A perpetual riddle for sure

  • Thread starter scott_sieger
  • Start date

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.
 

Attachments

HallsofIvy

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
41,709
876
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

Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,085
11
'Tis indeed a perpetual riddle, 'cos I'll be damned if I can figure out what you're trying to say Scott
 

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

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
3,394
1,068
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

Mentor
18,839
5,030
Originally posted by scott_sieger
so when two magnets are joined the combined strength is not more than when apart?
No.
 

Related Threads for: A perpetual riddle for sure

  • Posted
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
961
  • Posted
Replies
16
Views
643
  • Posted
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • Posted
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • Posted
Replies
4
Views
1K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top