Aussie company claims to have a "free" energy gene

[His Divine Shadow]

Kinda anyway, it all sounds suspicious to me.
http://www.lutec.com.au/index.htm

http://www.lutec.com.au/how.htm

We have never said there is an “endless” source of energy emanating from magnets. We have said that the magnets we use in the Lutec 1000 are able to maintain their magnetic qualities for over twelve hundred years. That is a long time when gauged by human life expectancy, but is not forever. We welcome informed opinion, and to that end have sought out the highest qualified people in Australia and the United States of America to review our work.

The Lutec 1000 only baffles those who misinterpret the actions taking place within it as being outside common scientific principles and laws, where in fact it certainly is not. We will try to make a simple explanation to demonstrate what motivates the Lutec 1000 motor/generator:

Let’s say we hang a ten kilo weight off a permanent magnet butted to a steel roofing beam, and that the only thing holding the permanent magnet to the steel beam is the magnetism. Now let’s do the same thing, but this time with an electro-magnet which requires a constant electrical input to maintain its magnetic qualities.

Let’s say we leave them both there for ten years…

They will both perform the same task, that of holding the ten kilos off the floor. The electro-magnet, however, has needed to be fuelled by electricity provided by a generator of some kind - it could be hydro, nuclear, wind, solar, coal or oil - and has cost a large amount in terms of energy. Much work (in the scientific sense) has been done to provide the constant electric current necessary to maintain its magnetic hold on the steel girder.

Now take notice, the permanent magnet has not needed to be energised by an external source, it has done the job for “free” using only the magnetism it contains to perform the same job. The clue here is in the title of “permanent” magnet.

That same principle is one of the reasons the Lutec 1000 motor turns, it is of course the spinning of the centre core of the motor which is caused by the permanent magnets being attracted and then repulsed from the steel cores of the fixed stator coils. It is this primary movement that allows the magnetic fields around the stator coils to be “cut” by the effect of the permanent magnets sweeping past the steel cores of the coils.

Note that we have achieved two effects from one cause, thus inducing an electric current per Mr Faraday’s theory, and so generating electricity as an output or product of the motors motion. The only electricity consumed has been that required to temporarily charge the coils and so creating a temporary magnet of like polarity to cause the permanent magnet to be repulsed rather than attracted.

There are a couple of other major factors that we won’t go into here, suffice it to say that our current prototype demonstrates 1500% more “out” than “in”...

I dunno, something about that feels wrong somehow.

[Lord of the Abyss]

This looks like yet another perpetual motion machine to me. Energy has to come from somewhere.

[His Divine Shadow]

Free energy gene? It was supposed to say generator.

[Lord Zentei]

They will both perform the same task, that of holding the ten kilos off the floor. The electro-magnet, however, has needed to be fuelled by electricity provided by a generator of some kind - it could be hydro, nuclear, wind, solar, coal or oil - and has cost a large amount in terms of energy. Much work (in the scientific sense) has been done to provide the constant electric current necessary to maintain its magnetic hold on the steel girder.

Now take notice, the permanent magnet has not needed to be energised by an external source, it has done the job for “free” using only the magnetism it contains to perform the same job. The clue here is in the title of “permanent” magnet.

Oh, for fucks sake. Yet another pseudoscientist who does not know the meaning of the word "work" in the physics sense. Work is about raising energy states, not maintaining an energy state, for fuck's sake. And in any case MAGNETIC FORCES CANNOT DO WORK, since (v x B)۰v = 0 . This is fucking elementary.

[Instant Sunrise]

I tried to do that type of set-up once. I came to that hypothesis independently, after looking at the schematic of an electric motor. And I would swap the electromagnets with permanent ones.

I got lazy and forgot about it.

[spikenigma]

There are a couple of other major factors that we won’t go into here, suffice it to say that our current prototype demonstrates 1500% more “out” than “in”...

the question is, have any mainsteam bodies or organisations seente device (if you'll pardon the pun) work?

[drachefly]

And in any case MAGNETIC FORCES CANNOT DO WORK, since (v x B)?v = 0 . This is fucking elementary.

A magnet can produce work if you allow the magnet to move, thus changing the magnetic field, thus creating an induced electrical field. This is elementary generator behavior.
Nowhere did they actually say they were using magnetic forces directly.

Though they are idiotic to go against CoE or at least 2ndLoT.

