Author Topic: Finsrud's Perpetuum Mobile (Read 110208 times)

Gregory · « **Reply #45 on:** September 12, 2006, 03:42:02 PM »

Hello noodles,

Sorry, if you felt me hostile, I don't want to be. I'm only very excited about this machine.

I also think the magnetic pendulum will always stops, and find equilibrium, as you say. Sure. At the best, it can tuned to swing some more time.

About the flash you mentioned... I missedit before, but now I can see, what you say.
At first sight it was very strange. But soon after that I realized what it is. Simple and nothing strange:
You have to keep in mind, that the machine stay behind glass walls from every direction, and above the sculpture there are strong lights to light it properly. And the ball is a clear shining silver ball.
The thing at the bottom of the spring is a normal mother screw made of copper, also clear, used to fix the spring normally.

The flashing is only a normal optical illusion caused by the glass, the lights, and the shining steel parts. Only a reflection. Nothing strange, I think.
If you look more carefully, you can find other similar, but weaker effects on the surface of other parts of the sculpture. For example there is another, smaller and fixed steel ball, with a periodic reflection effect. And possible to find more similar, but weaker ones...

Quote

It is said,
that it only stops, if the clay that holds the magnets
in the lower buttom magnet plate dries out too much.

Good to hear! That can be fixed. Of course, It is obvious that the machine also stops without the pendulums.

I failed to determine what is the big click exactly, but will try once more.
I only had that idea about the ball to react the pendulums. In the other hand the ball always react without my speculation of the big click, because the ball rolls on the swinging track, and interact with the horseshoe magnets, which ones are directly connected to the pendulums.

Gregory · « **Reply #46 on:** September 12, 2006, 03:52:55 PM »

After the shining steel ball left that spring, the flash appears. And appears periodically. Really only a reflection caused by the ball, the glass, and the lights. What other might be?

noodles · « **Reply #47 on:** September 12, 2006, 06:20:34 PM »

That is what I thought was an electrical discharge of some sort...

It is a low quality video, so hard to tell for sure, but it seems to me to be more than just a reflection...but without 100% clear video, it is hard to tell. If the original video poster could make a loss less copy of just those sections, maybe take a screenshot of the high quality version, it would settle the issue fully.

That is what I thought was electric, hence my electromagnet comments earlier.

If I can go of on one of my thoughts again -
The middle gold dome reminds me of a van der graaf generator/something tesla made.
Maybe, pendulums swing, causing something to rub against a material to build static electric charge (EG, cloth on perspex type of thing) then this energy is discharged as the ball hits that point on its run, attracting at just the right moment and switching off just as the ball passes so as not to drag it back.

Maybe...maybe...

noodles · « **Reply #48 on:** September 12, 2006, 06:27:20 PM »

Also, noise energy costs system energy. The amount of noise this is making per run is quite a lot, if it was close to 100% efficiency, by reducing this noise, you could have OU quite easily...

But hold on a second, why are we getting so excited about this one? It stops and there is no big principle here (unlike for example, SMOT)...

Gregory · « **Reply #49 on:** September 12, 2006, 10:43:19 PM »

Don't you think, that this static electricity idea is much more complicated than the machine itself?
Not as easy to do as you say, i think. Can you generate enough power with static electricity to affect an almost 1kg steel ball? If you change the charge of the steel ball in such way, does it any considerable effect on the interaction between the magnets and the ball?

However, if this is the case, the sculpture still moves for weeks.

Yeah, everything stops after a certain time, even the solar system will... Everything change after its certain period of time. In my opinion this is the one real law about the impossibility of perpetual motion, when you think literally.
Of course, this is more philosophical, but true. The only one real perpetual motion is the whole universe itself.

Omnibus · « **Reply #50 on:** September 13, 2006, 03:35:36 AM »

This I posted in the Steorn forum and would like to discuss it here too:

Instead of answering individually, in this post I?d like to summarize what?s available and what is to be done and propose it for a discussion. Something has to be done to move this discussion forward, otherwise it?s useless:

1) I notice that there are no commentaries to my analysis of SMOT after I posted my reply to rufus_firefly on page 8 of this thread (http://www.steorn.net/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13991&page=8). In that text I clearly explained why SMOT is violating the first thermodynamic law (wich also means that Simanek?s analysis is incorrect). It needs to be established am I right in my analysis or I am not. Establishing this is important also because Finsrud?s device is based on the SMOT concept and if I am right this is a good reason to discuss Finsrud?s device further.

2) I intend to make one experiment myself and another trip to Norway and I would want to propose a simple non-destructive protocol to Finsrud (which I?d like to discuss with everybody here) which will definitively prove the reality of the claim that Finsrud?s device violates the first law. Of course, I?ll post videos of the several things that need to be demonstrated in order to prove unconditionally such violation.

THE PROTOCOL:

This will be done here in the US:
a) A track similar to that of Finsrud?s machine will be made of bicycle or motorcycle spoke wheels (just as in Finsrud) and ~800g ball will be pushed by hand along this track and the time of travel until the final stop will be measured. A video of this experiment will be made and will be posted on the net for discussion. If the time for this motion is an order of magnitude less than 40min it will be an undeniable proof that even if the machine stops after 40min of work it still is a genuine perpetuum mobile (provided that the rest of the protocol confirms lack of hidden energy source.)

