Talk:Magnetic levitation

message: A permagnet can be stably suspended at room temperature without either servo control or superconductors
 by various configurations of strong permanent magnets and strong diamagnets. When using superconducting
 magnets, the levitation of a permanent magnet can even be stabilized by the small diamagnetism of water
 in human fingers.
This bit looks nonsense, especially as it seems to either contradict other stuff in the article, or be totally redundant depending on how I read it. I'm moving it here in case anyone wants to comment on it...
Whitepaw 18:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a real effect, though poorly written.  reference that says almost the exact same thing — Omegatron 23:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diamagnetically-Stabilized Levitation 

message: Many years ago on british children's tv I saw a large and heavy telephone book being levitated. It was then explained that this was due to an aluminium plate hidden within it.
: If you could remember the name of the show and other information, that might be notable enough to include in the article. — Omegatron 22:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Levitation of aluminium 

message: Hi, I re-inserted the section on electrodynamic suspension, not sure why it was removed as it is an important principle. PLease give reason why it should not be in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.208.69 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit as 22.10.2006 

message: I don't understand the equation at all.  What "minimum criteria" is this measuring exactly?  Minimum mass?  Minimum volume?  Minimum diamagnetic field?  What exactly is measured in T-squared over m?  The examples of water and graphite are no help since you do not explain how you reached the figures involved.  Nor do I understand what >> means.  Widsith 15:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  equation 

message: There's a lot of advertising for Inductrack here, should this be mentioned by name in the main article or just linked to or what?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.188.108 (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inductrack 

message: Is it possible? 64.236.121.129 15:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible to create an aircraft supported by mag lev alone? 

message: Regardless of what is decided here, using this talk page as a reference would be original research, which is not allowed. Please instead concentrate on academic and peer-reviewed journals as reliable sources. --GoodDamon 18:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I demand reliable sources about sized objects unstability? --Termar (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Absolutely. If a statement in the article lacks a citation, you may place a  tag after it, or even just remove it (making sure you fill in a reason why). But it looks like the discussion is ongoing on this, and you may want to hold off on outright deletion until consensus is reached on this talk page. --GoodDamon 18:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do not use this section as a reference 

message: Earnshaw's Theorem points to the fact that there can be no stable equilibrium node when all the forces involved are inverse square law forces measured from a common origin. If magnetic repulsion and gravity were both inverse square law forces measured from the same points of origin, then Earnshaw's theorem would mean that magnetic levitation is impossible. But magnetic levitation does happen, so it is not therefore impossible. Since Earnshaw's Theorem follows from sound mathematical principles, it is hardly likely to be wrong. So we are left with no choice but to conclude that magnetic levitation occurs because either,
(1) the magnetic point of origin is different than the gravitational point of origin,
or
(2) because the magnetic force does not obey an inverse square law, contrary to what is commonly believed. If we accept Maxwell's theory that magnetic repulsion is a product of centrifugal force, then we will have reason to believe that magnetic force may obey an inverse cube law, hence allowing for a stable equilibrium node in conjunction with gravity, just as in the case of planetary orbits.
or
(3) both.
It would seem that this storm in a teacup about magnetic levitation defying Earnshaw's Theorem is based on a faulty conception of the electromagnetic forces. David Tombe (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earnshaw's Theorem 

message: It would be interesting if relevant material could be found about the potential use of magnetic levitation in the training of astronauts. Currently, astronauts have to use special accelerating machines to practice their levitation abilities, but it is possible that in the future, the levitation could be achieved by using electromagnetic energy instead of simulating gravity effects at high speeds. ADM (talk) 01:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Astronauts

message: If we prepare and operate and operate a magnetic levitation system within a device such as a gravitational force measuring scale and then try to list the mass of the components of the levitation system, are we able to assign a value of zero to the mass of the spacial volume within which the supportive levitating is created? In other words are we creating a force within a volume of space where there is no matter? Is that a reasonable concept?WFPM (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Magnetic levitation system mass

message: I thought (and was taught) that you cannot get magnetic levitation with any geometry of magnets alone. However, I saw this somewhat odd youtube video  that shows just that... a bowl-shaped magnet casually tossed into a larger bowl, floating in what is obviously a stable equilibrium... my first thought was: "what I just saw is impossible", but the rather dull nature of the video & editing leads me to believe it is not elaborate CG... around the same time in the video they show other stable configurations, but they are usually supported by a table or sheet of plexiglass too. Crazy, no? I know the levitron also has a much-needed hole in the middle, so that much seems to help it's believability. Is there any obvious explanation I am missing? or does Earnshaw's theorem now *only* apply to points & spheres? :-/ --Osndok (talk) 04:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statically Stable Bowl-shaped Magnets 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Magnetic levitation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5txsxCmCf to http://www.ru.nl/publish/pages/561854/frog-ejp.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: thumb|left|Mechanical constraint (in this case the lateral restrictions created by a box) can permit pseudo-levitation of permanent magnets
I've removed the image on the left from the article because it doesn't illustrate what the caption says it does. It's a photo of a sculpture which happens to be titled "Levitation", but there's nothing to indicate that any actual levitation is taking place. Having looked at the full size image I can see no evidence of magnets, nor is there any "box". What we do have is two sections separated by a diagonal mirror, quite possibly with some additional support behind it, which, when viewed from a suitable angle, gives the illusion of one floating above the other.
By the way, the viewing angle is rather unsuitable, IMO, due to the line between wall and floor passing behind the mirror. Took me a while to work out what I was looking at, even at full size... Fortunately there's another example of the artist's work (right) which gives a much better illustration of the effect he was trying to achieve. Hopefully it's clear there's no magnetic levitation going on.
Now all we need is a replacement which actually does show two magnets in a box. Shouldn't be too hard? 79.73.150.27 (talk) 00:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the magnetic levitation? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Magnetic levitation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.ru.nl/publish/pages/561854/everyonesmagnetism.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070124094228/http://users.bigpond.net.au/com/maglevvideogallery/ to http://users.bigpond.net.au/com/maglevvideogallery/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041013200536/http://www.hfml.sci.kun.nl/levitation-movies.html to http://www.hfml.sci.kun.nl/levitation-movies.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060325163541/http://www.larryspring.com/class_motors.html to http://www.larryspring.com/class_motors.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Mach number for maglev trains Jithesh A T (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mach number