Finsrud's Perpetuum Mobile Protocol for Conclusive Verification

[Omnibus]

@All,

Recently I visited FinsrudÂ’s gallery in Norway and posted two videos of his machine:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6456&hl=en

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 4253&hl=en

I am discussing this in steorn.com and overunity.com forums. In steorn.com forum I also posted some data taken from the videos I have:

. . . . . . . . . . . . BEGINNING OF POST WITH DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I just made some preliminary measurements of the time between clicks at the beginning and at the end of each of the several separate videos (almost an hour each) and am finding that there is no difference of the order youÂ’re mentioning above.

I use WaveLab and I record, as you do, the sound from the videos. Then I set the resolution to 1 millisecond and look for the characteristic pattern of the click. Interestingly this pattern is not the same in every tape. Nevertheless, a clear sudden jump in the pattern is discernible which indicates the exact moment the occurrence of the click begins.

Interestingly, in the tape showing Finsrud starting the device (I have not posted it on the net) after the device is already running certain spread is observed in the intervals between clicks – a shorter interval is followed by a longer and then by another slower and so on. Here are the data for the more reliable patterns in the sound of that video:

Beginning of Click, s.........End of Click, s.........Difference, s

1.750...............................5.744......................4.024
5.774...............................9.811......................4.037
. . .
13.834............................17.873......................4.039
17.873............................21.911......................4.038
21.911............................25.947......................4.036
25.974............................29.972......................4.005
29.979............................33.984......................4.005
33.984............................38.032......................4.048
38.032............................42.064......................4.032
42.064 ...........................46.098......................4.034

The data above are for 24 August, 2006. As you can see there are moments of acceleration. How is it that a given initial energy will not only dissipate but will cause the ball to accelerate?

From the video taken on 25 August the average value of the clicks at the beginning is 4.038s while an hour later it is 4.032s. It appears that, contrary to your thesis, at the end the ball has been accelerated and due to that it covers the track 0.006s faster.

From the video taken on 26 August at the beginning the average interval between clicks is 4.026s while at the end, about an hour later, it is 4.024s. Again, contrary to your argument, the ball covers the track 0.002s faster.

All the above may well be within the error limits but still it doesnÂ’t prove the clear tendency your are proposing for the ball to stop.

As to why the machine stops, it is due to a slight displacement of the parts in the course of running (say, screws loosen), wear and tear of the parts etc., which leads to getting the device out of synch. No wonder then it would stop. This displacement of the parts in the course of running is only a technical matter and doesnÂ’t have anything to do with the principle which, fraud excluded, appears to violate the first thermodynamic law.
. . . . . . . . . . . . END OF POST WITH DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


IÂ’m willing to go back to Norway with a simple protocol which will prove conclusively that FinsrudÂ’s device is a true perpetual motion machine. As far as I can see now, after the discussions so far, this protocol should consist of only two points:

1) In order to insure that there is no hidden energy source of any kind (mechanical, electrical etc.) I would ask Finsrud to stop the machine and have it go to complete rest. It should stay in this state for not less than, say, a half hour. IÂ’ll bring my camera with a tripod this time as well as a tape recorder and will have all this taped. If nothing moves and no sounds from the machine are heard this should serve as a proof that there is no hidden source of energy. Attention should be paid also during the time the device is restarted. All will be on tape and the video will be a proof that thereÂ’s no foul play.

2) I will ask Finsrud to remove the three small magnets hanging over the track and the device will be set in motion. Removing the magnets will be the trickiest part since I know that Finsrud is reluctant to touch his creation. So weÂ’ll see what heÂ’ll say about that. If he agrees, the working device, lacking the mentioned magnets, will be videotaped (recording also the sound in addition) for a period of several hours during which acceleration of the ball should be observed if this is a true perpetuum mobile.

What do you think?

[ken_behrendt]

I've tried to think of ways that the Finsrud perpetual motion machine could be faked. Here's what I came up with.

First, the ball would not be made of steel but from some other non-magnetic metal. This is important so that it would be unaffected by the magnets as it made its way around the track.

Next, when the ball depresses one of the switches in the track, that action causes a momentary flow of current through a hidden coil beneath each horseshoe shaped magnet that pulls it back down so that it will give a brief "kick" to the ball to slightly accelerate it.

Now, if I'm right, you will find that the ball is not attracted to a magnet and that somewhere beneath the horseshoe shaped magnets there are solenoids carefully positioned.