This will be done in Norway:
b) I will ask Finsrud to stop the device and leave it on its own until all motion stops. Then a video will be taken, lasting at least 10 min (using a tripod) in which no motion whatsoever of the device should be noticed. The camera lens will be so positioned as the track to be seen horizontal ? no radial movement of the track (the one seen in the current video on the order of less than a mm) should be see during this for at least 10 min of video. No sound should be heard, emitted from the device. If there is no motion during this study and no sound recorded it will be a conclusive proof that there is no hidden energy source whatsoever (mechanical, electrical or whatever else).

c) After the period mentioned in step a of more than 10min I will ask Finsrud to set the pendulums in motion while the ball is removed from the track and let these pendulums come to a rest. If the period of swinging of these pendulums until they so to rest is an order of magnitude lower than this period (for the pendulums to come to rest) while the machine is functioning it will indicate that they are not these alleged Foucault pendulums that can swing for a year without stopping and their swinging (the swinging of the pendulund in Finsrud?s device) due to the initial push cannot explain the functioning of the device.

d) After these tests are done I will ask Finsrud to start the device and will record its work for at least one hour.

A non-interrupted video of steps b), c) and d) will be taken and will be posted on the net for discussion.

This is what I came up with for now and it seems to me that the above protocol will be a definitive proof (if everything goes as expected) that Finsrud?s device is a true perpetuum mobile which is a violation of the first law. I remind you that I conclude definitively that the first law is violated from the functioning of SMOT but it is interesting to observe it in a self-sustaining device as well. Now I?d like to hear what you think of it.

energyman8 · « **Reply #51 on:** September 13, 2006, 06:40:45 AM »

Hey Omnibus,

I thought I had recognized you at the Steorn site.

Anyway appreciate all your posts over there and thanks for taking the time to explain what you believe is going on.

Regards

Eman8

noodles · « **Reply #52 on:** September 13, 2006, 07:25:53 AM »

lock it in a room and guard it...Bessler style.

However, I like your ideas Omnibus.

I'd like to say again that this does indeed stop and theres no big physics law revelation. so whats the big deal here?
How long would this thing have to go to prove perpetual motion? - Answer: FOREVER, it must not slow or speed up. the magnets will eventually lose magnetism naturally, so obviously would only be perpetual if some energy was produced out of the system, ie. it sped up.

Perpetual motion seems to be on the fine line between OverUnity and normal energy loss...hence, I think either achieve actual overunity (ie more energy out then in) or you don't have anything to dance about!

Although I do remember reading somewhere that he artificially slows the machine down to prevent this...

I also think he should reduce noise significantly, oil the thing up to reduce friction and remove any artificial dampening and let this thing go on camera. That and opening it up to prove no dodgy energy source would absolutley destroy and counter arguments I could make.

Gregory · « **Reply #53 on:** September 13, 2006, 04:01:48 PM »

I like your plan Omnibus!
It proves much more about the machine, and for the machine. It will be very good, when will be done!

But, if you want to prove it is a perpetuum mobile, you will clash with invisible walls. And this is not by chance.
It always dependent on the viewpoints of the people, doesn't matter they're educated scientists or not.
The problem is laying deep inside our concepts. Even the most precise physics books aren't enough precise around many points. Even the basic laws and definitions had been written long time ago, aren't precise enough to be considered as the same in different people's mind.

Some random thoughts...

People can't reach the same conceptions about basic things, through their education.
How could they understand what perpetual motion is?

Does anybody know what is perpetual motion, and how it works? Is it exist at all?
What is our conceptions of perpetual motion?

1. When we say, It's a machine which once started, after can run by itself continously and for indefinied time, without any outsider human activity, and do this without any energy spent to it by human, and produce continous work... Yes, in this case Finsrud's machine can be one.

2. But when we say, no energy spent from any source... The answer will change, because gravity and magnetism is a kind of source, Oh yes not for mainstream science, but in reality they are some kind of energy source, Conservative fields as educated people say.

3. Third point... Over 100% efficient.
Is it needed to prove perpetual motion? Perpetual motion means over 100% efficiency, or Coe?
How can you calculate the efficiency for sure of a machine, which runs on conservative fields only?

So, conceptions plays a lot, and in this case it is very hard to prove anything.
I personally like Finsrud's standpoint, to say: yes it is, and no, it isn't at the same time. I agree with him, and I think this is the closest point to reallity in this conceptional chaos, people have.
You have also known my viewpoint for a time:
I think there is no direct connection between the exact efficiency of a machine, and its ability to can operate by itself or not. Oh yes, it sounds quite strange, and paradox. But, who is the one who knows the truth, and who can say what is true, and what is false? Will we believe him, if one day he knock at the door?

One thing is sure. Every self operational machine can use that energy, what they can take, in a clever and / or efficient way.

