Finsrud's Perpetuum Mobile Protocol for Conclusive Verification

[Omnibus]

@ken_behrendt,

Nice setup but, as you say, it does not necessarily prove that Finsrud's device is a hoax since the setup is not exactly the same as what he built.

As for the definitive answer, I do think that the first two points of the protocol I posted previously will do the job.

Indeed, demonstrating that the ball accelerates during its functioning when one of the small magnet-breaks is removed will definitively prove it's not just an efficient re-distributor of the initially imparted energy. Also, seeing that a non-magnetic ball makes only several turns will definitively exclude any hidden energy source, electric or mechanical.

[David]

Omnibus,
The Finsrud device is very interesting and at this point I have no reason to accept or refute it's authenticity. I think you already know that a test on this device must be designed very carfully. The metal ball must be of the same size and weight so as not upset the balance as is apparently needed for at least part of the process. The movie I watched is not very clear on the center structure of the device. What does the center column contain (If anything) that adds to process? I think before any tests are done there must a complete analysis of the structure. I hope this helps.

[Omnibus]

@David,

The central structure is the problem. He says it contains a fourth pendulum and more magnets but they are enclosed in such a way that access to see what exactly they are is impossible unless the whole structure is taken apart. Understandably, Finsrud is not willing to take it apart.

Therefore, some non-destructive test had to be designed which would allow a definitive conclusion to be made without taking the device apart.

Thus, removing one of the brake-magnets, allowing the original ball to accelerate, would prove definitively obtainment of excess energy, that is, will prove that FinsrudÂ’s device is a true perpetuum mobile and not only an efficient re-distributor of the initially imparted energy.

The role of the non-magnetic ball is only to prove that there is no hidden source of energy. If there is, the non-magnetic ball should keep turning at least for the length of time of the videos. If it stops sooner, the conclusion will be thereÂ’s no hidden source of energy. Thus, a ball with dimensions and weight which only approximate those of the original ball will also do, I think.

[David]

The central structure is the problem. He says it contains a fourth pendulum and more magnets but they are enclosed in such a way that access to see what exactly they are is impossible unless the whole structure is taken apart. Understandably, Finsrud is not willing to take it apart.

Ok but I hope you know that without a detail understanding of the internal workings of the the device any test (sadly) will remain inconclusive.

Maybe at some future time, Finsrud would be willing to include a video camera inside the stucture or provide a detail design so that another device may be built. Only this one will allow the internals to be seen and studied.

[Omnibus]

@David,

That's exactly the point with my protocol, namely, to treat Finsrud's device as a black box and yet to obtain conclusive results. I think the protocol allows that.

As for disassembling, I spoke with Finsrud and found out that he will in no way allow the machine to be taken apart. I suggested to use fiber optics but he said everything is tightly enclosed and there's no physical access to the inside of the supporting column.

[David]

Omnibus, A black box is as I recall it from the electronic field, an unknown element used to test or build a circuit. With any unknown quanity or in this case unknown mechanism, you can not conclude that his device is authentic. A black box as in the electronic field can contain a battery, amplifiier, motor or other transducers that can provide energy to the system. In other words, once you have finished your protocol for testing the device, there will always be another test. I am sorry but you asked my opinion and I think unless Finsrud is willing to devulge the design of the center column, and then only to someone he trusts to do it justice, then any testing of the device is a waist of time. But on a less awkward note it maybe fun to try.

[Omnibus]

@David,

I donÂ’t see how a claim that there is a hidden energy source can be sustained if the non-metallic sphere makes only several spins while the original one turns in the course of hours. ShouldnÂ’t a hidden energy source cause the non-metallic sphere to move along the track also for many hours? How would you explain the difference in the behavior of the two spheres in conjunction with observing the original sphere accelerate (when one of the top magnets is missing), if not by lack of hidden energy source?

Think about it, if the non-metallic sphere stops soon then it will be a proof that there is no hidden energy source but one may say, well, the non-metallic sphere makes the machine inefficient. In other words, one may say, well weÂ’re done with the hidden energy source, there is none, but when you replace the non-metallic with the original sphere the machine again becomes a very efficient re-distributor of the initially input energy. If thatÂ’s the case, however, no matter how good a re-distributor of the initially imparted energy this machine is, it must necessarily decelerate. If it is observed to accelerate, that will be a conclusive proof that the machine is something more than just an efficient re-distributor of the input energy (in addition to the confirmed fact that thereÂ’s no hidden energy source).

This is the reasoning behind the protocol. What do you think?

[ovyyus]

Think about it, if the non-metallic sphere stops soon then it will be a proof that there is no hidden energy source...

I don't agree - that would only prove that magnetism is somehow involved in driving the sphere, nothing more. The question then would be what and where is the energy source which supplies the magnetic driver.

I wonder why the central column must remain "tightly enclosed"?

[Oystein]

Hello, I guess there are construction reasons for this, because the central pendulum (also swinging above a chaotic magnetic field, wich is the basic for the whole idea) is inside the brass foot/stand (pendulum weight) weighing about 30Kg I guess..

Track movement and vibrations from the upper magnets is transferred back/forth to this pendulum through central spring etc..

