Re: Stump The Physicist
From: KC (keith__cochrane_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 08/31/04
- Next message: Jim: "Re: My prime counting formula, other prime counting"
- Previous message: jimp_at_specsol-spam-sux.com: "Re: SOLAR-POWERED Sonar."
- In reply to: Igor: "Re: Stump The Physicist"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 30 Aug 2004 19:49:04 -0700
thoovler@excite.com (Igor) wrote in message news:<d434b6c6.0408301056.569c1b65@posting.google.com>...
> ghytrfvbnmju7654@mail.com (Jim Black) wrote in message news:<cb623e6.0408292102.4fab975a@posting.google.com>...
> > thoovler@excite.com (Igor) wrote in message news:<d434b6c6.0408291405.6a0beef1@posting.google.com>...
> > > keith__cochrane@hotmail.com (KC) wrote in message news:<8824f771.0408281008.20f3f803@posting.google.com>...
<-------------------- snip ------------------->
> > > > Question: Based on the information, above and below, state which of
> > > > the following answers is correct, (A, B, C, or D), and explain why?
> > > >
> > > > A) Magnet # 1 will remain stationary.
> > > > B) Magnet # 1 will move to the right.
> > > > C) Magnet # 1 will move to the left.
> > > > D) State your own conclusion in its entirety.
> > > >
> > > > _
> > > > Magnet # 1 -------------> | |
> > > > Edge View --------------> | |
> > > > | |
> > > > North Magnetic Poles ---> | | <-- South Magnetic Pole
> > > > | | |
> > > > | Like ------> | |<------ Opposite
> > > > | Poles | | Poles
> > > > \|/ | | | |
> > > > \/ \/ |_| \/
> > > > ____________________________________________________
> > > > |____________________________________________________|
> > > > Magnet # 2 ^
> > > > /|\
> > > > |
> > > > South Magnetic Pole
> > > >
> > > > End of trivia question.
> > > >
> > > > I'll respond when I see someone get this right.
> > >
> > > The answer is (A) since it will experience a torque that will tend to
> > > align the two fields. If it were not restrained, it would rotate
> > > clockwise, but since it is only allowed to moved left or right, it
> > > can't move at all, since it will experience no net force along that
> > > line.
> >
> > That's what I guessed when I first looked at it, too, but if you work
> > it out, you'll find that there is, in fact, a net force.
<--------------------------- snip ------------------------------>
> >
> > So the magnets should behave approximately as if there were like
> > charges located at (a,b) and (w,0), and a pair of like charges of the
> > opposite sign at (a,h) and (0,0).
>
>
> That's definitely the way to approach it. For some strange reason, I
> was assuming the forces that generated the torque on magnet #1 would
> be equal and opposite. They can't be, since the force to the left on
> the bottom of the magnet will be stronger than the force to the right
> on the top because of their respective relative positions to magnet
> #2. So magnet #1 experiences a net force to the left and so (C) will
> be the correct answer.
What once seemed a straightforward answer, had me wondering the first
time I observed this magnet configuration too. Thanks again for your
participation in my trivia question Igor. I hope that you and others
who read these posts my find applications, where this information
would prove useful to you. Regretably, as much as I apprecitated Jim
Black's participation here, he's under the impression that I refered
to him as a troll in alt.inventors, in the thread here:
I responded to that post and you will likely be able to see that
response by the time this post shows up on your news server.
My less orthadox method for seeking verification of my own findings
here in this thread, were based simply on the fact that I didn't have
years left to develop my knowledge of physics. And because I could
paste anything into a newsgroup, no matter how valid it was and have
it be ignored.
Before posting this here, I figured that it was unlikely that, (if
anyone ever develops this idea into something practical), I ever see
any financial benefit from it as would very likely be long gone. So, I
figured I'd take a different route, that might allow me to obtain the
independant verification I needed that would demonstrate to people
finding these posts, that this was indeed the real thing and not just
another scam to draw investors.
As difficult as it has been for me or anyone else to believe in "Over
Unity" devices or "Perpetual Motion Machines", its at least as
difficult to believe that anyone who had one, (that might actually
work), would put designs up in a newsgroup for all too see and debunk,
(as I have and in fact did, before I ever posted to this thread). The
posts here have to some limited degree, provided fuel for the fire, by
demonstrating that there is indeed some measurable force involved in
this configuration of magnets. Thus offering some credibility to
myself and my designs.
In return for the assistance I've received here through your
participation, I can only offer recognition of your involvement, (only
if this proves to be a practical device of the nature mentioned), and
only if your demonstrate a willingness to receive such recognition by
emailing me, (otherwise I'll assume you don't want your name and
involvement mentioned, something thats kind of hard to avoid as a
search in these newsgroups, would get such results).
You also get, "in on the ground floor", so to speak, as far as having
advance knowledge of this principle, (that as I pointed out before),
might prove to be of benefit to you in your field of endevour. And I
would hope, you receive some satisfaction from your participation in
this, should it develop into something tangible that would prove to be
of benefit to people in general.
Personally, my motives are not totally selfless, as I wouldn't mind
seeing some financial gain from this idea, that I've kept to myself
for so many years now. Your motives in, (perhaps unknowingly), helping
me with this, should be rewarded in some way. Assuming I ever make a
dollar from my design, I go on public record here as acknowledging
your participation. But as I have eluded to, my health may prevent
that from ever happening during this lifetime.
My sincerest thanks to both you, Igor and Jim Black!
KC
aka: Keith Cochrane.
Email (with the double underscore between my first and last name):
keith__cochrane@hotmail.com
- Next message: Jim: "Re: My prime counting formula, other prime counting"
- Previous message: jimp_at_specsol-spam-sux.com: "Re: SOLAR-POWERED Sonar."
- In reply to: Igor: "Re: Stump The Physicist"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
