Improved non stop engine

[thinhnghiem]

Dears,

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.

1. 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

2. 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.

3. 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

 

[Strathos]

It's been said before, but it's never going to work and will always stop eventually.

Although I had a question the previous thread on this topic that went unanswered, that is: Could the universe itself be considered a perpetual motion machine, because cosmologists say it will keep expanding infinitely?

 

[davidbilby]

It's been said before, but it's never going to work and will always stop eventually.

Although I had a question the previous thread on this topic that went unanswered, that is: Could the universe itself be considered a perpetual motion machine, because cosmologists say it will keep expanding infinitely?

It's not a perpetual motion machine because a perpetual motion machine isn't quite what it sounds like on the tin. (it's more a concept in thermodynamics)

The universe's entropy rises....thus it is not a perpetual motion machine. What this mean is this: as the expansion continues, the possibility that any of the energy will be available for useful work will decline to zero (no work will be done).

100% unemployment! In a physical sense. So no, the universe is not a perpetual motion machine in the sense of thermodynamics. If you mean, will it expand forever and thus technically exist forever? Quite possibly. But it'll be pretty useless.

 

[Strathos]

It's not a perpetual motion machine because a perpetual motion machine isn't quite what it sounds like on the tin. (it's more a concept in thermodynamics)

The universe's entropy rises....thus it is not a perpetual motion machine. What this mean is this: as the expansion continues, the possibility that any of the energy will be available for useful work will decline to zero (no work will be done).

100% unemployment! In a physical sense. So no, the universe is not a perpetual motion machine in the sense of thermodynamics. If you mean, will it expand forever and thus technically exist forever? Quite possibly. But it'll be pretty useless.

What about the hypothesis that new universes are born from black holes, as long as black holes exist in the universe new universes can be created, and black holes in those universes can create more new universes, ad infinitum...

 

[davidbilby]

What about the hypothesis that new universes are born from black holes, as long as black holes exist in the universe new universes can be created, and black holes in those universes can create more new universes, ad infinitum...

Well, that would essentially be a multiverse. That may fall into the "who knows" category, without getting into real word salad....

I mean - the whole multiverse might well be considered to have rising entropy (by any one component of the multiverse having rising entropy, the entropy would rise)....and thus still not be a PPM. But before one would consider thermodynamics we'd be having to answer thornier questions...like...what exactly is time, in that scenario, such that one could judge entropy? Probably too many variables and assumptions to really answer in a meaningful way....

 

[Strathos]

But it's possible though?

 

[davidbilby]

But it's possible though?

Well, it still wouldn't be a perpetual motion machine as in the concept in thermodynamics....because it arguably couldn't be considered an isolated system. So probably - no. I can't think of a way that it could be considered isolated.

 

[Strathos]

If you take the entire system as a whole then it's isolated, right?

 

[thinhnghiem]

If you take the entire system as a whole then it's isolated, right?

Correct

 

[thinhnghiem]

It's been said before, but it's never going to work and will always stop eventually.

Although I had a question the previous thread on this topic that went unanswered, that is: Could the universe itself be considered a perpetual motion machine, because cosmologists say it will keep expanding infinitely?

Not only the universe, the motion of electrons around atomic nuclear can be considered non stop motion.

 

[davidbilby]

If you take the entire system as a whole then it's isolated, right?

Not necessarily. It'd help a great deal if it was, mathematically, but it's certainly not a requirement in Riemannian geometry. The concept of describing the universe or multiverse as a "system" itself may have no actual meaning......

 

[davidbilby]

Not only the universe, the motion of electrons around atomic nuclear can be considered non stop motion.

Eh...not really.

Firstly, it's not correct to describe the electron as being "in motion" in the orbit, certainly not in the quantum sense - apart from a few very weird high energy examples. The uncertainty principle alone shows this. This is where classical mechanics doesn't quite explain what is going on. Atomic orbitals are not the electron actually whizzing around the nucleus in a big circle...

Secondly, it would only be a perpetual motion machine if you could extract energy from the system for a particular goal, namely work, which you couldn't without altering the orbit, even if describing electrons as actually orbiting was what quantum mechanics says, which it doesn't. Same goes for Earth rotating around the sun, provided you're not a gravitational wave theorist, in which case the whole picture gets much much much more complicated.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

I'm going to go out and say it again, it's not going to work. Much better resourced, and dare I say it, much more intelligent people than you have tried, and as yet there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine. What you are doing is pretty close to the equivalent of a child's toy.

Not only the universe, the motion of electrons around atomic nuclear can be considered non stop motion.

Technically electrons don't really move around the nucleus...

 

[thinhnghiem]

I'm going to go out and say it again, it's not going to work. Much better resourced, and dare I say it, much more intelligent people than you have tried, and as yet there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine. What you are doing is pretty close to the equivalent of a child's toy.



Technically electrons don't really move around the nucleus...

Correct, my model is simply a toy. My experiment here is jsut for relax, not to make any revolution in science. I am happy if this achievement can go to life, of course

 

[Freodin]

Correct, my model is simply a toy. My experiment here is jsut for relax, not to make any revolution in science. I am happy if this achievement can go to life, of course

It sure is a cute toy... but there is mp achievement to go life.

You didn't do anything new, you did not found anything new, you didn't build anything new.

There is no non-stop-engine.

 

[thinhnghiem]

It sure is a cute toy... but there is mp achievement to go life.

You didn't do anything new, you did not found anything new, you didn't build anything new.

There is no non-stop-engine.

Maybe you are correct. However, it's not always to to find anything new to be giant. Sometimes we just improve the existing issue to get great achievement.

Are you interesting in football? Pep Guardiola is not the coach to invent the tiqui taqua style. It is invented by his previous coach. But his improvement makes him to be one of the greatest coach in football history

The same thing can be happen in science

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Maybe you are correct. However, it's not always to to find anything new to be giant. Sometimes we just improve the existing issue to get great achievement.

Are you interesting in football? Pep Guardiola is not the coach to invent the tiqui taqua style. It is invented by his previous coach. But his improvement makes him to be one of the greatest coach in football history

The same thing can be happen in science

Bad analogy. A better analogy is that you're trying to make someone run the 100m in 0.001s.

 

[ReverendDG]

Maybe you are correct. However, it's not always to to find anything new to be giant. Sometimes we just improve the existing issue to get great achievement.

Are you interesting in football? Pep Guardiola is not the coach to invent the tiqui taqua style. It is invented by his previous coach. But his improvement makes him to be one of the greatest coach in football history

The same thing can be happen in science

except you aren't doing anything like that, what you are doing is trying to do something that is impossible due to how physics works.

it's more like you are trying to walk through a brick wall by ignoring the basic fact that humans can't walk through walls.

 

[Freodin]

Maybe you are correct. However, it's not always to to find anything new to be giant. Sometimes we just improve the existing issue to get great achievement.

Are you interesting in football? Pep Guardiola is not the coach to invent the tiqui taqua style. It is invented by his previous coach. But his improvement makes him to be one of the greatest coach in football history

The same thing can be happen in science

So, what did you improve?

All of the forces and energies involved are already known. Their relationships are known. The effects of friction is known.

So what is your improvement?

 

[Coelo]

it's more like you are trying to walk through a brick wall by ignoring the basic fact that humans can't walk through walls.

Why can't they walk though a brick wall?