Finsrud's Perpetuum Mobile Protocol for Conclusive Verification

[Omnibus]

@ken_behrendt, you wrote:

“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.”

Mind you, in nuclear reactions. As I said, there hasnÂ’t been a single experiment confirming the mass-energy relation in neutral bodies.

In Finsrud’s device, as in SMOT, there’s no source of energy to tap in. As analysis of SMOT shows, energy there is created “out of nothing”, as it were, only due to the proper disposition of the parts of the machine.

“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.”

Correct. That would be trivial. Proving that FinsrudÂ’s device is an efficient re-distributor of initially imparted energy will be trivial and of no interest to science (to engineering maybe, but not to science).

Indeed, if it were only an efficient re-distributor of the initially input energy, FinsrudÂ’s device must decelerate. If, by removing of one of the small magnets (as the protocol requires) it is observed to accelerate, that will be a definitive proof that itÂ’s more than efficient re-distributor, which is not trivial.

[ken_behrendt]

Omnibus...

If, as you wrote:

As analysis of SMOT shows, energy there is created “out of nothing”, as it were, only due to the proper disposition of the parts of the machine.

Then why has no one managed to "close the loop" with the SMOT?


ken

[Omnibus]

@ken_berebdt, you wrote:

"Then why has no one managed to "close the loop" with the SMOT?"

It's not necessary to close the loop in SMOT. SMOTviolates the principle of conservation of energy even when not in a closed loop, as the analysis shows.

[David]

It will serve science in general.

Although your protocol may show some things are true about the device,
if you look at the problem through the eyes of a scientist, you can never conclusively verify this device because of the unknowns involved, namely the working of the center column. Like may people have said before me,
"There are many ways to fake a device like this." If the science you are trying to convince is the same science I live with everyday, you will have a very difficult time convincing anyone that this protocol can provide a conclusive proof.

If you are to succeed in this matter (And I do wish you success). Then you or Finsrud must take all the data into account. The device must be completely documented so that it can be verified experimentally. Your protocol as it stands can not succeed in convincing science of the devices authenticity.

[ken_behrendt]

David...

I find myself in agreement with your accessment of the situation. Unless the Finsrud device can be completely dismantled to prove it contains no hidden power supply or can be independently duplicated, then there will always be doubts about any conclusions reached about it. And, of course, those conclusions would not have much weight in the orthodox scientific world.

However, some testing of the device might help narrow down the unknowns about its operation. I guess that is better than no testing at all.


ken

[Omnibus]

@David, @ken_behrendt,

You didnÂ’t explain away the acceleration with the original ball and the short run of the non-magnetic ball (provided these were observed). Science will definitely accept FinsrudÂ’s device as a true perpetuum mobile if these two effects, if they are there, are not explained in a trivial way even if the device isn't dismantled to see what's in it.

[David]

My concern is that there may be a power source hidden in the column or the base. There are some claims in history and have been found to be hoaxes.

The possibilities are endless.

For one, if a transducer is placed in the base to provide enough energy to keep the pendula swinging and this is remotely or internally controlled.

So you see that without a way to independantly verify the entire device....etc


Ken
Yes I think it would be better than nothing at all, but how much would the resulting data be worth to science or to others that would like to verify it?

Would you want to verify a very complex device that took years to build and probably countless hours to adjust based on faith alone?

[Omnibus]

@David, you wrote:

“My concern is that there may be a power source hidden in the column or the base. There are some claims in history and have been found to be hoaxes.”

No. If the non-magnetic ball stops after several turns and the original ball accelerates, the above possibility is excluded conclusively.

Recall that thereÂ’s also an additional redundant experiment with field-meter to detect telltale electromagnetic signals. I donÂ’t even think that redundant measurement would be necessary.

[ovyyus]

Can your protocol differentiate between hidden batteries driving the electromagnetic device - and - a hidden OU electromagnetic generator driving the electromagnetic device?

[Wheeler]

I think it may be possible to find the float point of a rotating ball on a disk or ring.
The toy that most of us know about that I think is called the anti-gravity gyroscope, gets close to showing the possibility of this balance point.

Finsrud may of researched a way to locate this balance point on the scale he has as a prototype. It may be the same system on a different layout and running slower.

[David]

Recall that thereÂ’s also an additional redundant experiment with field-meter to detect telltale electromagnetic signals

As far as I know, there is no field meter sensitive enough to detect an electromagnetic field that is properly shielded or again remotely actuated(the actuator is located away from the device connected by a linkage). If there is a meter like this, how would tell the difference between the lighting in the ceiling and a DC micro motor in the device. Does this meter you speek of also detect radio frequencies? If it does, how would know if this is from a local radio station or a radio remote control?

There is another concern. If the device can be controled remotely, how would know if the control has been turned on or off, based on one of the above senarios?

[sac_max]

In the protocol... The ball should be colored with stripes or distinct dots. It will bring light as to where the ball gains mometum and where it appears to loose mometum

[Bessler007]

[amateur]

Has anyone asked Finsrud about building another one?

Has anyone offered to fund Finsrud to build another one?

If so, what was/were his response(s)?

If he can produce two working ones, then he a) can document the assembly, b)presumably allow observed disassembly of one.

I expect that he could fetch a pretty good price for a second working model as well... that someone who could afford it would love to tear down if he wasn't willing to...

That might be a very telling protocol of its own...

One who _knows_ they have succeeded once at something, I think, is more likely to be willing to try again because they know it can be done, unless they know in fact that it really wasn't done...?

[Gravmaster2000]

amateur, I would hope he has detailed plans, with specs on every part, BUT being a work of art, with a lot of adustments made-I wonder...he probably has general plans, thats all-I'm sure he never expected or WANTED to make another one!