He also works on improvements to the original ideas, and I guess would like to keep some things to himself ;-)

As he says :
The machine is not running, it is "prevented from stopping".
Ideas started to arise after he tried to make "floating in the air" magnetic art. He never could make the items float steady, and therefore concluded, objects suspended in air in magnetic fields won`t keep still, so then they have to be able to keep moving..
So the research started on swinging pendulas over magnetic fields..
Chaotic field (N/S in chaotic patterns) was tested as the most promising.
When a magnetic + weight pendula swings in such a field, it will finally find a (not predictable) spot where it will come to rest. This spot is never at lowest gravity potential, but the time it takes to reach this point takes about the same time as a pure gravity pendula uses to come to rest.
The difference is that a minimal push on the magnetic pendula makes it swing again, this is what the machine does..almost everything pushes on everything, and the four pendulas swing above chaotic mag fields, never let them find their unpredictable standstill point in the chaotic field.

Chaotic pendulas, enhanced with selfregulated "SMOTs" on the top, regulate the speed of the ball (regulated by "swing-frequency" of smallest 3 pendulas) rolling on a track that transfers movement to/from the central pendulum, the 3 smaller pendulas, and vibration from the upper magnets...I guess the machine can "never be"? a true PMM, but I guess it showes OU, by running much much longer than the first applied energy normally would make a similar non magnetic machine run.

Putting the parts in correct starting position is the "input of energy", but letting the ball run for (for example) 2 months adds up to a very large "energy output" number.

It is not possible to extract usefull energy from the machine as it is presented at the moment.

Oystein

[Wheeler]

Oystein wrote

The machine is not running, it is "prevented from stopping".
Ideas started to arise after he tried to make "floating in the air" magnetic art. He never could make the items float steady, and therefore concluded, objects suspended in air in magnetic fields won`t keep still, so then they have to be able to keep moving..
So the research started on swinging pendulas over magnetic fields..
Chaotic field (N/S in chaotic patterns) was tested as the most promising.
When a magnetic + weight pendula swings in such a field, it will finally find a (not predictable) spot where it will come to rest.

Excuse me for doubting before, but you did not post this until now.
This make good sense and I am now listening. Thank you for this detail.
I have worked with pendulums and find your latest post making good scientific sense.

[David]

Omnibus, Let me ask you a question. The conclusive verfication that you seek regarding Finrud's device, who will it serve?

[Omnibus]

@David, you wrote:

"Omnibus, Let me ask you a question. The conclusive verfication that you seek regarding Finrud's device, who will it serve?"

It will serve science in general. If Finsrud's device proves to be a true perpetuum mobile it will require that the first law of thermodynamics, as formulated by Helmholtz, should be abandoned. As known, in science, ione only experiment at odds with a law is enough to invalidate that law.

As a matter of fact, a simpler experiment, the SMOT, also demonstrates that the principle of conservation of energy is invalid. Finsrud's device is useful in this respect (as a proof against that principle) since, if it turns out to be a real perpetuum mobile, it is self-sustaining and, as I said, goes directly against Helmholtz' formulation.

I don't know, maybe it's redundant to bother with Finsrud's device as a proof against that principle, having a simpler way to renounce it through SMOT. Nevertheles, I think, it wouldn't hurt to know if Finsrud's device is a genuine perpetuum mobile or not as well.

[ken_behrendt]

Omnibus...

Proving that Finsrud's device is genuine will not disprove the validity of the First Law of Thermodynamics.

Any extra energy coming out of the Finsrud device will, most likely, be derived from the loss of mass of rolling ball itself. The First Law of Thermodynamics was expanded to include this possibility in the 20th century.


ken

[Omnibus]

@ken_berhrendt, you wrote:

“Any extra energy coming out of the Finsrud device will, most likely, be derived from the loss of mass of rolling ball itself. The First Law of Thermodynamics was expanded to include this possibility in the 20th century.”

Physics of the 20th century excludes the possibility FinsrudÂ’s device to work at all, except trivially, that is, as an efficient re-distributor of the initially imparted energy. Thus, the expansion of thermodynamics you mention isnÂ’t even an issue from the point of view of contemporary physics.

Besides, even if proven that FinsrudÂ’s device isnÂ’t just an efficient re-distributor of energy (provided also thereÂ’s no hidden energy source), which is non-trivial, your claim has to be proven. There hasnÂ’t been so far experimental evidence of the mass-energy relation concerning neutral (uncharged) bodies.

[ken_behrendt]

Omnibus wrote:

... your claim has to be proven. There hasnÂ’t been so far experimental evidence of the mass-energy relation concerning neutral (uncharged) bodies.

There is no need to "prove" this. In the 20th century is was well established that the energy outputted by nuclear reaction did, indeed, come from a loss of mass in the products of the nuclear reaction. In any verified OU device, the first place that the scientific community will look for a source of energy that is being tapped (assuming, of course, that the device is not a fraud and contains not hidden power supply) will be the mass of the parts in the device.

You keep mentioning that Finsrud's device would be "an efficient re-distributor of energy". But that implies that the amount of energy in the rolling ball remains constant. This is clearly impossible because the ball must be able to continuously output some tiny amount of energy per rotation to overcome the air resistance and rolling drag caused by its motion.


ken