2 of 6
2
Non stop engine
Posted: 08 January 2013 10:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  637
Joined  2012-04-25

The OPs device obviously doesn’t work.  BUT check this out: http://planetsave.com/2013/01/06/temperature-below-absolute-zero-achieved/  Evidently this has consequences for perpetual motion.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 January 2013 08:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  24
Joined  2012-12-24
macgyver - 08 January 2013 05:29 AM

Everyone has spelled out the problem here very well but this person doesn’t seem to understand the logic and wants to believe in magic.

One small but important point here. The word machine is defined as something that does work. Doing work by definition requires the use of energy so unless you add energy to a working machine it will eventually run out of energy and stop. Even in a perfect world where you could eliminate all forms of of friction and resistance you could never have a perpetual motion machine because you can’t do work without the consumption of energy. You could have a perpetual motion object ( Like a galaxy moving through the universe or in a fantasy world, a pinwheel spinning in a perfect vacuum on an impossibly frictionless pivot) but not a machine.

I don’t think there is magic here. It is only result of my observation when performing my hands-on work.

There are always observed facts conflict with theoritical principal. And this is motivation for theory to be developed. I believe that this phenomenon will have an acceptable explanation, sooner or later

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 January 2013 11:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7641
Joined  2008-04-11
thinhnghiem - 08 January 2013 08:49 PM

I don’t think there is magic here. It is only result of my observation when performing my hands-on work.

There are always observed facts conflict with theoritical principal. And this is motivation for theory to be developed. I believe that this phenomenon will have an acceptable explanation, sooner or later

The explanation will be that it will eventually STOP. There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine. It is impossible on grounds stated by the first and/or second laws of thermodynamics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 January 2013 08:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2018
Joined  2007-04-26

I only just looked at the actual video and find it less than convincing. There is room for all sort of error in your experimental design. First, the device itself is extremely lightweight and its design allows even the smallest amount of energy to be converted into motion. Extremely small air currents or ground vibrations could create random motion in this device. In order to have any credibility at all you would have to redesign your apparatus in several ways.

1) Eliminate the effect of air currents by placing the device in a an air tight container or Bell Jar
2) Isolate the device from vibration - I’m not an engineer but maybe you can get some ideas HERE
3) Isolate the device from sound vibration - may require some modifications in addition to those in step 2
4) Design a sensitive measuring instrument that can objectively measure the motion of your device to determine its extinction rate as well as its velocity and direction. This will allow you to do two things. It will allow you to determine if the motion is slowly decreasing in a precise and objective way and therefor not truly perpetual. It will also allow you to determine if the motion is a perpetuation of the original motion or instead some random motion imparted by external forces.

I may have missed some things here but at the very least you would need to satisfy these requirements. I would be willing to bet that once you do this you will find your device is not a perpetual motion device at all. If you dont do these things there is enough good physics to say your conclusions are wrong so that no one else is going to take the time to investigate further or take you seriously.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 January 2013 08:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  24
Joined  2012-12-24
macgyver - 09 January 2013 08:48 PM

I only just looked at the actual video and find it less than convincing. There is room for all sort of error in your experimental design. First, the device itself is extremely lightweight and its design allows even the smallest amount of energy to be converted into motion. Extremely small air currents or ground vibrations could create random motion in this device. In order to have any credibility at all you would have to redesign your apparatus in several ways.

1) Eliminate the effect of air currents by placing the device in a an air tight container or Bell Jar
2) Isolate the device from vibration - I’m not an engineer but maybe you can get some ideas HERE
3) Isolate the device from sound vibration - may require some modifications in addition to those in step 2
4) Design a sensitive measuring instrument that can objectively measure the motion of your device to determine its extinction rate as well as its velocity and direction. This will allow you to do two things. It will allow you to determine if the motion is slowly decreasing in a precise and objective way and therefor not truly perpetual. It will also allow you to determine if the motion is a perpetuation of the original motion or instead some random motion imparted by external forces.

I may have missed some things here but at the very least you would need to satisfy these requirements. I would be willing to bet that once you do this you will find your device is not a perpetual motion device at all. If you dont do these things there is enough good physics to say your conclusions are wrong so that no one else is going to take the time to investigate further or take you seriously.