It is possible, though, that they are indeed momentarily producing more outgoing energy than in, so long as the excess energy is drained from the internal energy of the magnet itself (i.e. they are decreasing the order and magnetization of the magnet). I do not know how long it would take for this internal energy to be noticeably depleted, but I don't think it would be very long.

[Il Saggiatore]

We have never said there is an “endless” source of energy emanating from magnets. We have said that the magnets we use in the Lutec 1000 are able to maintain their magnetic qualities for over twelve hundred years. That is a long time when gauged by human life expectancy, but is not forever. We welcome informed opinion, and to that end have sought out the highest qualified people in Australia and the United States of America to review our work.

The Lutec 1000 only baffles those who misinterpret the actions taking place within it as being outside common scientific principles and laws, where in fact it certainly is not. We will try to make a simple explanation to demonstrate what motivates the Lutec 1000 motor/generator:

Let’s say we hang a ten kilo weight off a permanent magnet butted to a steel roofing beam, and that the only thing holding the permanent magnet to the steel beam is the magnetism. Now let’s do the same thing, but this time with an electro-magnet which requires a constant electrical input to maintain its magnetic qualities.

Why not a superconducting coil?

Let’s say we leave them both there for ten years…

They will both perform the same task, that of holding the ten kilos off the floor. The electro-magnet, however, has needed to be fuelled by electricity provided by a generator of some kind - it could be hydro, nuclear, wind, solar, coal or oil - and has cost a large amount in terms of energy. Much work (in the scientific sense) has been done to provide the constant electric current necessary to maintain its magnetic hold on the steel girder.

Of course, because a the current in a normal electromagnet is dissipated as heat.
You need to perform work to keep the current going.
This does not happen with a superconductor.

Now take notice, the permanent magnet has not needed to be energised by an external source, it has done the job for “free” using only the magnetism it contains to perform the same job. The clue here is in the title of “permanent” magnet.

Now take notice, neither the permanent magnet nor the electromagnet have done any work in those ten years: they have not moved any mass against gravity.
Sitting in my office chair does not mean I am doing work in a physical sense: work is done if a mass is moved.

That same principle is one of the reasons the Lutec 1000 motor turns, it is of course the spinning of the centre core of the motor which is caused by the permanent magnets being attracted and then repulsed from the steel cores of the fixed stator coils. It is this primary movement that allows the magnetic fields around the stator coils to be “cut” by the effect of the permanent magnets sweeping past the steel cores of the coils.

Do they give it a swing to start? And how long does it rotate?
While the motor rotates, is it moving any other mass, like lifting a weight with a pulley, or making the whole motor go around in circles on wheels?

Note that we have achieved two effects from one cause, thus inducing an electric current per Mr Faraday’s theory, and so generating electricity as an output or product of the motors motion. The only electricity consumed has been that required to temporarily charge the coils and so creating a temporary magnet of like polarity to cause the permanent magnet to be repulsed rather than attracted.

Then there should not be a problem to keep a couple of lightbulbs going, while you put some of the output back into the input: the whole thinng should keep running for months (actually, 1200 years).

There are a couple of other major factors that we won’t go into here, suffice it to say that our current prototype demonstrates 1500% more “out” than “in”...

How long has it been running?


Nothing new on the "free" energy front....

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

This is exactly like every other "free" energy machine based on DC motors. Not only does it not work, but the purveyors of these devices show ignorance (willful or otherwise) of actual physics.

Of course, if this device truly produced "free" energy, then they should be able to demonstrate this by connecting the output of their device into the input port . . . after disconnecting any other external sources of power, of course.

Not one purveyor of free energy machines has ever actually volunteered to do this under controlled conditions, under the supervision of outside observers with no vested interest in seeing the machine work . . .

[Lord Zentei]

And in any case MAGNETIC FORCES CANNOT DO WORK, since (v x B)?v = 0 . This is fucking elementary.

A magnet can produce work if you allow the magnet to move, thus changing the magnetic field, thus creating an induced electrical field. This is elementary generator behavior.
Nowhere did they actually say they were using magnetic forces directly.

Though they are idiotic to go against CoE or at least 2ndLoT.

It is possible, though, that they are indeed momentarily producing more outgoing energy than in, so long as the excess energy is drained from the internal energy of the magnet itself (i.e. they are decreasing the order and magnetization of the magnet). I do not know how long it would take for this internal energy to be noticeably depleted, but I don't think it would be very long.

