Zero Point Energy, Perpetual motion is possible

[catalanjo]

Magnets work the way they do because some materials have what is called a magnetic dipole; .....In short, therefore, magnets aren't magic. .

AHA! so it's magnetic dipoles that are MAGIC !

Cheers

[beamann]

" Magnets work the way they do because some materials have what is called a magnetic dipole;"

Well said heroic, to help the understanding of what is magnetic and what is not, is simple.
All things and I do mean all things are magnatisable, from netron stars to underware, it's their Permeability that dictates if they stay dipole aligned, a P of 1 indecatets that the magnetic charge placed on a item will tend to stay dipole aligned.
A P of 0 dictates that dipole alignment will decy immieditly if the magnetic influence is removed. Rail guns, MRI's, frogs in a super conductive magnetic field, (levitate in a magnetic bottle). a simple proof of this is to take a sheet of coper, magnitic compass, and magnet.
1) I.D. one pole of the magnet by using the compass, mark that pole.
2) place marked pole of the magnet agianst the coper sheet so that the other pole(oposite) is 180 degrees from the face of the coper sheet.
3) take a compass reading from the oposite side of the coper sheet, the side the magnet IS NOT on.
RESULT: the magnetic influence on the magnetic induction side is one pole reading N or S, and the magnetic result on the other side of the coper sheet is a oposite magnetic pole reading, proveing the the coper plate is magnatized and not just a pass threw of magnetic lines witch if this was so, it would read the same polarity of the intrducing pole of the influencing magnet.

[heroic]

AHA! so it's magnetic dipoles that are MAGIC !

No. There is a difference between "magic" and "things that are complicated".

[catalanjo]

No. There is a difference between "magic" and "things that are complicated".

I am not sure whether or not you are proposing that something isn't magic if it is complicated.

Stephen Wolfram of "Mathematica" fame in his book " A New Kind of Science", introduces the idea of "complication", as a result of very very very large numbers of simple reiterations by exploring some very surprising "fractals".
Maybe I am just a bit dense, but once I get past simple quantum theory and the math disappears into six dimensions and going upwards ............ I call it magic.

OK so what is the complicated "thing" in a magnetic dipole ?

Great if you could avoid "magnetic" in the answer !

I once had a girlfriend who constantly failed her physics exams cos she thought everybody except her knew exactly what an electric charge actually was ! Once I had managed to convinced her that NO ONE KNOWS what it is (just a name given to an observable phenomenon) she passed them all with flying colours!

A 9v battery on the tongue gave my kids an idea of what electricity actually is.
The complicated bit is usually how "it" behaves.

How do YOU distinguish between unimaginably complicated and MAGIC ?

Cheers

[buffo]

Thermodynamics, I was recently fascinated by the stirling engine. It does not break any laws of thermodynamics but it is IMHO a very elegant demonstration of how a temperature difference can be used to generate mechanical energy (friction) from a heat flow.

Heat engines are fascinating, but they are among the most inefficient engines around. Google "Carnot Efficiency" and read up on how lousy these engines really are. (All of them!)

Indeed, early steam engines predated thermodynamic theory. What is fascinating is the improvement that could be made after understanding theory.

Up to the limit of Carnot Efficiency, yes. Which for all intents and purposes is going be less than 50% in nearly every case.

If I'm not mistaking, the jet engine and the stirling engine are pure results of searches for the implementation of particular thermodynamic cycles.

Not exactly. They are common examples of certain cycles (well, the jet is a bit of stretch even there), but the driving forces behind their development were the practical uses of these engines (that is, engineering), rather than confirmation of a theory (that is, pure research).

Adam