Thank you macgyver for your ideas.

I will try my best to fix these issues. Item 4 seems to be most difficult for me to handle, since this experiment is done at my home, not in a modernized and well equiped laboratory. Anyway, I will try

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 January 2013 06:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2018
Joined  2007-04-26

You may be able to eliminate the need for step 4 if the first three items are adequately addressed and you allow enough time to pass. If you are successfully able to eliminate any energy input from the external environment ( air motion, vibration etc) then the motion should extinguish itself when given adequate time thus eliminating the need for step 4. If the motion persists then you would have no choice but to find some way to document that the motion has a constant vector and amplitude in order to interest anyone enough to try and replicate your experiment.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 January 2013 11:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  637
Joined  2012-04-25

I’m reminded of a Monty Python skit. There’s a guy on a beach. In all earnesty he says he’s going to jump the English Channel.  He stretches, does a little jog, then runs full speed at the water and jumps about 3 feet out.  One can imagine him on this forum asking for advice, like which shoes to wear, how to take windspeed into consideration, and so on.  The point is, if this guy doesn’t know enough about long jumping to realize it’s an impossible task, not for lack of trying, but because it’s technically and physically not possible, then we can’t feel sorry for him at all, but just maybe some pity.

Fella, many smart people, smarter than all of us combined, who DO know all about physics have used very sophisticated equipment to prove that perpetual motion is not possible.  Nothing you do in your basement is going to have any relavence to the “search for perpetual motion”.  I suggest you save yourself the embarassment and take up golf or something.  Maybe cooking.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 January 2013 02:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2018
Joined  2007-04-26

Cuthbert, you are correct that there is lots of experimental evidence and good theory that essentially proves why perpetual motion machines are not possible but there are two points to consider here. First, we never know anything with so much certainty that we should ridicule someone who wants to take their own time and money to look at it again ( see this post from a while back on the Mpemba effect). I agree that there is unlikely to be any new discovery here because of the very nature of what’s being discussed but curiosity should never be discouraged.

Secondly, people understand things far better when they discover it for themselves through their own exploration. thinhnghiem seems to be open minded enough to accept our criticism. That leads me to believe that he is also open minded enough to accept the obvious conclusion when he disproves his own theory, but it will mean more when he comes to that conclusion on his own.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 January 2013 08:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  24
Joined  2012-12-24
macgyver - 11 January 2013 02:53 PM

Cuthbert, you are correct that there is lots of experimental evidence and good theory that essentially proves why perpetual motion machines are not possible but there are two points to consider here. First, we never know anything with so much certainty that we should ridicule someone who wants to take their own time and money to look at it again ( see this post from a while back on the Mpemba effect). I agree that there is unlikely to be any new discovery here because of the very nature of what’s being discussed but curiosity should never be discouraged.

Secondly, people understand things far better when they discover it for themselves through their own exploration. thinhnghiem seems to be open minded enough to accept our criticism. That leads me to believe that he is also open minded enough to accept the obvious conclusion when he disproves his own theory, but it will mean more when he comes to that conclusion on his own.

Thanks macgyver,

This experiment is done by me in leisure time, just for fun. To be successful in it does not make me famous or being rich. So, don’t take it seriously like it will change the world, etc

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2013 11:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  637
Joined  2012-04-25

After I wrote my post it did occur to me that thinhng might just be a curious kid.  In that case, there’s of course nothing wrong with being curious and doing “impossible” things. However, I do think my little analogy of jumping the English Channel is still a good one.  It’s one thing to be ambitious about something that’s within the realm of possibility, like building a raft to cross the channel.  That would be great fun, a great learning experience, etc.  But perpetual motion is just flat out unrealistic.  As an alternative, you might look into the experiments done by Rutherford with atoms. Or even in a different realm, the two slit experiments done in quantum physics.  Those types of experiments are routinely done in college labs, etc.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2013 08:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1201
Joined  2009-05-10
thinhnghiem - 10 January 2013 08:03 PM
macgyver - 09 January 2013 08:48 PM

I only just looked at the actual video and find it less than convincing. There is room for all sort of error in your experimental design. First, the device itself is extremely lightweight and its design allows even the smallest amount of energy to be converted into motion. Extremely small air currents or ground vibrations could create random motion in this device. In order to have any credibility at all you would have to redesign your apparatus in several ways.