No. Magnetic forces do no work. Magnetic forces can act as intermediaries, that is all. The wording of the article does indeed suggest that they are insinuating that the energy is being extracted from the magnet. Moreover, the wording of the article suggests that they do not understand what "work in the scientific sense" means.

[Il Saggiatore]

Magnetic forces do no work.

Magnetic fields do no work on electric charges.
However, they do work on magnetic dipoles.
The reason why magnetic dipoles align with the magnetic field, is because it is the configuration with lowest energy.
Turning the dipole in the field, means that work is being done by the field.

[Lord Zentei]

Magnetic forces do no work.

Magnetic fields do no work on electric charges.
However, they do work on magnetic dipoles.
The reason why magnetic dipoles align with the magnetic field, is because it is the configuration with lowest energy.
Turning the dipole in the field, means that work is being done by the field.

Changing the orientation of magnetic dipoles is rather irrelevant, since this thing is specifically meant to generate a current. In that case the only thing the magnetic force does is to act as an intermediary conveying the work done by whatever is turning the dynamo.

[LordShaithis]

When I was a little kid and first saw a diagram of an electric motor I thought "Make those electromagnets into magnets like on mom's fridge, and boom, a motor that takes no electricity! Wow!" Then I thought about it for a few minutes and realized it was stupid.

[Wicked Pilot]

My bookshelf must be generating free energy because it keeps my books, pubs, mugs, and Lego UCS TIE Interceptor from falling. If a helocopter were to hold that stuff up it'd require aviation fuel. So who wants to buy my bookshelf?*



*Lego not included

[Il Saggiatore]

Magnetic forces do no work.

Magnetic fields do no work on electric charges.
However, they do work on magnetic dipoles.
The reason why magnetic dipoles align with the magnetic field, is because it is the configuration with lowest energy.
Turning the dipole in the field, means that work is being done by the field.

Changing the orientation of magnetic dipoles is rather irrelevant, since this thing is specifically meant to generate a current. In that case the only thing the magnetic force does is to act as an intermediary conveying the work done by whatever is turning the dynamo.

Twice you made a general statement about magnetic fields.
Your statement is correct in the specific case of magnetic fields acting on electric charges.
I brought an example where your generic statement is not correct.
If you meant "Magnetic forces do no work on electric charges", then you should have said so.

[Lord Zentei]

Twice you made a general statement about magnetic fields.
Your statement is correct in the specific case of magnetic fields acting on electric charges.
I brought an example where your generic statement is not correct.
If you meant "Magnetic forces do no work on electric charges", then you should have said so.

Don't be a nitpicking ass. This statement was made in the context of the debate at hand, one that concerns a current generator, and obviously referred to currents. This should have been painfully evident as it was the Lorenz force law I invoked when making that statement.

[Il Saggiatore]

Twice you made a general statement about magnetic fields.
Your statement is correct in the specific case of magnetic fields acting on electric charges.
I brought an example where your generic statement is not correct.
If you meant "Magnetic forces do no work on electric charges", then you should have said so.

Don't be a nitpicking ass. This statement was made in the context of the debate at hand, one that concerns a current generator, and obviously referred to currents. This should have been painfully evident as it was the Lorenz force law I invoked when making that statement.

When dealing with crackpot theories, I rather be a nitpicking ass.
Especially if I am talking to people that don't have a general knowledge of physics.

Saying "And in any case MAGNETIC FORCES CANNOT DO WORK, since (v x B)۰v = 0" or "Magnetic forces do no work. Magnetic forces can act as intermediaries, that is all." requires that people already know what you are talking about.
But the people that already know, are not the ones that need an explanation.

And if you wanted to keep your reply short, you should have given proper references.

[Lord Zentei]

When dealing with crackpot theories, I rather be a nitpicking ass.
Especially if I am talking to people that don't have a general knowledge of physics.

Saying "And in any case MAGNETIC FORCES CANNOT DO WORK, since (v x B)۰v = 0" or "Magnetic forces do no work. Magnetic forces can act as intermediaries, that is all." requires that people already know what you are talking about.
But the people that already know, are not the ones that need an explanation.

And if you wanted to keep your reply short, you should have given proper references.

