reply to post by OccamAssassin
A magnet aligned in a magnetic field will still gradually get weaker over time. The magnitude of the magnetic field will increase though when a
magnet is added to an existing field/magnet. Note too that in a literal sense, there is no such thing as a permanent magnet. Even rare earth magnets
have a limited life and that life can be consumed ....just like a battery.
Perhaps we are getting into semantics, but it sounds like you are totally contradicting yourself. A magnet aligned positively with an outside magnetic
field has its own magnetic field stabilized, and thus will not degrade over time. In the absence of an external magnetic field, you are correct that
the magnetic field will slowly deteriorate over time, and an external negative (oppositely polarized) field will hasten this degradation.
The unique part of this is that the applied positively-aligned magnetic field can actually be induced by the magnet itself. This is what happens when
'keepers' are used to preserve the field strength of horseshoe magnets: the magnet induces a positive magnetic field in the iron keeper, which then
serves to stabilize the magnetic field in the magnet and keep it from degrading.
This is true (and it disproves your hypothesis that magnets somehow violate any of the laws of conservation) though it must be addressed that
as the magnet influences the ferromagnetic substance, the magnet will get proportionately weaker.
Untrue. A ferromagnetic substance in a magnetic field will actually intensify the field by its very presence, as well as concentrate it. That is the
science behind the transformer, the electromagnet, and the solenoid.
It doesn't discharge particles as such....it radiates a magnetic field. As with anything that radiates.....It has a limited life.
Again, perhaps semantics, but 'radiates' implies a discharge of some sort. A magnet establishes a field rather than radiates it, as there is nothing
we can detect that is radiated. We are not even sure what this field is, as the only way we can detect it is via force applied to
magnetically-susceptible objects in that field.
It also does not follow that the existence of a field decreases the ability of the source of that field to continue production of the field. Electrons
do not 'wear out', yet they produce an electrostatic field continuously.
If the industrial community worked on that philosophy, nothing would get done.
And if the scientific field worked without that principle, we would still be living in caves eating deer cooked over a fire we managed to find after a
Every major invention has used a prototype to prove its worth in real life. Any designer worth his salt can create something fantastic and have it
work on paper in theory, but be unable to produce a prototype or finished product. The recent move toward prototype-less production is one of the most
dangerous developments in industry I have seen to date; why do you think we had Toyotas with sticking fuel pedals?
I look at theory, yes. But as long as I cannot prove to myself that it cannot work, it follows that there is a possibility it will. As long as there
is a possibility, it becomes worth thinking about a prototype.