1) Eliminate the effect of air currents by placing the device in a an air tight container or Bell Jar
2) Isolate the device from vibration - I’m not an engineer but maybe you can get some ideas HERE
3) Isolate the device from sound vibration - may require some modifications in addition to those in step 2
4) Design a sensitive measuring instrument that can objectively measure the motion of your device to determine its extinction rate as well as its velocity and direction. This will allow you to do two things. It will allow you to determine if the motion is slowly decreasing in a precise and objective way and therefor not truly perpetual. It will also allow you to determine if the motion is a perpetuation of the original motion or instead some random motion imparted by external forces.

I may have missed some things here but at the very least you would need to satisfy these requirements. I would be willing to bet that once you do this you will find your device is not a perpetual motion device at all. If you dont do these things there is enough good physics to say your conclusions are wrong so that no one else is going to take the time to investigate further or take you seriously.

Thank you macgyver for your ideas.

Haha, I thought you were calling him macgyver sarcastically for a second.

 Signature 

“What people do is they confuse cynicism with skepticism. Cynicism is ‘you can’t change anything, everything sucks, there’s no point to anything.’ Skepticism is, ‘well, I’m not so sure.’” -Bill Nye

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 January 2013 08:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  24
Joined  2012-12-24
CuthbertJ - 15 January 2013 11:03 AM

After I wrote my post it did occur to me that thinhng might just be a curious kid.  In that case, there’s of course nothing wrong with being curious and doing “impossible” things. However, I do think my little analogy of jumping the English Channel is still a good one.  It’s one thing to be ambitious about something that’s within the realm of possibility, like building a raft to cross the channel.  That would be great fun, a great learning experience, etc.  But perpetual motion is just flat out unrealistic.  As an alternative, you might look into the experiments done by Rutherford with atoms. Or even in a different realm, the two slit experiments done in quantum physics.  Those types of experiments are routinely done in college labs, etc.

Hi Cuthbert,

I am not a kid, I am an engineer. I have a hobby to do simple experiments at home, of course they are just for fun. I have posted some hands - on work in optics, electricity etc..

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 January 2013 10:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7641
Joined  2008-04-11
thinhnghiem - 17 January 2013 08:12 PM

Hi Cuthbert,

I am not a kid, I am an engineer. I have a hobby to do simple experiments at home, of course they are just for fun. I have posted some hands - on work in optics, electricity etc..

I would expect any engineer to know Physics and the Laws of Thermodynamics—it is clear you do not.

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 January 2013 11:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  637
Joined  2012-04-25
thinhnghiem - 17 January 2013 08:12 PM
CuthbertJ - 15 January 2013 11:03 AM

After I wrote my post it did occur to me that thinhng might just be a curious kid.  In that case, there’s of course nothing wrong with being curious and doing “impossible” things. However, I do think my little analogy of jumping the English Channel is still a good one.  It’s one thing to be ambitious about something that’s within the realm of possibility, like building a raft to cross the channel.  That would be great fun, a great learning experience, etc.  But perpetual motion is just flat out unrealistic.  As an alternative, you might look into the experiments done by Rutherford with atoms. Or even in a different realm, the two slit experiments done in quantum physics.  Those types of experiments are routinely done in college labs, etc.

Hi Cuthbert,

I am not a kid, I am an engineer. I have a hobby to do simple experiments at home, of course they are just for fun. I have posted some hands - on work in optics, electricity etc..

Ya sorry buddy, you just shot yourself in the foot with that one.  Oh well, let us know when you’ve successfully jumped the channel.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 June 2013 05:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  483
Joined  2013-06-01

Thinhnghiem

This may be a lead.

Years ago I got to see a clock collection in Scottsbluff, Nebraska.
There were all kinds of clocks.
The one that interested me the most was one that ran off the changes of the magnetic field of the earth reacting to magnetic in the clock.
If you can find out about the clock, it may help you.
I would guess the clock was built in the 20’s or 30’s

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 6
2