| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
31 Aug 2007 07:47:49 PM |
| Object: |
Stacking repelling magnets |
When stacking 10 repelling magnets upon top of eachother on a
scale(let say they are discshaped in a tube, i have to assume that the
weight of them upon scale can be no different then if we did lay them
out next to eachother.
However it is not clear to me that the actual result is due to gravity/
weight, i understand that their is a force pressing the magnets down
due to the weight of the magnet and that the downpushing of the
magnetic field somehow manage to be in equillibrium with the weight of
the magnets.
How do i express the serie of forces that result in the weight upon
the scale mathematicly.
Is it correct to say that the scale show a gravity of and discontinued
body, or is it more correct to say it show a result of magnetic forces
in action.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Stacking repelling magnets |
31 Aug 2007 08:00:16 PM |
|
|
On a scale, it will show the total mass/weight of the magnets.
Magnetism is not involved.
What confused many people is that magnets have various polarizations,
some of which repel other magnets, and some will attract. It doesn't
affect their overall weight/mass.
At any rate, the total weight/mass will equal the total weight/mass of
the magnets, whether being magnetized or not. This is simple physics.
Harry C.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Stacking repelling magnets |
31 Aug 2007 08:13:28 PM |
|
|
On 1 Sep, 03:00, "hhc...@yahoo.com" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a scale, it will show the total mass/weight of the magnets.
Magnetism is not involved.
What confused many people is that magnets have various polarizations,
some of which repel other magnets, and some will attract. It doesn't
affect their overall weight/mass.
At any rate, the total weight/mass will equal the total weight/mass of
the magnets, whether being magnetized or not. This is simple physics.
Harry C.
Well tell me the force which push each of the magnets down then that
was what i asked for, i want to learn simple physics. As i understand
it the second magnet will have the greatest energy potential could you
explain this simple physics for me also.
J
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Stacking repelling magnets |
02 Sep 2007 01:33:27 AM |
|
|
On Aug 31, 9:13 pm, wrote:
On 1 Sep, 03:00, "hhc...@yahoo.com" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a scale, it will show the total mass/weight of the magnets.
Magnetism is not involved.
What confused many people is that magnets have various polarizations,
some of which repel other magnets, and some will attract. It doesn't
affect their overall weight/mass.
At any rate, the total weight/mass will equal the total weight/mass of
the magnets, whether being magnetized or not. This is simple physics.
Harry C.
Well tell me the force which push each of the magnets down then that
was what i asked for, i want to learn simple physics. As i understand
it the second magnet will have the greatest energy potential could you
explain this simple physics for me also.
J
Simple answer, a magnetic field has absolutely no incfluence on the
measured mass/weight of the magnets. Magnetic forces and gravitational
attraction are mutually exclusive.
Magnetic field do not act against gravity, ever. I won't was time
trying to explain this to you on a newsgroup, but the answer is
readily found in any Physics 101 textbooks such as Halliday &
Resnick's "Fundamentals of Physics".
As a physicist, it never ceases to amaze me how many people seem very
interested in physics, but fail to read even the most basic literature
available on the subject and come to some astonishing conclusions.
Please realize that no perpetual motion machine of gravity cancelling
device cannot easily be de-bunked by anyone with a Physics 101 level
of knowledge.
Go purchase a good physics textbook, rather than reading the crap
pseudo-science craps that is hawked by the pop-science retailers.
Learn what mainstream universities are using for their introductory
physics textbooks (Physics 101) and read that, plus work the problem
sets that appear at the end of each chapter. Yes, I know that books
like these are expensive...but if you shop around you can find a used
copy of Halliday & Resnick for likely under $50. This is a good
investiment, because basic physics is updated only around twice a
century, if that often.
I'm not attempting to flame you, simply to point you in a direction
that will help you to comprehend physical reality more realistically.
Harry C.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Stacking repelling magnets |
02 Sep 2007 03:27:59 AM |
|
|
On 2 Sep, 08:33, "hhc...@yahoo.com" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Aug 31, 9:13 pm, wrote:
On 1 Sep, 03:00, "hhc...@yahoo.com" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On a scale, it will show the total mass/weight of the magnets.
Magnetism is not involved.
What confused many people is that magnets have various polarizations,
some of which repel other magnets, and some will attract. It doesn't
affect their overall weight/mass.
At any rate, the total weight/mass will equal the total weight/mass of
the magnets, whether being magnetized or not. This is simple physics.
Harry C.
Well tell me the force which push each of the magnets down then that
was what i asked for, i want to learn simple physics. As i understand
it the second magnet will have the greatest energy potential could you
explain this simple physics for me also.
