5 of 6
5
Non stop engine
Posted: 09 July 2013 02:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 61 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1283
Joined  2011-03-12

thinhnghiem, your post is nonsense.

 Signature 

Question authority and think for yourself. Big Brother does not know best and never has.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2013 07:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 62 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3028
Joined  2010-04-26

To the author of this thread:

Seriously?  Perpetual motion?  Really?  What’s next after you conquer this?  Cold fusion?  Zero point energy?

Well, have fun and carry on Senor Quixote.  Carry on.

 Signature 

“In the end nature is horrific and teaches us nothing.” -Mutual of Omicron

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2013 11:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 63 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  24
Joined  2012-12-24
Scott Mayers - 09 July 2013 02:05 PM

thinhnghiem,

You can be capable of creating a machine that actually moves for very long periods, even many years, and potentially eternally. The problem isn’t simply the motion itself, it is the fact that you cannot transfer that motion externally into work or energy. An atom, or any matter in this case, are examples of ‘perpetual’ motion in this sense. The trick isn’t to try to demonstrate devices that go on forever in exclusion of an external environment. You would have to show that such movement can create change externally while still not having to lose its own energy.

If you had a top (gyroscope) set spinning in an ideal space with the absence of absolutely everything, it will go on forever. This is already understood. Perhaps the term, “perpetual motion” throws people off because they recognize this but don’t understand why it appears to imply that things can never do this in a closed system. For this, I think it might be better to rename the concept perpetual energy devices. This would clarify better why such devices do not work. We probably only still call them, “perpetual motion” devices due to historical convention. The intent by those who have either sincerely or fraudulently attempted to create such devices were intended to find a means to create a source of perpetual energy, not merely cyclic motion.

When handle this experiment, I simply think to try my best to keep this model moving. And how to extract work form here is the job of engineers. It depends on the industry it is applied: electric, mechanic. etc..

For example, in mechanic, it can be used to lift heavy things. How to do that is the tasks of engineer

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 July 2013 12:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 64 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21
thinhnghiem - 10 July 2013 11:48 PM
Scott Mayers - 09 July 2013 02:05 PM

thinhnghiem,

You can be capable of creating a machine that actually moves for very long periods, even many years, and potentially eternally. The problem isn’t simply the motion itself, it is the fact that you cannot transfer that motion externally into work or energy. An atom, or any matter in this case, are examples of ‘perpetual’ motion in this sense. The trick isn’t to try to demonstrate devices that go on forever in exclusion of an external environment. You would have to show that such movement can create change externally while still not having to lose its own energy.

If you had a top (gyroscope) set spinning in an ideal space with the absence of absolutely everything, it will go on forever. This is already understood. Perhaps the term, “perpetual motion” throws people off because they recognize this but don’t understand why it appears to imply that things can never do this in a closed system. For this, I think it might be better to rename the concept perpetual energy devices. This would clarify better why such devices do not work. We probably only still call them, “perpetual motion” devices due to historical convention. The intent by those who have either sincerely or fraudulently attempted to create such devices were intended to find a means to create a source of perpetual energy, not merely cyclic motion.

When handle this experiment, I simply think to try my best to keep this model moving. And how to extract work form here is the job of engineers. It depends on the industry it is applied: electric, mechanic. etc..

For example, in mechanic, it can be used to lift heavy things. How to do that is the tasks of engineer

You’re not doing anything that isn’t already capable of being done. Magnets are made of atoms that are in relatively synchronous perpetual motion that already does work. The problem is, it can only do work short range without either keeping the magnet or it’s environmental objects moving relative to each other. Even magnets lose their ability when being used (work or energy exchange) because the used forces eventually knock the atoms electrons into random orbits. If you want to do something useful, it would be better to focus on how you can theoretically improve on what’s already understood. It’s okay to dream and try to fix nature to be more productive. But you have to take an honest look into the present scientific understanding and work from there. I recommend starting with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion. You appear to have broken language which suggests English is not your first language. I suggest reading very carefully and pay attention to the words as they define them to help get a better understanding. The “Classification” section describes more specifically three defining characteristics of a perpetual motion machine. Energy exchanges require acceleration. It is the exchange of regular motion, not just motion itself. Newton already explained that something in motion (or standing still), stays in motion (or stays still) until something acts on it to cause it to change (an acceleration).

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlx2PgESXhs for a better demonstration of your attempt. The problem is that even though it may technically be possible to make it 100% ‘efficient’, it only means that you can at best make the machine continue to go on forever; It cannot go over 100% ever because the moment it is able to cause anything external to move, it would lose that energy until all the energy used to put it initially in motion has been used up. How much work could it do as it loses its energy? Only as much as it took to put it in motion—the little tiny push of the ball to get it going in the first place. At best, the device acts like a storage battery or memory. The guy can set it in motion, close the vault door, and have some great, great, grandchild in the future come in to stop the ball with only a tiny effort, the same effort that got it going. So it could communicate or transfer the information from a past time to someone else. That’s it.

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 July 2013 05:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 65 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6020
Joined  2009-02-26

Is it correct to say that there is no self generating perpetual motion ( except for particles)?