References? The fact that magnetic forces do no work is a direct consequence of the Lorentz force law which is a fundamental axiom of the theory of magnetics. Incidentally, if we are going to pick nits, you are still mistaken: magnetic forces no work on magnetic dipoles either. ALL magnetic fields are due to moving charges, in the case of dipoles they are due to electron spins. However, a changing magnetic field induces an electric field and THIS is what does the work on the dipole. Magnetic forces do NO work. Unless you were to locate a charge of magnetism, i.e. a magnetic MONOpole, in which case you'll probably have a Nobel prize in your future.

[Il Saggiatore]

When dealing with crackpot theories, I rather be a nitpicking ass.
Especially if I am talking to people that don't have a general knowledge of physics.

Saying "And in any case MAGNETIC FORCES CANNOT DO WORK, since (v x B)۰v = 0" or "Magnetic forces do no work. Magnetic forces can act as intermediaries, that is all." requires that people already know what you are talking about.
But the people that already know, are not the ones that need an explanation.

And if you wanted to keep your reply short, you should have given proper references.

References? The fact that magnetic forces do no work is a direct consequence of the Lorentz force law which is a fundamental axiom of the theory of magnetics.

You assume that the people reading your post recognize the formula for Lorentz force (v x B) and that they know that the power of this force acting on a charge is given by v xB۰v.
So, you assume that the readers already have the background knowledge to understand you reply.
On the other hand, your reply is not very helpful to the people that do not have such background knowledge.

Incidentally, if we are going to pick nits, you are still mistaken: magnetic forces no work on magnetic dipoles either.

So, the fact that a compass (a magnetic dipole) aligns itself along the local amgnetic field is just a dream.
Or was I misinformed when I learned that the energy of a magnetic dipole interacting with a magnetic field is given by -µ۰B (Ref.: Feynman's Lectures on Physics, vol. 2, ch. 15 "The Vector Potential")?

ALL magnetic fields are due to moving charges, in the case of dipoles they are due to electron spins.

And how does this imply that magnetic fields do not do work on magnetic dipoles?
Or are you saying that the magnetic field of one electron does not do any work if it flips the magnetic moment of another electron?
(What was that about exchange interaction in Solid State Physics?)

However, a changing magnetic field induces an electric field and THIS is what does the work on the dipole.

A compass aligning itself in the magnetic field produced by a permanent magnet... How do you define work again?
Maybe you could show us exactly how this mechanism of yours works.

Magnetic forces do NO work. Unless you were to locate a charge of magnetism, i.e. a magnetic MONOpole, in which case you'll probably have a Nobel prize in your future.

I suggest that you take a refresher in electromagnetism, or stop and think for a few minutes before spouting nonsense.

[Lord Zentei]

You assume that the people reading your post recognize the formula for Lorentz force (v x B) and that they know that the power of this force acting on a charge is given by v xB۰v.
So, you assume that the readers already have the background knowledge to understand you reply.
On the other hand, your reply is not very helpful to the people that do not have such background knowledge.

Oh, well excuse me all to hell. In future, I'll PM you my posts for your approval before I submit them. Fuck off.

<snip>

I have already explained why a magnetic force cannot do work on a moving charge: the force is perpendicular to the motion of the particle. I have already explained why this makes the principle universal: all magnetic forces are due to moving charges. I have also explained the manner in which magnetic fields interact with dipoles. An electric field is induced and this does the work.

I suggest that you take a refresher in electromagnetism, or stop and think for a few minutes before spouting nonsense.

I suggest you follow your own advice.

[Il Saggiatore]

You assume that the people reading your post recognize the formula for Lorentz force (v x B) and that they know that the power of this force acting on a charge is given by v xB۰v.
So, you assume that the readers already have the background knowledge to understand you reply.
On the other hand, your reply is not very helpful to the people that do not have such background knowledge.

Oh, well excuse me all to hell. In future, I'll PM you my posts for your approval before I submit them. Fuck off.

Offended because I pointed out your errors?

<snip>

I have already explained why a magnetic force cannot do work on a moving charge: the force is perpendicular to the motion of the particle.

From the part you snipped:

magnetic forces no work on magnetic dipoles either.

Now, a compass aligning itself with the local magnetic field, goes from a state of higher energy to state with lower energy.
The change in energy goes into the work of turning the compass needle.
Or maybe you do not recognize rotation as motion and torque as force?

