield” is … err … terribly difficult, so I won’t try to do that - or if I do, I’ll try it privately, ‘til I’ve got something presentable. I’ve found “gravity simulators”, in the form of simple human-readable computer programs, useful and convincing for explaining the impossibility of various gravity-based perpetual motion machines, so would love to have a similar “magnet simulator”.

No problem, I have the computer simulation/model images clearly showing the interaction between....

I don’t need images made with a magnet simulator program, but the program itself. I quickly found some limited available online, like this Java-based one from CU-Boulder, and lots of references to more feature-rich ones. I couldn’t find any mention by Rick Hoadley on his “magnetman” webpages of how he generated the images on which Aemilius appear to have built his, and the animation embedded in this post, but imagine he either used software someone else wrote, or wrote his own. I’d prefer to do the latter myself, as I find I learn physics better by writing and using simulators than just using them. Also, I’m not certain what if any prepackaged simulator software can handle situation both the diamagnetic properties of water and the ferromagnetic ones of the “shield” that’s come up in this thread – writing your own allows you to assure it can do what you need.

 

I think I’m getting an idea of how, and am beginning to get over my long aversion to modeling magnets. The key approach, which I’ve a hunch the free and commercial software follows, is similar to the “replace the magnet a compact object with a large net charge” approach I tried as an explanation in this post, except instead of using a single compact (point) charge, using many, “smeared” over the surface of the magnet in such a way that its electrostatic field is the same as its magnetic one - the “magnetic pole model” described briefly in this wikipedia section. Diamagnetism can be simulated as small conductive loops (in actuality, these are bound electrons, per complicated quantum mechanical rules).

 

I hope we can agree that the computer simulation/model above accurately reflects the conditions that will be existing as a result of the interaction of the Magnetic Field and the Magnetic Shield, and that it's a rebuttal to that argument.

Here are the images with labels added:

Correctly read, the field diagrams before and after the addition of a magnetic shield don’t indicate that moving a permanent magnet or a diamagnetic material through holes in the shield and magnet shown in diagram 2 from A to B require less work than the same movement through holes in the magnet with no shield shown in diagram 1. Less work is required to move from A to X in diagram 2 than in diagram 1, but more work to move from X to B.

 

A diction observation: This thread, and hypography in general, is not a forum for practicing rhetorical debate, so affirmative and negative arguments and rebuttals aren’t allowed here. This is a forum for sharing enthusiasms and understanding of science.

 

Rhetoric, of which debate is a subdiscipline, is the art of persuasion. Rhetoric that persuades an audience to accept a false or reject a true assertion is skillful and good. Science is the systematic building and organizing of knowledge via testable predictions. Persuading an audience to accept a false or reject a true assertion is bad and counter to science.

 

CraigD indicated earlier he didn't think the magnetic field could just be "turned off" in a region of space near a magnet....

I didn’t intend to indicate this. That magnetic fields can be blocked is obvious to anyone with even a low-strength permanent magnet and a couple of steel plates.

 

Why it’s not possible to make a permanent magnet into an “something for nothing” energy source, I hope I explained above.

 

How can the magnet be obviously adding energy to the [closed loop] system? The magnet absolutely cannot add energy to the system.... we settled that.

Right – that’s my point. The magnet cannot add “something from nothing” energy to the system, so the generator can’t extract energy, so the system is not a perpetual motion machine of the first kind. The system has friction, so it can’t be a PPM of the third kind. It’s not intended to be a PPM of the second kind. So it’s not a PPM of any kind.

 

Wouldn't any movement (if it did occur) have to then be attributed to some property of the fluid instead of the magnet, since we know the magnet can't add any energy to the system?

Any movement of a system with nonzero friction forces must be attributed to work – the transfer of energy. This is not a preconceived physical law, but an inescapable consequence of the definition of work and energy as distance (which can also be called change in position, or movement) moved by a body, multiplied by the force acting on it.