That only leaves the hidden power source to be found. Most likely it would be cleverly hidden within the device's supports. Because of the low momentary current drain on the hidden batteries, the device can keep the ball rolling about for weeks before it stops and new batteries must be installed.

Anyway, I hope I'm wrong...I really do hope the device is for real.


ken

[shak]

60 fps video, even 30 I think was mentioned.

1 second/FPS = error band

Meaning your data is those figures are well within error limits and should not be relied on at all.

no offense intended.

[Omnibus]

@shack,

Do you realize that the data I presented was the result of analysis of the digital soundtrack and not of the videoframes?

[Omnibus]

@ken_behrendt,

Finsrud told me that several years ago he was visited by a group of scientists from Trondheim who had been trying to detect telltale electromagnetic signals that would prove a hypothesis such as yours. None were found, although they had used extremely sensitive apparatus. I fon't have any more details on that and don't know whether a report was published.

What IÂ’m trying to do now is find a simple non-destructive way of proving conclusively that the perpetuum mobile claim is real.

That the ball is ferromagnetic can be confirmed easily during a second visit.

Greater problem poses refuting your other argument – switching on of a hidden energy source during the rolling of the ball. Thus, even if initially, before the machine is started everything is observed to be at standstill, later when the ball is given the initial push it starts triggering switches turning on periodically the hidden energy source.

Thus, one has to bring equipment to detect the electromagnetic signals if this source is from a hidden battery.

If the hidden energy source is of mechanical nature and is triggered by the moving ball, uncovering it requires nothing short of Finsrud disassembling his machine. Finsrud is reluctant to do that and I donÂ’t blame him. It took him 12 years to tune it up and set in motion in its present state.

What could be that simple non-destructive protocol that would exclude a hidden energy source and that will prove the machine is not simply an efficient re-distributor of initially imparted energy? It seems finding such protocol is almost as difficult as making the machine itself.

[Gravmaster2000]

Cool! I have wondered why this machine was not tested like this before....Thinking about it, there is ONE possible source of energy for it to run-since the central column needs random motion/vibration, I suggest that slight ground/building vibrations (from traffic?) might be enough to keep it going. A real test would be total isolation! The type of table lasers are put on to make holograms would be ideal, and would not require dissambly of the machine.

I love vids like this, and want to dowload it to my computer....the videos wont let me do that? Or am I missing something? 56K dial-up for a 47 min video is HARSH....

[Omnibus]

@Gravmaster2000,

Believe me the traffic won't be responsible for running the machine. The gallery is situated in the middle of nowhere, in the middle of a wheat field, and the traffic is so rare that you'd better know that it opens at 12:00. Because, if you arrive at 9:00 by the bus to Drobak you'll be stuck for three hours, as I was during my first visit.

[ovyyus]

I notice from the video that attention is almost wholly directed towards the mesmerizing cyclical mechanics, but I would like to see details of the machine enclosure, eg: is the cabinet airtight or does it have openings at the bottom and/or top; where are the overhead lights situated and what is their wattage.

Question: how long does the machine continue to operate after the overhead spotlights are turned off and allowed to cool down? IMO, heat driven convection currents within the cabinet enclosure could easily interact with a delicately balanced rolling ball on an open rail track. I would imagine that the amount of energy required to keep the ball in motion would be exceedingly small.

Perhaps the next time you visit Mr. Finsrud you might ask him if he minds switching off the overhead spotlights so you can use your thermal camera - just to see how he reacts :D


PS: after a little more thought... spotlight directed at central copper/brass dome of the device... metal dome heats up and causes a column of air to rise above it... hot rising air hits top of cabinet and is directed out to the sides where it cools and descends... downward airflow over the open rail track region gives rise to Magnus Force on the rolling ball which acts in the direction of motion along the track... ball continues to roll for as long as the spotlight heat source is applied to the system... voila.

[Omnibus]

OK, those overhead lights will be turned off. I donÂ’t think they are the problem.

The real problem is how to prove the negative. How to prove that there is no hidden source of energy driving the device. According to the laws of logic it is not up to Finstrud to prove that there is no such hidden source. Those who claim there is have to prove it. The burden of proof rests with them.

Nevertheless, I suggested a way to demonstrate that there is no hidden energy source prior to starting the machine. ken_behrendt suggested, however, that there might be a hidden energy source triggered during the operation of the machine. Others have suggested that too. I wonÂ’t repeat that the burden of proof is on those who make such claim but would like to discuss whether there could be a non-invasive way to demonstrate conclusively that such speculation is void. This is a tough call, isnÂ’t it? How do you prove the negative?

