top

Finsrud provides the essential clue.

Post new topic Reply to topic FizzX.org Forum Index | Inventor's Corner    Page 1 of 1

Sun Oct 29, 2006 5:56 pm PostPost subject: Finsrud provides the essential clue.
Frank
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 360
Location: Harrow, England

Reply with quote

Finsrud provides the essential clue.

Let's assume for the moment that the Finsrud works as claimed and is in effect a magnetic motor, albeit rather a feeble one only capable of supplying enough energy to overcome the losses due to rolling friction, air resistance, sound generation, etc.

Now the interesting and unusual thing about the Finsrud is those swinging pendulums.


To get a feeling for what is going on with the Finsrud consider the
following extract from a file first posted on the KeelyNet BBS as
FINSRUD.ASC on 05/14/96, courtesy of Frode Olsen.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A steel ball (about 2.7 inch diameter, 20 pound) is rolling on an aluminum
track, about 25 inch in diameter, placed horizontally. Three pendulums, about 45
inch long with tuneable weights at the lower end, controls three horse-shoe
magnets that the steel ball has to pass by on the track. Embedded in the track
is a (mechanical) controlling/timing mechanism. It looks like a steel wire bent
into a triangular track, 5 inches long. The ball rolls over it and pushes the
wire down through a slot in the track. This affects one of the pendulums and
regulates its swinging motion.

There are three of these, one for each pendulum that needs to be controlled. The
three horse-shoe magnets are mounted on a lever, one on each pendulum. Three
much smaller magnets, also connected to the pendulums, are placed a bit further
down the track from the horse-shoe magnets. These hardly move, or do not move at
all when the ball passes.
The timing is such that the horse-shoe magnets are raised towards the ball just
before it reaches them, a 'wave-motion' created by the raising magnets pulls the
ball around the track. The ball makes one revolution in about 3 seconds.
The inventor is currently displaying the device in his art gallery. It is open
for the public. He seems very open about his 'moving sculpture'. He has no
formal training in mechanics or physics. The ball has at present been in
constant motion on the track for about one month.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now in effect we have two intersecting arcs. Its a bit difficult to think in terms of arcs with their constantly changing angle so it is better to think of two objects coming together at one angle and leaving at another.

Get a piece of wire and bend it in the middle to an angle of 150 degrees and lay it on the table. This represents the path of the Finsrud ball. Get another piece and bend it to 130 degrees say. Arrange the second wire in a vertical plane with the bend touching the bend of the wire on the table. This represents the path of the pendulum

Think of the wires as being the path of the pendulum magnet and the path of the ball.

By rotating the upper wire it becomes very clear that angle of approach of the pendulum to
the ball can be made very different from the angle of departure.

In other words the speed of approach of pendulum and ball is different from the speed of departure.

This must be the key to both the Finsrud and the Steorn since we know that for the Carnot cycle one can move from isothermal to adiabatic simply by changing the speed of compression-expansion.

So, it appears that the Steorn consists of rotating sets of magnets arranged at angles to each other. By varying the angle one finds the optimum for power output.

Once one one realises that speed of advance and retreat is the key, there is only a limited number of combinations of poles which need to be investigated before one has a working model.
_________________

instaurare omnia in Christo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Mon Oct 30, 2006 2:12 pm PostPost subject:
couldbe
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 63
Location: Canada West (Upper Canada)

Reply with quote

Frank,
If the key to this is rapid approach, slow recession, would you expect OU no matter how that was obtained?

For example, could the device be made of a piston attached to a rotating shaft on one end and with a magnet at the other end. The piston/magnet is attracted to a stator magnet until the piston is fully extended. Then it pulls back slowly due to a cam of some kind. Then, as the shaft continues to turn, the piston moves toward the stator magnet again.

Once this was kickstarted, would it theoretically be OU?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Mon Oct 30, 2006 4:52 pm PostPost subject:
Frank
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 360
Location: Harrow, England

Reply with quote

couldbe wrote:
Frank,
If the key to this is rapid approach, slow recession, would you expect OU no matter how that was obtained?