J
Simple answer, a magnetic field has absolutely no incfluence on the
measured mass/weight of the magnets. Magnetic forces and gravitational
attraction are mutually exclusive.
Magnetic field do not act against gravity, ever. I won't was time
trying to explain this to you on a newsgroup, but the answer is
readily found in any Physics 101 textbooks such as Halliday &
Resnick's "Fundamentals of Physics".
As a physicist, it never ceases to amaze me how many people seem very
interested in physics, but fail to read even the most basic literature
available on the subject and come to some astonishing conclusions.
Please realize that no perpetual motion machine of gravity cancelling
device cannot easily be de-bunked by anyone with a Physics 101 level
of knowledge.
Go purchase a good physics textbook, rather than reading the crap
pseudo-science craps that is hawked by the pop-science retailers.
Learn what mainstream universities are using for their introductory
physics textbooks (Physics 101) and read that, plus work the problem
sets that appear at the end of each chapter. Yes, I know that books
like these are expensive...but if you shop around you can find a used
copy of Halliday & Resnick for likely under $50. This is a good
investiment, because basic physics is updated only around twice a
century, if that often.
I'm not attempting to flame you, simply to point you in a direction
that will help you to comprehend physical reality more realistically.
Harry C.- D=F6lj citerad text -
- Visa citerad text -
I can tell by your answer you really have no idea about the forces at
work and how they interact within the given expample, if i want a
parrot i buy one, i do not take time reading a book to know "basics"
like this.
But a general formula for the foces acting upon each of the magnets
and scale would be nice, do not forget do include the repelling foces
within the equation.
J
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Stacking repelling magnets |
02 Sep 2007 04:59:25 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 23:33:27 -0700, "hhc314@yahoo.com"
<hhc314@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
Go purchase a good physics textbook, rather than reading the crap
pseudo-science craps that is hawked by the pop-science retailers.
Learn what mainstream universities are using for their introductory
physics textbooks (Physics 101) and read that, plus work the problem
sets that appear at the end of each chapter. Yes, I know that books
like these are expensive...but if you shop around you can find a used
copy of Halliday & Resnick for likely under $50. This is a good
investiment, because basic physics is updated only around twice a
century, if that often.
Cheaper, if you are willing to go for a slightly older edition and
paperback.
http://product.half.ebay.com/Fundamentals-of-Physics_W0QQtgZinfoQQprZ6048399
I'm not attempting to flame you, simply to point you in a direction
that will help you to comprehend physical reality more realistically.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/fbad769b70ec76a4
Keep living the dream, Harry. :)
The problem is that people are stupid.
Count all the cranks on this newsgroup.
How many of them have college degrees in anything? Probably a tenth.
Of that tenth or so, how many of them have a degree in...
....physics? Two - Tom Van Flandern and Cahill/Surfer.
....mathematics? One.
....engineering? Zero. No, Androcles does not count - he was a
managerial software "engineer".
Everyone else is unskilled and unaware of it.
Harry C.
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: Stacking repelling magnets |
02 Sep 2007 08:07:14 AM |
|
|
It is the stacking of magnets that nature uses with positive and
negative poles always stacked to attract that shows to me the Earth
poles never flip,but scientist don't take this fact when looking at
sedimentary rocks with their magnetic force lines built up over 100s of
years. It is like saying a mirror reads stuff backwards when it
reflects back a news paper. Bert
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Stacking repelling magnets |
03 Sep 2007 03:19:52 PM |
|
|
On Sep 2, 5:59 am, Eric Gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail-nospam.com> wrote:
On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 23:33:27 -0700, "hhc...@yahoo.com"
<hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
Go purchase a good physics textbook, rather than reading the crap
pseudo-science craps that is hawked by the pop-science retailers.
Learn what mainstream universities are using for their introductory
physics textbooks (Physics 101) and read that, plus work the problem
sets that appear at the end of each chapter. Yes, I know that books
like these are expensive...but if you shop around you can find a used
copy of Halliday & Resnick for likely under $50. This is a good
investiment, because basic physics is updated only around twice a
century, if that often.
Cheaper, if you are willing to go for a slightly older edition and
paperback.
http://product.half.ebay.com/Fundamentals-of-Physics_W0QQtgZinfoQQprZ...
I'm not attempting to flame you, simply to point you in a direction
that will help you to comprehend physical reality more realistically.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/th...
Keep living the dream, Harry. :)
The problem is that people are stupid.
Count all the cranks on this newsgroup.