I have already explained why this makes the principle universal: all magnetic forces are due to moving charges.

Then you could explain where the intrinsic magnetic moment of the electron comes from.
Remember, for all we know it is a point-like particle, and a simple model treating it as a charged sphere is well-known to be incorrect.

I have also explained the manner in which magnetic fields interact with dipoles. An electric field is induced and this does the work.

Then you should have no problem in showing us exactly how a static magnetic field can turn a compass needle, which is what is observed.

I suggest that you take a refresher in electromagnetism, or stop and think for a few minutes before spouting nonsense.

I suggest you follow your own advice.

I did.

[Lord Zentei]

Offended because I pointed out your errors?

No, I am offended because of your pompous depudy mod shit. You are in no position to dictate to anyone here whether their posts are acceptable or not. Get over yourself.

Now, a compass aligning itself with the local magnetic field, goes from a state of higher energy to state with lower energy.The change in energy goes into the work of turning the compass needle.Or maybe you do not recognize rotation as motion and torque as force?

I see you have failed to understand the point regarding induction.

Then you could explain where the intrinsic magnetic moment of the electron comes from.Remember, for all we know it is a point-like particle, and a simple model treating it as a charged sphere is well-known to be incorrect.

Electrons have spin despite having no size.

Then you should have no problem in showing us exactly how a static magnetic field can turn a compass needle, which is what is observed.

I'm not your fucking physics tutor.

[Il Saggiatore]

Offended because I pointed out your errors?

No, I am offended because of your pompous depudy mod shit. You are in no position to dictate to anyone here whether their posts are acceptable or not. Get over yourself.

In my first post addressed to you in this thread, I explained that your generic statement about magnetic forces doing no work is incorrect.
You could have simply acknowledged that your statement was too general, but it looks like you cannot take a bit of criticism.

Now, a compass aligning itself with the local magnetic field, goes from a state of higher energy to state with lower energy.The change in energy goes into the work of turning the compass needle.Or maybe you do not recognize rotation as motion and torque as force?

I see you have failed to understand the point regarding induction.

My point was to bring an example contradicting your generic statement about magnetic forces and in particular this:

magnetic forces no work on magnetic dipoles either.

which is wrong, despite your complaints and attempts of evasion.

Then you could explain where the intrinsic magnetic moment of the electron comes from.Remember, for all we know it is a point-like particle, and a simple model treating it as a charged sphere is well-known to be incorrect.

Electrons have spin despite having no size.

Since a great part of the magnetism in matter has its origin in the spin of the electron, is this not problem for your statement "all magnetic forces are due to moving charges"?
Where is the moving charge that produces the intrinsic magnetic moment of the electron?

Then you should have no problem in showing us exactly how a static magnetic field can turn a compass needle, which is what is observed.

I'm not your fucking physics tutor.

Of course, considering the nonsense you posted in this thread, you would not be qualified to tutor anybody.

[Lord Zentei]

In my first post addressed to you in this thread, I explained that your generic statement about magnetic forces doing no work is incorrect.
You could have simply acknowledged that your statement was too general, but it looks like you cannot take a bit of criticism.

I'm well aware of what your post was in response to. And as my history here suggests, I am perfectly capable of accepting criticizm, and conceding a point. Your admonition was pretentious nonsense.

Since a great part of the magnetism in matter has its origin in the spin of the electron, is this not problem for your statement "all magnetic forces are due to moving charges"?
Where is the moving charge that produces the intrinsic magnetic moment of the electron?

Electrons not only spin, they also revolve aroun their nucleus. For simplicity, let's assume that the orbit is a circle of radius R. Although technically this orbital motion does not constitute a steady current, in practice the period T = 2piR/v is so short that unless you blink very fast indeed, it's going to look like a steady current:

I = e/T = ev/2piR

Accordingly, the orbital dipole moment (IppiR^2) is:

m = -1/2(evRz)

Where z is a unit vector along the z axis. The minus sign accounts for the negative charge of the electron. Like any other magnetic dipole, this is subject to a torque m x B in a magnetic field, in this you are correct. The electron will accellerate or decellerate depending on the orientation of B. For whereas the centripetal accelleration v^2/R is ordinarily sustained by electrical forces alone:

1/4pi*є0 (e^2/R^2) = me (v^2 / R)

in the presence of a magnetic field there is an additional force -e(v x B). For the sake of the argument, let's say that B is perpendicular to the plane of the orbit. Then:

1/4pi*є0 (e^2/R^2) +evB = me(v^2/R)

Under these conditions, the new speed v is greater than v:

evB = me/R(v^2 - v^2= = me/R(v + v)(v-v)

or, assuming that the change delta v = v - v is small:

delta v = eRB/2me

When B is turned on in this case, the electron does in fact speed up.