For example, could the device be made of a piston attached to a rotating shaft on one end and with a magnet at the other end. The piston/magnet is attracted to a stator magnet until the piston is fully extended. Then it pulls back slowly due to a cam of some kind. Then, as the shaft continues to turn, the piston moves toward the stator magnet again.

Once this was kickstarted, would it theoretically be OU?



Not quite the same is it. One involves a shearing action, the other a frontal approach and retreat. Although I suppose one could arrange it to be a shearing action. Come to think of it, one could arrange to investigate another variable too, viz. rotating the magnet on the approach and retreat.

Seems to me one could set up a test rig of the kind you envisage to measure several different variables in a large Analysis of Variance experiment to rapidly find the significant factors.

Don't make the mistake in setting up the A of V that one engineer made though: Smile


===============================================
The following example of the difficulty of choosing items entirely at random
involves a commercial research organisation which also carried out research on
soil stabilisation. A meeting was arrange for a joint discussion on a very
large program of tests. To interpret their results they had used a powerful
statistical technique with the imposing name, Analysis of Variance. This allows
reliable conclusions to be drawn about the relative importance of a wide range
of variables on the particular property under examination, in this case the
strength of soil-cement cylinders.

The chap who had carried out the work (I can't remember his name which is
perhaps just as well. Let's call him Bill) started going through the various
effects that he had found to affect strength significantly. As the account of
his research developed I became increasingly bewildered because it was were
seriously at odds with our work at the Road Research Laboratory.

Eventually he got down to the effect of two different sets of cylindrical
moulds which are used to make the specimens and claimed that these different
sets of moulds had led to a 15% difference in strength.

"Hang on a minute, Bill. All these 4 inch moulds are machined accurate to a
thousandth of an inch aren't they."

"Yes."

"Then for all practical purposes the two sets of moulds are identical. They
couldn't possibly have given rise to a significant difference of 15%. That's a
reductio ad absurdum."

Then an awful thought dawned on me.

"How did you randomise the specimens."

His blank look was all the answer I needed. Lack of randomisation meant that
the variables were, to use the technical expression, confounded. His boss was
with him and seeing the implications of my question avoided further
embarrassment by moving the meeting on to other matters.

It was GIGO, garbage in garbage out though at that time the acronym had to yet
to be coined, a classic case of the half-baked use of a powerful statistical
technique. I wonder how many other research conclusions are based on similar
inadequate randomisation.
===============================================

I think you have made a very sensible suggestion. Cool

You could vary the speeds, etc. far more with mechanical linkages than with rotating devices. Go for it. You might even overtake Steorn since they don't seem to have a clue as to what motion they are tapping and that can't do a lot for their confidence.
_________________

instaurare omnia in Christo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Mon Oct 30, 2006 5:08 pm PostPost subject:
couldbe
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 63
Location: Canada West (Upper Canada)

Reply with quote

Frank wrote:

You could vary the speeds, etc. far more with mechanical linkages than with rotating devices. Go for it.


I'd rather go for a beer, but maybe what you said will inspire some of the handier readers to get cracking.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:22 am PostPost subject:
clovis ray20
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 81
Location: oklahoma, usa

Reply with quote

have you guys seen the Russian motor.over on running bear post
sound like what you have explained

_________________
if you want to feel rich, count up the things you own that money want buy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:39 pm PostPost subject:
Joh70
Contributor
Contributor


Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Posts: 37
Location: South-Germany

Reply with quote

Hi, i am from germany. My english ist not very good. i want to write a sentence to the finsrod construction.

i do think, that it takes its power out of earth rotation spin.
a thing like "foucault pendulum", i think.

as it could be read in the following links or others, the spin-resulting-energy doesn't not occur at equator and/or NorthPole+SouthPole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum
http://www.calacademy.org/products/pendulum/

So i am sceptic, that finsrod's principle is a very efficient energy technology.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Post new topic Reply to topic FizzX.org Forum Index | Inventor's Corner
View previous topic
View next topic
Display posts from previous:   




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum