[thinhnghiem]

Dears,
I am investigating a way to make a perpetual motion based on permanent magnet. Below are details:
1. Tools and facilities:
a. 3 annular shape permanent magnets

b. 2 tiny circle permanent magnets

2. Steps to perform:
a. Paste the two annular magnets together by their south poles. Their north poles are turned out


b. Then paste two tiny magnets at the two sides of the annular magnets above with the north poles are turned out to make a weight


c. Tie this weight with a thread and hook up as a pendulum


d. Put the north pole of the remaining annular magnet near the north pole of the 2 other ones to make the thrust

3. Operation:
- By the thrust of the annular magnets, the thread is twisted and the pendulum rotates
- The north pole of the tiny magnet at the side of the pendulum is faced with the north pole of the third magnet. It results in the spinning back of the pendulum. The north poles of the annular magnets face each other again.
- This period repeats to make the pendulum vibrates continuously
I have repeats this experiment many times. The pendulum can last its motion for a long times. However, it finally stops.

I post my article here so that any reader can consult me how to improve the solution to last the motion. This is an opening discussion

You can contact me in this forum, or by email: thinh_nb@yahoo.com. I will send the detail description with images.

Thinh Nghiem from Vietnam

Attached thumbnail(s)

• 

[uncool]

Thinh, a so-called "permanent" magnet isn't as permanent as you think it is.
=Uncool-

[Iggy]

When the two norths face each other there is potential energy. It's converted to kinetic energy and the magnets rotate then back to potential energy and back to kinetic and so on. It's the same way with an ordinary pendulum -- this site tries to explain.

If the conversion from one type of energy to the other were 100% efficient, the process would continue indefinitely. However, you will lose energy to friction because of the air in the room and the stiffness of the string. It eventually stops when all the energy you initially gave it is lost by friction.

For it to last longer you could use a thinner string, and, ideally, it would be in a vacuum.

[swansont]

Iggy, on 24 December 2011 - 07:38 PM, said:

For it to last longer you could use a thinner string, and, ideally, it would be in a vacuum.

But it would still eventually come to a stop.


As long as there is an additional pathway other than the potential energy and kinetic energy already identified, the system will wind down. If there is no other pathway, then the system is reversible and the entropy does not increase — that is the requirement for perpetual motion. (But over-unity is still not possible)

[DrRocket]

I know of but one way to make a perpetual motion machine usiing a permanent magnet.

1. Take one small permanent magnet.

2. Place a drop of cyanoacrylate on the magnet.

3. Press the magnet with the super glue drop on mother-in-law's lip.

4. Maintain light pressure for about 20 seconds.

[random]

is the rotation of the earth not perpetual motion? I contemplated trying to duplicate this with magnets in a vaccuum kind of mag lev technology because i believe that is zero friction.

but there is still gravity to muck things up

[mississippichem]

DrRocket, on 25 December 2011 - 12:20 AM, said:

I know of but one way to make a perpetual motion machine usiing a permanent magnet.

1. Take one small permanent magnet.

2. Place a drop of cyanoacrylate on the magnet.

3. Press the magnet with the super glue drop on mother-in-law's lip.

4. Maintain light pressure for about 20 seconds.

That's one oscillation that will never damp for sure. Whoever came up with the second law of thermo evidently was not married.

[thinhnghiem]

Iggy, on 24 December 2011 - 07:38 PM, said:

When the two norths face each other there is potential energy. It's converted to kinetic energy and the magnets rotate then back to potential energy and back to kinetic and so on. It's the same way with an ordinary pendulum -- this site tries to explain.

If the conversion from one type of energy to the other were 100% efficient, the process would continue indefinitely. However, you will lose energy to friction because of the air in the room and the stiffness of the string. It eventually stops when all the energy you initially gave it is lost by friction.

For it to last longer you could use a thinner string, and, ideally, it would be in a vacuum.

Great, thank you very much

[swansont]

random, on 25 December 2011 - 01:24 AM, said:

is the rotation of the earth not perpetual motion?

