Sorcerer wrote:

"Paul" <softwarelabus@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159135162.347010.54830@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "Paul" <softwarelabus@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:1159112910.542929.56050@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| > | Hi,
| > |
| > | I apologize that over the decades I forgot most calculus, which is
| > | probably required to mathematically verify my magnetic interpretation.
| > | I would very much appreciate if anyone could inform me which of the
two
| > | options have lowest _potential_ energy ->
| > |
| > | a) Imagine a block of PM's (permanent magnets) in 3D free space
| > | arranged like antiferromagnetism. Example:
| > | http://www.irm.umn.edu/hg2m/hg2m_b/Image13.gif
| > | Notice the arrows pointing in opposite directions.
| > |
| > | b) Imagine another separate block of PM's except they are arrange like
| > | saturated ferromagnetism; i.e., the moments are point the same
| > | direction.
| > |
| > |
| > | Which has the lowest _potential_ energy? I firmly believe option b has
| > | the lowest potential energy.
| > |
| > | FIRST REASON:
| > | Imagine two PM's, each on a swivel, opposing each other. The two PM's
| > | have potential energy in that when released the PM's will rotate so
the
| > | fields align. After the PM's are released and their energy dampens out
| > | and the fields align they have lowest potential energy. That's one of
| > | two reasons why I believe saturated ferromagnetism has lowest
potential
| > | magnetic energy.
| > |
| > | SECOND REASON:
| > | The magnetic field is twice the strength in front of a PM than at the
| > | sides. For that reason, PM's prefer to in front alignment rather than
| > | sideways alignment. In antiferromagnetism half the moments are in
| > | sideways alignment. In ferromagnetism all the moments are in front
| > | alignment
| > |
| > | The above two reasons are the basis for why I believe saturated
| > | ferromagnetism has less _potential_ energy than antiferromagnetism.
| > |
| > | BTW, due to QM I understand it is incorrect to compare intrinsic
| > | electron spins to PM's. :-) It's not the intentions of such an
| > | interpretation to understand the atom and other effects. Rather I am
| > | trying to understand the magnetic energies involved in magnetic
| > | materials.
| > |
| > | Thanks,
| > | Paul
| >
| > There is NO energy required for a magnet to stick to a fridge
| > door.
| > Androcles
|
|
| Androcles,
|
| You have made my point. There is potential energy between the magnet
| and the fridge. There is a force. When the magnet hits the fridge it
| converts that potential energy to kinetic energy.

Yes, well, it also has potential energy wrt the kitchen floor,
I knocked one off the other day and had to pick it up.
Most the the potential energy was converted to the kinetic
energy of sound.
The rule seems to be that potential energy is relative, it has
negative PE wrt the ceiling. I used some PE in a Mars bar
to restore the magnet's PE. Or maybe it was an apple's
healthier PE, I'm not sure which.


| I would appreciate if anyone knew perhaps at least an approximation the
| potential energy _difference_ between the antiferromagnetic and
| ferromagnetic state. For simplicity we can use permanent magnets as the
| example; i.e., imagine grids of permanent magnets each on a swivel.
|
| Paul

Force is not energy.

Thanks, and I understand that. I said, "There is a force. When the
magnet hits the fridge it converts that potential energy to kinetic
energy." The force times distance equates to energy.