BUT:

If you think of the magnet dipole as a small current loop, with the
current maintained by a battery, then the rotation will change the Earth's
magnetic flux through the loop and thereby induce a back emf in the loop.
The battery will then have to do work to maintain a constant current. Thus it is the changing magnetic field that induces an electric field, and it is the latter that accellerates the electron in this instance.

The fact of the matter is, that magnetic dipoles are caused bu something called BOUND CURRENTS. For instance, suppose we have a piece of magnetized material; the magnetic dipole moment per unit volume, M is given. What field does this object produce? The vector potential of a single dipole m is given by:

A(r) = uo/4pi(m x r / r^2)

In the magnetized object, each volume element dT' carries a dipole moment MdT' so the total vector potential is:

A(r) = uo/4pi * the intergral of ( M (r') x r / r^2) * T'

The intergral can be cast thus:

DEL' 1/ r = r/r^2

With this,

A(r) = uo/4pi intergral of [ M(r') x (DEL' * 1/r ] dT'

Intergating by parts gives:

A(r) = uo/4pi{ intergral of ( 1/r [ DEL' x M(r')]dT' ) - the intergral of ( DEL' x [ M(r')/r ] dT' ) }

The latter may be expressed as a surface intergral:

A(r) = uo/4pi intergral of ( 1/r [ DEL' x M(r')]dT' ) + uo/4pi surface intergral of (1/r [ M(r') x da'])

The first term is equivalent to the potential of a volume current:

Jb = DEL x M

the latter looks like the potential of a surface current:

Kb = M x n

where n is the normal unit vector. With these definitions:

A(r) = uo/4pi volume intergral of ( Jbr'/r ) dT' + uo/4pi surface intergral of Kbr'/r ) da'

What this means is that the potential and hence also the field of a magnetized object is the same as would be produced by a volume current throughout the material plus a surface current on the boundary.

Quite apart from the fact that IF you were to have located a magnetized object that was not magnetized due to moving charges, you would have found a charge of magnetism, a magnetic monopole, a point I have raised earlier. No such object has yet been found, and compass needles most certainly do NOT contain them.

Of course, considering the nonsense you posted in this thread, you would not be qualified to tutor anybody.

Blah, blah.

[Il Saggiatore]

In my first post addressed to you in this thread, I explained that your generic statement about magnetic forces doing no work is incorrect.
You could have simply acknowledged that your statement was too general, but it looks like you cannot take a bit of criticism.

I'm well aware of what your post was in response to. And as my history here suggests, I am perfectly capable of accepting criticizm, and conceding a point.

But you choose not to do so in my case.

Your admonition was pretentious nonsense.

Except that I explained and supported my point.
You, on the other hand, started talking nonsense about static magnetic fields that do not do any work on magnetic moments:

Incidentally, if we are going to pick nits, you are still mistaken: magnetic forces no work on magnetic dipoles either.

even though this is blatantly disproven by any compass needle in the world.
And when I showed where you were wrong, you tried to evade the issue.
Now, care to revise your statement?

Since a great part of the magnetism in matter has its origin in the spin of the electron, is this not problem for your statement "all magnetic forces are due to moving charges"?
Where is the moving charge that produces the intrinsic magnetic moment of the electron?

Electrons not only spin, they also revolve around their nucleus. For simplicity, let's assume that the orbit is a circle of radius R.

For accuracy, let's not.
Magnetism in matter is far more complicated than that.
For example, in many crystals the orbital contribution to the angular momentum (and so to the magnetic moment) is zero (orbital quenching).
[Ref.: Ashcroft, Mermin, Solid State Physics, Ch. 31]

It is well established that a classical or semi-classical treatment of magnetism in matter fails.