How many of them have college degrees in anything? Probably a tenth.
Of that tenth or so, how many of them have a degree in...
...physics? Two - Tom Van Flandern and Cahill/Surfer.
...mathematics? One.
...engineering? Zero. No, Androcles does not count - he was a
managerial software "engineer".
Everyone else is unskilled and unaware of it.
Harry C.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Eric, I'm in total agreement with you.
The mystery to me is why so many folk who are evidently curious enough
about physics to bother posting on sci.physics are totally ignorant of
the really basic concepts of physics, like simple mechanics and heat/
light/electricity/magnetism, and so reluctant to learn these simple
basics taught in highschool and in college at the level of Physics
101? The original poster in this thread clearly does not comprehend
the fundamental principles, and seemed to become hostile when I
suggested a book on basic physics to help him with his comprehension.
This sort of reaction is all too common on this newsgroup, and if it
were not so pathetic, it would actually be humorous.
Perhaps I should have suggested to him that the stack of levitated
magnets is analygous to a stack of magnets supported by weightless
springs, and that the total weight of the stack will alway be equal to
the accumulative weight of all the magnets in the stack. Still, that's
the explanation that you would provide to most curious middle school
students who are oblivious to any principles of basic physics, but I
believed that this explanation would be insulting to an adult poster.
Oh well, we always give it our best shot! :-)
By the way Eric, just for the record, I am a physicist (Drexel, 1964)
and an EE (Princeton, 1970). I left research in 1969 and became a
worker bee in industry, but returned part time to teaching after
retirement from industry in 1995, but continue to teach classical
mechanics and electromagnetics at some of the universities here in the
Boston area.
Harry C.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sue..." |
|
| Title: Re: Stacking repelling magnets |
05 Sep 2007 06:37:39 PM |
|
|
On Sep 2, 3:33 am, "hhc...@yahoo.com" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
Magnetic field do not act against gravity, ever.
Oh?
<< Small acceleration sensors placed at different
locations close to the spinning superconductor, which
has to be accelerated for the effect to be noticeable,
recorded an acceleration field outside the superconductor
that appears to be produced by gravitomagnetism.
"This experiment is the gravitational analogue of Faraday's
electromagnetic induction experiment in 1831. >>
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
Plausible mechanism:
http://www.citebase.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai:arXiv.org:physics/0107015
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html
http://www.mypage.bluewin.ch/Bizarre/GRAV.htm
Experiment:
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
Simulation:
http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm
I won't was time
trying to explain this to you on a newsgroup, but the answer is
readily found in any Physics 101 textbooks such as Halliday &
Resnick's "Fundamentals of Physics".
Tajmar and de Matos probably didn't have access to that. ;-)
As a physicist, it never ceases to amaze me how many people seem very
interested in physics, but fail to read even the most basic literature
available on the subject and come to some astonishing conclusions.
Please realize that no perpetual motion machine of gravity cancelling
device cannot easily be de-bunked by anyone with a Physics 101 level
of knowledge.
Yes... fundamentals:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/light/index.htm
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/antennas.html
Sue...
Go purchase a good physics textbook, rather than reading the crap
pseudo-science craps that is hawked by the pop-science retailers.
Learn what mainstream universities are using for their introductory
physics textbooks (Physics 101) and read that, plus work the problem
sets that appear at the end of each chapter. Yes, I know that books
like these are expensive...but if you shop around you can find a used
copy of Halliday & Resnick for likely under $50. This is a good
investiment, because basic physics is updated only around twice a
century, if that often.
I'm not attempting to flame you, simply to point you in a direction
that will help you to comprehend physical reality more realistically.
Harry C.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Stacking repelling magnets |
03 Sep 2007 09:12:48 AM |
|
|
You have to assume? If you asked me that question I would have told
you there would be no difference and I am a highschool drop out.
I must be really smart or just have common sense. This has to be a joke.
<jonas.thornvall@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188607669.829798.115890@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
When stacking 10 repelling magnets upon top of eachother on a
scale(let say they are discshaped in a tube, i have to assume that the
weight of them upon scale can be no different then if we did lay them
out next to eachother.
However it is not clear to me that the actual result is due to gravity/
weight, i understand that their is a force pressing the magnets down
due to the weight of the magnet and that the downpushing of the
magnetic field somehow manage to be in equillibrium with the weight of
the magnets.
How do i express the serie of forces that result in the weight upon
the scale mathematicly.
Is it correct to say that the scale show a gravity of and discontinued
body, or is it more correct to say it show a result of magnetic forces
in action.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
