The war of the ego about an unrealizable illusion

[ME]

Figurati!

Senax: I have the advantage of having an Italian son-in-law
Art: my son's Italian father inlaw
Claudio: da cosa credete che queste leggi siano state ricavate? Ponetevi questa domanda e datevi la risposta.

Mamma mia!

[Furcurequs]

Here is part of the description of the Finsrud device from the youtube video that was posted:

"...attached to the much heavier pendulum HIDDEN within the main brass stem of the machine. This central pendulum is surrounded by powerful magnets that force it to bend this spring and so oscillate the track in such a way as to ensure it is at all times slightly lower just in front of the ball."

Part of the working mechanism is therefore claimed to be "hidden" from everyone's view. This means that there is definitely a possibility of deception here - even if the description given is technically true. The "powerful magnets" could be electromagnets and there could be batteries hidden in that column too.

...with all the other stuff just being a distraction.

The first place an intelligent and observant person would probably want to look for the secret to Finsrud's device would be in that central column and base.

[Oystein]

It is undoubtedly a fascinating system. Magnetic fields mixed with pendulums can work wonders ... but I do not think "it is a proof of breaking to" law ". If so, the media would have spoken extensively.

Was he familiar with the Bessler wheel ? have you talked about it ?
Surely a good candidate to try to find the solution ;-)

You would never find a person with a position to admit to any law breaking! He would loose his academic position in a hurry. Sorry they will not even touch it. It's too humiliating for anybody in academia. Sorry.

Yes, he was wondering and heard rumors about Bessler. He said the output was greater than the input. He was hoping for larger replications, and would assist any group! He was offended by society and academia not understanding input versus output. Sadly there is no accepted formula for this. Only engine efficiency, but without fuel it becomes really obsolete and erronous. Norwegian Overunity Group has calculated the real efficiency though. Some hundred % Overunity!

The nachine is now stopped as it has digged the rail flat and has too much wear.. Only on apointemet now..

This OU should not happen so nobody are willing to see it or adnit. It's simply not there, even if it turns must be this and that.. Never over 100% lol.. But it turns when it shouldn't.. Well not possible..sorry... This is consensus..academia..human nature..arrogance..blindness. Unwillingness..fear.. Etc etc

IMO

Best
ØR

[Furcurequs]

This top will run for days without stopping!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYBcQi0tjKc

[unstable]

ME: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unfzfe8f9NI
"mijn moeder" ;-))) in italian it is a generalized exclamation.
However I did not understand the joke.

About that rolling ball machine:
If there is no trick, and we can not be sure of that, the overunity is modest ... just manages to overcome the frictions. Totally different, the Bessler wheel that even provided mechanical energy. If the first example leaves some feasibility open, the second (Bessler) NO, (IMHO).
Oystein, "Some hundred % Overunity", I do not think it's of that entity. 1.1 as COP would already be a lot. Probably what you wrote was calculated for a very long time.

"Part of the working mechanism is therefore claimed to be "hidden" from everyone's view. This means that there is definitely a possibility of deception here - even if the description given is technically true. The "powerful magnets" could be electromagnets and there could be batteries hidden in that column too.

...with all the other stuff just being a distraction.

The first place an intelligent and observant person would probably want to look for the secret to Finsrud's device would be in that central column and base."

In fact, as usual, one can not be sure of genuineness. But since it is at the limit of functioning it could also be true. Energy could be given off by magnets that would slowly lose their magnetic force.


Furcurequs, Regarding the last link, you should be able to inspect the base. Almost certainly there is the generation of a rotating magnetic field. :-)


However, with a pendulum and a powerful magnet (neodymium) attached to the pendulum, if kept in sync with another moving magnetic object, should really be feasible. Using the repulsion force (same magnetic polarity), and synchronizing the movement, both the object would be pushed in opposite direction. The pendulum would recharge the kinetic energy lost by friction and the other object would continue its motion. The problem is the synchronism that would soon be lost.
In these particular cases the interaction of forces, if synchronized accurately, could really cause the long-lasting movement of even heavy objects. But it would not be possible to extract energy if not a few milliwatts, insufficient to keep the system electronically in sync.

[Oystein]

You missunderstood what I mean by 100% OU efficiency = COP 1:1
200% = 2:1 etc.

Example: 1 Joule input and later 2 Joules total output of ALL output energy including heat, vibration, air resistance etc. = 200% OU efficiency and It does not mean that it is eternal or truly perpetual.. It hasnt anything to do with that. But could be though...

[unstable]

About the rolling ball, I do not even think that in this case we can talk about a ratio in terms of energy input and output. Input energy is provided only during the initial push, the rest is self-sustaining.