 

The siphons and closed loops of fluid we’ve been discussing in this thread have nonzero friction. Other than by changing its potential energy – such as by changing its chemical or nuclear composition or configuration such as a combustible or nuclear fuel, of by changing it height, such as an ordinary stream or siphon – neither a liquid, gas or solid can add energy to the system. So for these systems to move as we’ve been describing them, work from a source other than the magnet, the magnet shield, the fluid, or some combination of them, must be added to them.

 

We seem to have left the "Air Gap" behind with the introduction of CraigD's superior "Loop" configuration.... Or not?

Correct. The “closed loop” system doesn’t need a air gap.

 

It doesn’t even need a fluid. The fluid loop in the sketch could be replaced with rotating wheel with little bar magnets on it. For the same reasons given above, though, this variation can’t be a PPM, either.

[Guest Aemilius]

CraigD "I don’t need images made with a magnet simulator program, but the program itself. I quickly found some limited available online, like this Java-based one from CU-Boulder, and lots of references to more feature-rich ones. I couldn’t find any mention by Rick Hoadley on his “magnetman” webpages of how he generated the images on which Aemilius appear to have built his, and the animation embedded in this post, but imagine he either used software someone else wrote, or wrote his own."

 

Well, images effectively convey information, and considering the extraordinarily simple nature of the experiment, I think the simulation provides more than enough of the kind of detail necessary for predicting the prevailing conditions that will exist. I also think Rick Hoadley's credibility is sufficient not to require any step by step reconstruction/verification of his work (but go for it man.... have fun!), and comparing his resume to yours, I can almost guarantee you there's no result you could possibly come up with having just learned/written the needed program that would change my mind about it.... No offence intended, but this guy's been at it a while.

 

CraigD "I’d prefer to do the latter myself, as I find I learn physics better by writing and using simulators than just using them. Also, I’m not certain what if any prepackaged simulator software can handle situation both the diamagnetic properties of water and the ferromagnetic ones of the “shield” that’s come up in this thread – writing your own allows you to assure it can do what you need."

 

Admirable, but whatever the reason, whether you suspect the veracity of the results shown as somehow being faulty or incomplete data needing double checking, or you're just determined to figure out how to do a full analysis yourself because you want to learn it on your own (both entailing writing/searching for the right program, learning to use it, figuring out how he generated the images, factoring in friction and the effects of the fluid on the magnetic field), my feeling is that you're actually rejecting reasonably reliable existing data produced by a Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science with about forty years of experience that would've allowed the conversation to continue had you accepted it.

 

Since you've chosen that approach, until you've either done all that or changed your mind about the validity of the simulation as it applies to this scenario, I don't see much point in commenting on anything else in your post. Let me know if you change your mind.

 

On the link there's an email address and a phone number. Maybe he'll share the program with you that he used. Good luck with your project.

Edited July 22, 2013 by Aemilius

[Guest Aemilius]

Hey CraigD....

 

Looking at it again, I see there actually is still room for discussion. I'm going to take another tack though and write a short list of statements, each accompanied by an illustration, considered to be true (in principle), then wait for a response indicating some error on my part. Thanks again for discussing it with me.

Edited July 23, 2013 by Aemilius

[Guest Aemilius]

Hey CraigD....

 

I know you expressed a concern about the accuracy of the animated computer model/simulation I made use of, and that you'd rather do your own, but in my opinion Rick Hoadley's forty year history and academic credentials are above reproach. Once you've found/written the right program, learned to use it and completed your own analysis though, we can just go ahead and replace Professor Hoadley's work with your more precise analysis (if the need still exists).

 

If there's no objection, since there's no longer a siphon in the arrangement, and in order to further isolate the system now being scrutinized, I'll take Moontanman's advice again and start another thread for the new arrangement under the original heading of....

 

Magnetically Enabled Continuous Circulation Of Diamagnetic Fluid

Edited July 24, 2013 by Aemilius