The earth's rotation has slowed down over time, and it will continue to do so.

[Fuzzwood]

To answer your next question, yes at some point we will dunk Earth into the sun.

[random]

swansont, on 26 December 2011 - 04:39 PM, said:

The earth's rotation has slowed down over time, and it will continue to do so.

crappy so eventually we'll be like Keplar B with one side baking and 1 side freezing. Any info on the estimated time line for this to takeplace? I.E. when is it projected the earth will completely stop.

And for arguments sake ......... millions and millions of years though technically not perpetual motion sure seems rather efficient for an object set in motion to maintain it's momentum albeit with a tiny loss.

I'd have to call it perpetual motion.

[iNow]

random, on 26 December 2011 - 04:45 PM, said:

I'd have to call it perpetual motion.

And, when you do, people will generally dismiss your idea as wrong and dismiss it.

[swansont]

Perpetual motion has a rather strict definition, and any energy loss means it's not perpetual motion.

[doG]

random, on 25 December 2011 - 01:24 AM, said:

is the rotation of the earth not perpetual motion?

No. Earth will eventually become tidal locked with the sun as Mercury has.

Fuzzwood, on 26 December 2011 - 04:42 PM, said:

To answer your next question, yes at some point we will dunk Earth into the sun.

Theory predicts the sun will enlarge to engulf the Earth as it runs out of fuel.

swansont, on 26 December 2011 - 05:28 PM, said:

Perpetual motion has a rather strict definition, and any energy loss means it's not perpetual motion.

Didn't Newton effectively state in his first law that all motion is perpetual until acted on by an external force?

[swansont]

doG, on 26 December 2011 - 09:27 PM, said:

Didn't Newton effectively state in his first law that all motion is perpetual until acted on by an external force?

In a way, yes, but you can have a force that does no work (only the direction changes), so the statement is not really about perpetual motion. However, even under that interpretation, it does not mean you can ever achieve a state where there is no external force — it's an idealized case.

[doG]

swansont, on 26 December 2011 - 09:59 PM, said:

In a way, yes, but you can have a force that does no work (only the direction changes), so the statement is not really about perpetual motion. However, even under that interpretation, it does not mean you can ever achieve a state where there is no external force — it's an idealized case.

Yeah, I realize all that. I'm not much of a believer that's there's anywhere in the Universe that a body in motion would not encounter external forces, particularly when the time frame we're discussing is eternity.

[thinhnghiem]

Iggy, on 24 December 2011 - 07:38 PM, said:

When the two norths face each other there is potential energy. It's converted to kinetic energy and the magnets rotate then back to potential energy and back to kinetic and so on. It's the same way with an ordinary pendulum -- this site tries to explain.

If the conversion from one type of energy to the other were 100% efficient, the process would continue indefinitely. However, you will lose energy to friction because of the air in the room and the stiffness of the string. It eventually stops when all the energy you initially gave it is lost by friction.

For it to last longer you could use a thinner string, and, ideally, it would be in a vacuum.

I have a question: When my system stops, the two north poles face each other again. Why don't the propulsion happens again to start a new period, instead of standing motionlessly?

Thanks

[Iggy]

thinhnghiem, on 27 December 2011 - 04:08 AM, said:

I have a question: When my system stops, the two north poles face each other again. Why don't the propulsion happens again to start a new period, instead of standing motionlessly?

Thanks

Which two norths? The weakest and the stationary?

[thinhnghiem]

Yes, the two north poles of the annular magnets: the ones work as the pendulumn and the magnet outside (See my attached picture)

[Iggy]

thinhnghiem, on 28 December 2011 - 03:34 PM, said:

Yes, the two north poles of the annular magnets: the ones work as the pendulumn and the magnet outside (See my attached picture)

If you could,

1) which is stronger, the ring or the disc magnet? Which would be harder to push up against the stationary magnet if you tried?

2) how many degrees, roughly, does it rotate when you first get the thing started (the most it rotates back and forth)?

3) does it act differently when you remove the stationary magnet?

4) do you have video?