a perpetual riddle for sure

[scott_sieger]

Hi guys,
Attached is a diagram design in principle i drew some time ago

It's pretty self explanitory

I was wondering if some one can tell my why it is invalid and doesn't work.

[HallsofIvy]

Perhaps I need some explanation after all. Your picture looks completely symmetric. I can so no reason why either ring should turn. The inner ring is already resting on a point below its center of gravity, so there is no net gravitational force.
The outer ring is symmetric about the inner so there is no net magnetic force.
On your picture you have a section that is NOT symmetric labeled "Horizon of greatest attraction". Why is that region not symmetric about the two rings?

[jcsd]

'Tis indeed a perpetual riddle, 'cos I'll be damned if I can figure out what you're trying to say Scott[:D]

[scott_sieger]

The rimgs are in fact cylinders that are poled magbets as shown.

The join of the two rings offers a greater attraction than the top of the rings there fore the bottom of the rings is attracted more strongly to the large attractor (magnet) to the right thus rotation is possible.

[Janus]

Originally posted by scott_sieger
The rimgs are in fact cylinders that are poled magbets as shown.

The join of the two rings offers a greater attraction than the top of the rings there fore the bottom of the rings is attracted more strongly to the large attractor (magnet) to the right thus rotation is possible.

The problem is the the bottom of the rings aren't attracted more strongly to the exterior magnet. Your assumption that they are is where you are making your mistake.

[scott_sieger]

so when two magnets are joined the combined strength is not more than when apart?

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by scott_sieger
so when two magnets are joined the combined strength is not more than when apart? No.