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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
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
The only engine which never stops is the SCAM engine which just keeps on going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, with new scams offering perpetual motion engines.
As long as there is money to be SCAMMED, the SCAM engine will keep on going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going!
Kinda like the Energizer Bunny!
Hi again,
Few months ago I had chance to post topic here about a non stop engine model. Now it has been improved and works well, and I would like to introduce my new model here.
- Tools and facilities:
- The main component of this model is a wooden toy with dragonfly shape. Its head is a rectangle which is curved upward, with long tail
- A sharp pillar
- A medium sizes magnet (In attached screenshot it is the round and white piece)
- Some tiny magnets
- Model
- Stick the tiny magnets under the tail of dragonfly shaped specimen. The gravity of magnets make this specimen settles down toward the tail.
- Then, touch the sharp peak of the rectangle head of the specimen very slightly into the top of the pillar. It makes the balance status of this dragonfly toy is very unstable. It is very easy to drop down as seen in attached screenshot
- Put the medium sized magnet vertically and so close to the tail of the specimen so that their facing poles are NOT the same (i.e. north to south or south to north)
- Keep the whole system in an insolated room, with all doors and windows are closed to prevent air wing influence.
- Operation:
- The attraction force between 2 magnets makes the tail of the specimen is pulled down slightly, before it is up again. Then a new period starts with the up and down movement of the specimen tail, again and again etc.
- The position of the medium sized magnet is adjustable so that it can give best result to the movement of the specimen. If the distance between magnets is so far, the force intensity is so weak to result in movement. Otherwise, the strong attraction force from the medium sized will also prevent the specimen from moving.
I let my model there overnight to make sure that there is no stopping. And luckily it does not stop until now.
I post my article here so that any interesting individual can follow and replicate my experiments.
All of my expectation that you can contact me and replicate my experiment
Thinh from Vietnam
See my clip in Youtube at
Non stop engine - YouTube
Have you had a chance to look at some of the rare earth types of magnets?
They are expensive but many times more powerful than the standard magnets.
That could help in Operation 3.
Working at a machine shop some years back, there were five guys each trying to build a self powering engine. They had everything the needed to work with. And some engines ran for a long time but they all stopped.
None used magnets.
The only successful engine I have ever seen was the clock in Nebraska and it used magnets.
How about this? Place a lightweight metallic vehicle on a rail. Affix a swivellable magnet so that it pulls the vehicle forward on the rail. Have a non-metallic protruberance from the front of the vehicle that swivels the magnet so that it no longer exerts a pull once the vehicle arrives. Meanwhile have another similar magnet further down the rail that continues to pull the vehicle forward. Have a sequence of such magnets along the entire rail, with the rail going in one big loop. Wah-lah! The vehicle keeps on going and going and going. Patent pending, as I just now thought of this.
Great,
Could you release a screenshot so that I can try to reproduce it?
Great, Could you release a screenshot so that I can try to reproduce it?Dammit, Jim! I'm an idea man, not a design engineer! But seriously, it was just an idea that occurred to me, the moment before I wrote the post. I don't have the skills and motivation to actually try to build such a contraption. But if someone does, I am guessing it will take a lot of magnets.
No problem,
Just tell me about your thought. All ideas are welcome for improvement
Thanks
The magnets create periodic motion after the dragonfly has had some force applied to it, but energy will be lost over time due to friction from the joint and air. The dragonfly looks so light that even the gust of air from opening the door or an air current flowing under the closed door could set it in motion again.I also think about it when performing the experiment. Below are my checking: 1. All windows and doors of the room are closed. 2. When I removed the magnet, the toy stays motionlessly 3. When I put the magnet to its position again as seen in attached image, the dragonfly begins to swing and keeps this state over days. Is there anything missing in my actions? All opinions are welcomed Yes,you can't tell if it's going to continue forever unless you can come back to check every 100 or 1,000 years or so. Let us know how it does in the first hundred years. If you really think you have invented a perpetual motion machine, see James Randi. It might be worth a cool million, if not to you, to your heirs. Lois
As I suggested earlier, you should find a local junior college and sign up for the elementary physics courses. Study the thermodynamics sections very assiduously; especially, try to understand all of the ramifications of the second law.
Then go back to work on your engine.
Occam