Although technically this orbital motion does not constitute a steady current, in practice the period T = 2piR/v is so short that unless you blink very fast indeed, it's going to look like a steady current:

I = e/T = ev/2piR

Accordingly, the orbital dipole moment (IppiR^2) is:

m = -1/2(evRz)

Where z is a unit vector along the z axis. The minus sign accounts for the negative charge of the electron. Like any other magnetic dipole, this is subject to a torque m x B in a magnetic field, in this you are correct. The electron will accellerate or decellerate depending on the orientation of B. For whereas the centripetal accelleration v^2/R is ordinarily sustained by electrical forces alone:

1/4pi*є0 (e^2/R^2) = me (v^2 / R)

in the presence of a magnetic field there is an additional force -e(v x B). For the sake of the argument, let's say that B is perpendicular to the plane of the orbit. Then:

1/4pi*є0 (e^2/R^2) +evB = me(v^2/R)

Under these conditions, the new speed v is greater than v:

evB = me/R(v^2 - v^2= = me/R(v + v)(v-v)

or, assuming that the change delta v = v - v is small:

delta v = eRB/2me

When B is turned on in this case, the electron does in fact speed up.

BUT:

If you think of the magnet dipole as a small current loop, with the
current maintained by a battery, then the rotation will change the Earth's magnetic flux through the loop and thereby induce a back emf in the loop.
The battery will then have to do work to maintain a constant current. Thus it is the changing magnetic field that induces an electric field, and it is the latter that accellerates the electron in this instance.

Can you explain how a compass needle, with constant magnetic moment, aligns itself parallel to the local, static, magnetic field?
Can you show this turning does not require work?

The fact of the matter is, that magnetic dipoles are caused bu something called BOUND CURRENTS. For instance, suppose we have a piece of magnetized material; the magnetic dipole moment per unit volume, M is given. What field does this object produce? The vector potential of a single dipole m is given by:

A(r) = uo/4pi(m x r / r^2)

In the magnetized object, each volume element dT' carries a dipole moment MdT' so the total vector potential is:

A(r) = uo/4pi * the intergral of ( M (r') x r / r^2) * T'

The intergral can be cast thus:

DEL' 1/ r = r/r^2

With this,

A(r) = uo/4pi intergral of [ M(r') x (DEL' * 1/r ] dT'

Intergating by parts gives:

A(r) = uo/4pi{ intergral of ( 1/r [ DEL' x M(r')]dT' ) - the intergral of ( DEL' x [ M(r')/r ] dT' ) }

The latter may be expressed as a surface intergral:

A(r) = uo/4pi intergral of ( 1/r [ DEL' x M(r')]dT' ) + uo/4pi surface intergral of (1/r [ M(r') x da'])

The first term is equivalent to the potential of a volume current:

Jb = DEL x M

the latter looks like the potential of a surface current:

Kb = M x n

where n is the normal unit vector. With these definitions:

A(r) = uo/4pi volume intergral of ( Jbr'/r ) dT' + uo/4pi surface intergral of Kbr'/r ) da'

What this means is that the potential and hence also the field of a magnetized object is the same as would be produced by a volume current throughout the material plus a surface current on the boundary.

Which does not show that the magnetic moment is actually produced by a surface current.
It is clear that you missed the lecture where they explained that a correct treatment of magnetism in matter requires Quantum Mechanics.

Quite apart from the fact that IF you were to have located a magnetized object that was not magnetized due to moving charges, you would have found a charge of magnetism, a magnetic monopole, a point I have raised earlier.

Wrong.
The electron spin is not due to a moving charge, and it is a dipole.

No such object has yet been found, and compass needles most certainly do NOT contain them.

All that mathematical gymnastic to avoid addressing your error:

magnetic forces no work on magnetic dipoles either

Care to show that a static magnetic field does no work on a free electron (not bound to anything), when it flips its magnetic field?

Ever heard of Zeeman splitting?

Of course, considering the nonsense you posted in this thread, you would not be qualified to tutor anybody.

Blah, blah.

With your latest post you proved that you have no idea what you are talking about.
It seems that the needs of your ego override physical facts or intellectual honesty.

It is well known that a classical treament of magnetism in matter yields incorrect results (for example, Van Leeuwen's theorem proves that there is no diamagnetism in a classical treament; Ref.: Huanf, Statistical Mechanics, Ch. 7).
So all your equations are pointless and avoid the issue, which is the work of a static magnetic field on a magnetic moment (hint: torque times rotation is work, whatever the origin of magnetic field and moment).