The superconductor shows exception to your statement.

Correct me but doesn't the Meissner effect only occur at the creation of the superconductor?

The Meissner effect is not the complete absence of a magnetic field just really close to it.

There is also the London penetration depth.

Edited December 13, 201312 yr by Craer

It's the exclusion of the field from the bulk. Which means that as that happens, the field is not static.

Yes but can that field be forced into a non-static state through a method other then applying the velocity to the object generating the field?

Instead creating that velocity in the field itself through an aspect of the fields construction?

Hence where superconductors may or may not come into play as a tool to alter that field, or a vacuum, or a combination of materials and actions/reactions

Edited December 13, 201312 yr by Craer

Only things I've ever heard of undergoing magnetic field self reversal are stars and some planets. Probably some moons as well. Even then there is a large degree of internal motion.

 

Real world you would need something which undergoes cyclic changes within its own structure which affect the state of the magnetic field produced.

Edited December 14, 201312 yr by Endy0816

Could these cyclic changes be on an atomic level?

If so what could produce them?

Or even on a sub-atomic or quantum level.

Ferromagnetic objects are in a continuous state of atomic change when subjected to external magnetic influence which is prevalent in the known universe.

Would need to be some sort of new metamaterial. Provided the energy to switch came from the magnet's energy or physical composition it would still be within the laws of conservation of energy.

 

Considering some of the latest metamaterials out there(cloaking, memory metals, etc) not a huge stretch to think it'll become a reality.

It's the exclusion of the field from the bulk. Which means that as that happens, the field is not static.

The field, or rather its source, can be static. If the type I superconductor is cooled once the field is established, when the superconductor passes the transition temperature, it expels the field. This speaks against a result of induced voltage.

 

Zero induction in the superconductor, but the field can be the cause of many things there... This is an other case where things happen at a location where the vector potential A is interesting, while the induction B is not.

 

Electromagnetism is tricky ("not elementary"). Because the induced voltage appears around the induction field B, you get a voltage even if the conductor moves near a place of uniform induction field, provided that the flux inside the loop changes. Or you get a force on a conductor loop, depite the induction field B is constant at the loop, provided the flux in the loop changes. This is the case in a voice coil motor.

 

In such cases where "at" and "within" give bizarre results, the potential A is clearer than the field B - but unfortunately, we have instruments or objects to observe B, which makes B more concrete.

Would need to be some sort of new metamaterial. Provided the energy to switch came from the magnet's energy or physical composition it would still be within the laws of conservation of energy.

 

Considering some of the latest metamaterials out there(cloaking, memory metals, etc) not a huge stretch to think it'll become a reality.

Is that more than a buzzword applied to an unrelated topic?

Yes but can that field be forced into a non-static state through a method other then applying the velocity to the object generating the field?

Instead creating that velocity in the field itself through an aspect of the fields construction?

Hence where superconductors may or may not come into play as a tool to alter that field, or a vacuum, or a combination of materials and actions/reactions

I don't understand.

Could these cyclic changes be on an atomic level?

If so what could produce them?

Or even on a sub-atomic or quantum level.

Ferromagnetic objects are in a continuous state of atomic change when subjected to external magnetic influence which is prevalent in the known universe.

I don't understand that neither.

 

Gives me the bad impression of a message formulated vaguely enough to provoke reactions.

The field, or rather its source, can be static. If the type I superconductor is cooled once the field is established, when the superconductor passes the transition temperature, it expels the field. This speaks against a result of induced voltage.

 

 

Which means it's not a static field.

I was just using the term as a catchall to reference man-made materials with properties not found in nature.

 

OP was asking about a way to generate power from a magnet without any motion occurring in the system.

Edited December 18, 201312 yr by Endy0816