The interesting thing about the interaction between pendulum and magnets is that it is possible to "avoid" (by trick) the conservative property of the magnetic field. When magnetics objects approached and moved away evenly, everything would be conservative. The pendulum through its natural movement (and that can therefore generate a mechanical delay) makes possible the incidence of magnetic fields at the right time and then breaks the closed loop. This is also possible thanks to the short distance in which the magnetic field acts strongly. It's definitely a winning combination, but we do not get anything useful but a nice and expensive gadget.

I would have designed the rolling ball machine in another way. I would use a powerful magnet mechanically connected to a slide on ball bearings. Possibly non-magnetic if they exist on the market. Then I would have used only one pendulum and I would have matched the meeting of the magnet on the pendulum and the magnet on the slide at the right time. Both would have reacquired the lost kinetic energy. But in this way it would have been more difficult to keep the synchronism, perhaps.


Bessler's wheel is another matter.

[Andyb]

Hi unstable,serge.com have shown that a constant magnetic motor works because of the cleaver way they stop the field from existing and allow the magnet to pass these machines would be in our world today if it was not for the fact they are cheap and they set you free, so i have to disagree with your premise that its not worth it and ask you to keep trying ,your a needed member of the community respected and very Valuable ,all the best Andyb

[unstable]

Hi Andyb, thank you very much for the compliment. I'll take a look at that site. The problem is precisely that: to create a favorable imbalance of mechanical forces derived by magnetic field. The approach and the subsequent "moved away" between the magnets must not take place in the same way otherwise there can be no resulting force in favor. Shielding a magnetic field is only possible in a very partial way. The shield itself is affected by the magnetic field and mechanical energy is required to move the shield. I played a bit 'with magnetic fields a few years ago but I did not get anything useful. It is precisely because of the problem we are talking about that the combination of pendulum and magnets is very favorable but critical in synchronism.

Claudio

[John Lyndsay]

There is a variable leverage mechanical cycle that half the time puts out too much leverage and the other half doesn't put out enough leverage. Per cycle, it does not put out too much energy so no "sacred" laws are broken. Use the part of the cycle that is the most advantageous. Of course you have to look for this phenomenon and apply it the right way. It is a mechanical and ethical concept: Use your best and leave the rest! There you go Mr. Unstable, a idea you can easily understand.

[ovyyus]

Leibniz, the fourth smartest man in the history of the world (apparently), thought Bessler's wheel was powered by a 'physical principle'. Not mechanical, not gravity, not inertia, not codes... a physical principle. Leibniz went even further and stated,

...In which case, I cannot call this work of skill a fraud, if it is able to deliver what is expected of it...

You'll soon find, you splendid mechanics, that this is a nut you can't crack!

[unstable]

John Lyndsay, if it were that simple you would have already done it, do not you think ? :-)


Bill, a physical principle, whatever it is, in a mechanical wheel, you can not exploit it without the means you have denied. Do not contradict yourself in the same sentence. Thanks.
Leibniz has not had the time nor the way to investigate thoroughly. IQ is not of great importance when it is not possible to investigate. Apparently, the working principle of the wheel, could seem anything. Being intelligent does not mean having a crystal ball.
He gave them a hypothesis. And it must be taken for what it is: a hypothesis. Stop fossilizing yourself on small sentences. They will not lead you to anything.


Sometimes I get the impression that all of you are on the planet mars with your head.

[John Collins]

Typical reaction of ‘experts’ to the Wright brother’s first flight

“One reason why nearly everyone in the United States was disinclined to swallow the reports about flying with a machine heavier than air was that important scientists had already explained in the public prints why the thing was impossible. When a man of the profound scientific wisdom of Simon Newcomb, for example, had demonstrated with unassailable logic why man couldn't fly, why should the public be fooled by silly stories about two obscure bicycle repairmen who hadn't even been to college? In an article in the Independent—October 22, 1903, less than two months before the Wrights flew—Professor Newcomb not only proved that trying to fly was nonsense, but went farther and showed that even if a man did fly, he wouldn't dare to stop. "Once he slackens his speed, down he begins to fall…Once he stops, he falls a dead mass. How shall he reach the ground without destroying his delicate machinery? I do not think that even the most imaginative inventor has yet even put on paper a demonstrative, successful way of meeting this difficulty."

JC

[unstable]

What a delusion I am, I thought for a moment that you would write something useful. ;-P

[ovyyus]

Bill, a physical principle, whatever it is, in a mechanical wheel, you can not exploit it without the means you have denied. Do not contradict yourself in the same sentence. Thanks.

Claudio, you seem to miss the point. Even the most brilliant and efficient mechanism will remain motionless without first having some physical principle to power it. Leibniz commented on the fundamental problem.