There must be an outside agent providing energy.  Is this not what happens in those small perpetual little flag windmill in a closed bowl. I read that that motion was due to internal temperature difference created by the sunlight (an outside agent).

1.In any isolated system, one cannot create new energy (first law of thermodynamics

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

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 July 2013 11:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 66 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21
Write4U - 11 July 2013 05:50 AM

Is it correct to say that there is no self generating perpetual motion ( except for particles)?

There must be an outside agent providing energy.  Is this not what happens in those small perpetual little flag windmill in a closed bowl. I read that that motion was due to internal temperature difference created by the sunlight (an outside agent).

1.In any isolated system, one cannot create new energy (first law of thermodynamics

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

It’s not self-generating because it requires the external sunlight to cause it to move.

One thing that I do disagree with most scientists is the claim that all energy and matter are fixed or constant in the universe. I am also in disagreement with the claim that “energy nor matter can be created or destroyed.” I can’t be certain of the ‘destroyed’ part of it, to be sure. But I am fairly certain that both, though not capable of ever being created by human determination, the universe is continuously creating energy that creates matter all the time. The only way you could possibly create energy is if you could control the rate of expansion of space itself. [The Theory I’m working on can prove these but will take a lot of time to explain here.]

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 July 2013 10:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 67 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1220
Joined  2009-10-21

Sorry, I didn’t read 5 pages on perpetual motion.

I did however look up how you make a magnet. You apply electric energy to metal. So if you are starting with magnets, you inputting energy. Energy that will wear out. Just because there is no fuel burning off, doesn’t mean there isn’t some input and some output.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 July 2013 10:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 68 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  24
Joined  2012-12-24
Lausten - 13 July 2013 10:47 AM

Sorry, I didn’t read 5 pages on perpetual motion.

I did however look up how you make a magnet. You apply electric energy to metal. So if you are starting with magnets, you inputting energy. Energy that will wear out. Just because there is no fuel burning off, doesn’t mean there isn’t some input and some output.

Not electric, but magnetic energy. These magnets are components of the whole system, if you see in my picture. System is not only the dragonfly. Here is magetic interaction forces among components of system make the dragonfly moving

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 July 2013 04:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 69 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27

It’s that pesky second law of thermodynamics that keeps getting in the way!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 July 2013 11:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 70 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1220
Joined  2009-10-21
thinhnghiem - 14 July 2013 10:34 PM
Lausten - 13 July 2013 10:47 AM

Sorry, I didn’t read 5 pages on perpetual motion.

I did however look up how you make a magnet. You apply electric energy to metal. So if you are starting with magnets, you inputting energy. Energy that will wear out. Just because there is no fuel burning off, doesn’t mean there isn’t some input and some output.

Not electric, but magnetic energy. These magnets are components of the whole system, if you see in my picture. System is not only the dragonfly. Here is magetic interaction forces among components of system make the dragonfly moving

The magnet still has to be made. Either some heat and electricity, or by natural actions in the earth.
Experiment to make a magnet

Your time could be much better spent reading about how James Clerk Maxwell discovered how electricity and magnetism are closely associated. He’s an interesting character, I think you would really enjoy him.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 July 2013 10:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 71 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  24
Joined  2012-12-24

Oh, you mean I can generate electric current from those magnet, instead of mechanical works?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 August 2013 10:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 72 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  24
Joined  2012-12-24
Lausten - 13 July 2013 10:47 AM

Sorry, I didn’t read 5 pages on perpetual motion.

I did however look up how you make a magnet. You apply electric energy to metal. So if you are starting with magnets, you inputting energy. Energy that will wear out. Just because there is no fuel burning off, doesn’t mean there isn’t some input and some output.

No, I use permanent magnet that I bought from stores. If I used electrical magnet, the terms ‘Non stop engine’ has no longer its original meaning

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 August 2013 11:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 73 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1220
Joined  2009-10-21
thinhnghiem - 08 August 2013 10:22 AM
Lausten - 13 July 2013 10:47 AM

Sorry, I didn’t read 5 pages on perpetual motion.

I did however look up how you make a magnet. You apply electric energy to metal. So if you are starting with magnets, you inputting energy. Energy that will wear out. Just because there is no fuel burning off, doesn’t mean there isn’t some input and some output.

No, I use permanent magnet that I bought from stores. If I used electrical magnet, the terms ‘Non stop engine’ has no longer its original meaning

So you’re buying energy stored in a magnet at the store. How did that energy get into that magnet? It took some amount of energy to make that magnet, “permanent” just means in retains the magnetism after being removed from the field. How much energy are you getting out? Enough to barely move a little model.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 August 2013 08:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 74 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4767
Joined  2007-10-05
thinhnghiem - 14 July 2013 10:34 PM

Not electric, but magnetic energy.

You need to take Physics 102. Electricity and magnetism are the same phenomenon.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 August 2013 10:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 75 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  24
Joined  2012-12-24

So can we extract any electric current from magnets?

Profile
 
 
   
5 of 6
5