Perendev Magnet Motors

[Bill_Mothershead]

there is no understanding as to why it works as it does.

Is that really true? Obviously the artist had a plan/vision.
Anybody would have to have a great deal of understanding
of how it is supposed to work just to get it started.

Looks like all its parts and their interactions are in full view
and are relatively simple. Is there a problem?

Any device that can barely keep itself moving is interesting but is only good for a museum or as a toy.

Considering how he is an artist (NOT and engineer) and his
goal was to create a sculpture for exhibit (not a energy device
for experiments in a lab) then he is successful.

But really now...

Any device [Wright brothers airplane] that can barely keep itself
moving [flying] is interesting but is only good for a museum or as a toy.

Any device [Edison's first light bulb] that can barely keep itself
moving [illuminated] is interesting but is only good for a museum or as a toy.

Any device [Ford's first car] that can barely keep itself
moving is interesting but is only good for a museum or as a toy.

If you are trying to start a fire, you might be looking for that
first little spark that falls on the kindling.

If this sculpture proves/demonstrates that overunity exists....
then it is more important than an unconfirmable old story
about a gravity wheel built hundreds of years ago.

[jim_mich]

Bill, my whole point was my last sentence, which you seemed to have ignored.

To be economically viable requires a substantial OU output, which is what Bessler demonstrated with his larger wheels.

I never said that Mr. Finsrud was not successful as an artist. Mr. Finsrud has said that it took him a long time of tweaking to get it to keep moving. It was mostly trial and error. Thus, why it keeps moving is a mystery. (Though I and others may have some thoughts as to why.)

For Mr. Finsrud's sculpture to be economically viable as an energy source requires it to produce more output energy than is needed to build it. The Wright brothers did not invent the airplane. They invented method and means of controlling an airplane which made it economically viable. Edison did not invent the light bulb. He invented method and means of keeping a light bulb burning long enough to make it economically viable. Ford did not invent the automobile. He invented method and means of building automobiles economically. Matches and Bic lighters were invented as economical means of igniting fires.

So really now... Finsrud's sculpture, as is, is not economically viable. And without knowing the means of why it works it will never be economically viable. If some inventor comes along and figures out how to make magnets and/or swinging pendulums produce substantial excess work, then that would really be something.

Here is another magnet driven motor: http://www.rexresearch.com/gary/gary1.htm

[Bill_Mothershead]

Jim, you are right of course.
this sculpture...

is not economically viable....[and does NOT] produce substantial excess work...

I guess I am implying the expected steps for scientific progress are:

1) Someone invents "overunity" and demonstrates it...
using any method...at any power level.

2) Scientist replicate it and study its principles to develop
a new technology.

3) Engineers refine and scale up the technology to
make it economically viable.

Obviously Mr. Finsrud only did step one. It is also likely that
HE(!!!) is probably not going to do steps 2 and 3.

The BesslerWheel forum is a vast 6 (or 10?) year archive of
people just trying to achieve step 1. And the results...
well, I can't seem to recall anyone demonstrating
a working gravity wheel (any method...at any power level.)

My crappy plywood-on-a-stick wheel doesn't work.
You got anything that works, JIM? Anybody?


Mr. Finsrud DOES.

[nicbordeaux]

Until proved otherwise, Mr Finsrud doesn't.

[DrWhat]

A Foucault Pendulum effect in a very low friction environment may be at play.

[ovyyus]

A Foucault Pendulum does not produce energy. IMO, a spotlight focussed on Finsrud's sculpture (it's always viewed under applied lighting) could provide more than enough energy to roll the steel ball continuously around the low friction track.

[Bill_Mothershead]

A Foucault Pendulum effect in a very low friction environment may be at play.

OK...? So do you have an idea on how to tap out excess energy from such?

[Bill_Mothershead]

nicbordeaux said:

Until proved otherwise, Mr Finsrud doesn't.

Agreed. A youtube video doesn't PROVE much of anything.

A few post back, Mr Oystein said:

I have seen it several times :)
I live a 60 minutes car-drive from him and the machine..

Its real, it runs, and sometimes it stops.
It dont`t think it would stop if it was fake..
I believe it is overunity.

Hmmm....a local eyewitness to the "demonstration"
(certainly more reliable evidence than a youtube video).

A quick Google search on "Finsrud" show about 5000 hits.
On the first page, this one has some good pictures and
probably enough to fill in some blanks.

http://theorderoftime.com/science/free_ ... nsrud.html

Mr Finsrud DOES have a nice sculpture.
On public display. Doing something. For days at a time.

That sounds a lot like a demonstration.

[nicbordeaux]

The thing is a combo of tracking and magnetic repulsion, some gravity involved. There is also if I remember right a central "chaos" pendulum ? That would explain the stoppages at unpredictable intervals. The mags are moved by the ball (hairpin type devices to rod lingkage which are pushed as ball rolls over). Which in turn changes tracking.

A while back in some other thread somebody asked for the translation of escamotable. In a mechanical context read "retractable" and variants thereof. Escamoter (verb) a turn will mean "miss a turn". FWIW.

As to the Foucault pendulum effect, what is it, 260 odd degrees a day ? You can change an incline with that given the right ratio of pendulum to device to be moved and from which pendulum hangs.