[ovyyus]

Proving that the device isn't driven by the spotlight heat source is both simple and non-invasive. When will you next visit the Finsrud device and ask for the spotlights to be switched off? What would be your response if the lamps will not be switched off for any length of time (say more than 45 minutes)?

[Omnibus]

I will go back to Norway only if a firm protocol is established for conclusively proving the validity of perpetuum mobile. Also this protocol has to be agreed upon by some other parties, including Finsrud. Turning the lights off will be part of it. This, as I said, isn't the gratest ptoblem. How do you prove in a non-invasive fashion that there is no internally hidden energy source during the functioning of the machine? That's the real problem, I think. How do you prove the negative?

[Gravmaster2000]

Omnibus...I think the thing I'd like to see is when it 'gets out of sync' and stops...I mean, EXACTLY what happens when it does this? I'd bet it stops REAL fast..Of course, the starting proceedure would be cool to see as well!

People at the Steorn forums have mentioned this machine has been 'on the net' for years to view, true! I have an older video of it-the sound is more of a 'clunk-ka' every rotation, ie, TWO clacks. Perhaps he sanded down the second bump, as he mentioned doing?

Here is the page-video download is at the bottom:
http://www.galleri-finsrud.no/sider/mobile/foto.html

Be sure to visit other links on the right-some NICE pictures there!
note:the big 'clunk' appears to be the seam where the rim ends meet, you can see the plate holding them together clearly in this video!
Also, the outer ring is stationary, the inner ring rocks.

See the link below for a good write-up...The REAL propulsion for the ball is hidden-the center column has a 4th large pendulum responsible for a 'wave' traveling with the ball on the rings, so the ball is always 'rolling downhill' as it were, on the track-it swings in a circle.

One thing little touched on by you so far-this old article (1996) goes on some detail about the pendulum over a random array of magnets, bouncing around over them-that is supposed to be the real power-this thing runs on vibrations caused by the ball, the clunk sound, magnet motions, etc. Like a vibration collector, or amplifier. The 3 pendulums on the outside assist/sync this.

Go here http://www.keelynet.com/energy/finsrud.htm

and download 'finsrud3.txt' Great explaining of all the parts-and why it speeds up and slows a bit at times-it HAS to?!

[ken_behrendt]

Omnibus asked:

How do you prove in a non-invasive fashion that there is no internally hidden energy source during the functioning of the machine?

That's a tough one. Here are some suggestions.

First, Bill's idea is a good one. Does the device continue to run in the dark? If so, then that would eliminate the possibility of it somehow using photovoltaic cells to convert the energy in the spotlights into electricity to power the rolling ball.

Second, assuming that the rolling ball presently on the device is actually made from steel, what would happen if you substituted another rolling sphere of the same size and weight that was made from a non-magnetic and, preferably, non-metallic material like plastic? If that ball kept rolling along then, obviously, the bobbing horseshoe magnets are only a distracting decoration.

Third, it is possible to check for the presence of transient electrical currents that might be energizing hidden solenoids in the device. However, that would require a special high sensitivity electric field meter. Such a device would be able to detect the weak electromagnetic pulses emitted as the hidden solenoids were periodically energized to produce their magnetic fields.

It's possible that a compass placed near to one of the three bobbing magnets would periodically spin when the hidden solenoid activating that magnet was energized. The mere bobbing of the horseshoe shaped magnet, by itself, would not cause spinning, though.


ken

[Omnibus]

@ken_behrendt,

These are very good ideas. Of course, Bill's too.

Do you know where I can find a non-metalic sphere of that size? I guess the weight can be adjusted by inserting lead pieces. Also, what exact field-meters do you have in mind? Can you post links of producers of such sensitive field-meters?

[rlortie]

IMO you are getting a little to far out of the box. To prove that magnetism is or is not used is irrelevant, providing that they are not electro magnets.

If it is running on magnets and said magnets have never depleted (which I doubt) then you still have a machine that I would qualify for OU. Or at least prove that magnets can do "work"!

I would be more interested in knowing if the master center pendulum of Foucault suspension type is not in reality a version of Coulomb's Torsion Balance.

Using a non metallic sphere, to my thinking will prove nothing except proving or disproving the properties of magnetic influence or show Lenz law in effect. Neither will change the basis of the category of the machine as to whether it is a closed loop or not.

Ralph