Omnibus · « **Reply #54 on:** September 13, 2006, 06:50:05 PM »

Greg, as far as I can see the only direct and concluseve experimental proof for the violation of the first thermodynamic law is the functioning of SMOT. For one, as far as I can see now, it will not be straightforward to use Finsrud's machine for that purpose. I'm trying to find a definitive non-destructive protocol and it seems there alway will be something that would undermine it as far as Finsrud's machine is concerned. SMOT is another story, it is simple and it is conclusive. I wonder if you?re following the discussion in the Steorn forum regarding Finsrud?s machine.

Gregory · « **Reply #55 on:** September 15, 2006, 01:07:19 AM »

The SMOT. Basically a very simple device, and the same time the most desputed by people. If my understanding is right, in the case of SMOT, the ball rolls "freely", so it does some work, and the source of the energy for this movement is only magnetism, permanent magnets. The ball runs for "free", by the magnets, without any other energy input from outside, but it only moves to the strongest position of the magnetic field. After that point, the ball can't escapes and stops moving. Or even if you can force it somehow to escape, the ball remains unable to return to the initial position.

So, the ball runs on a period only, and you must take it, and return to the starting position to make it run once more. This is the problem with this simple device, however this is not change, that the ball runs freely on a period. It periodically can produce a few work, but doesn't too useful, because can't repeat it by itself.
On the other hand, I think, it is not the problem of the SMOT, it is a problem of the person, who use it.
I believe the unsuccess is only the lack of talents and knowledge to use the device in the right way, and right construction.

I'm personally not intersted in the simple SMOT too much, but it is a good toy.
In my opinion the SMOT is very similar to the steel ball, which is falling in the gravity field. It has quite similar properties. You can take it to a height and release it, and the ball will fall to the ground where stops. "If the ground isn't present", the ball will continue to fall to the center of the globe, and stops there as the ball of the SMOT stops at the end of the gate. Almost the same.

Quote

For one, as far as I can see now, it will not be straightforward to use Finsrud's machine for that purpose. I'm trying to find a definitive non-destructive protocol and it seems there alway will be something that would undermine it as far as Finsrud's machine is concerned.

I think the SMOT doesn't better for that purpose. Maybe easier and more simple, but doesn't better. I think Finsrud's machine is more promising than a simple SMOT, and more difficult for your purpose, but perhaps can be better. The underminings are typical.

Quote

I wonder if you?re following the discussion in the Steorn forum regarding Finsrud?s machine.

I read that forum, when you posted the link to it. I wasn't too satisfied about it, but I think I'm going to follow it some time. I like to mention again, it is a good plan to do all the experiments, what you wrote, on Finsrud's machine.

Best Regards,

Gregory · « **Reply #56 on:** September 15, 2006, 01:30:06 AM »

Omnibus, can I ask you to do a little thing for me?

When you speak to, or meet with Finsrud next time?
Can you suggest for him to try to make, or only think about a device, which operates on gravity only? (when the time and the atmosphere is good to suggest this thought)

I have an impression, that he is the right man to think about it. And I believe, after some time he will be able to do it, if he want.

Anyway, Does he want to make other "moving arts" soon?

Thanks,

Omnibus · « **Reply #57 on:** September 17, 2006, 10:02:47 PM »

@Greg,

Finsrud showed me a number of devices which he has made throughout the years, including purely gravity ones. Very interesting. He has been into this for over 30 years. The experience withe these devices has led him to the machine in question. I didn't remain with the impression that he has another working device, though.

Omnibus · « **Reply #58 on:** September 18, 2006, 03:28:03 AM »

@All,

This is the updated version of the protocol:

A simple protocol which will prove conclusively that Reidar Finsrud?s device is a true perpetual motion machine.

Here are the two crucial experiments to be carried out:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1) One of the three small magnets hanging over the track is to be removed and the device with its original steel ball will be set in motion by one of the participants in the test, not by Finsrud. 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 and not just an efficient re-distributor of the initially imparted energy.

2) At a separate experiment a non-magnetic stainless steel sphere of diameter 2.7?? weighing approx. 820g (as is the diameter and the weight of the original sphere) will be used instead. If this non-magnetic sphere stops its motion shortly after the initial push, this will disprove categorically that there is a switching mechanism which triggers a hidden mechanical or electrical source during the functioning of the machine and will prove that the role of the magnets is not only decorative but they actually drive the device.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

These are redundant experiments that may or may not be performed:

a) In order to insure that there is no hidden energy source of any kind (mechanical, electrical etc.) the machine has to be stopped and have it reach a complete rest. It should stay in this state for not less than, say, a half hour. A digital video-camera fastened on a tripod will videotape it. A redundant tape recorder will also be used to record the sound of the machine at rest. 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 at least prior to starting the device. Attention should be paid also during the time the device is restarted. All will be videotaped and the video will be a proof that there?s no foul play.

b) To insure the overhead lights are not the external energy source driving the machine they have to be turned off for at least one hour during the functioning of the machine. During that time the videotaping of the machine will be done with the light source of the video camera. Also, a separate digital audio recording will be carried out.

c) As a redundant experiment, a sensitive field-meter, will be used to measure telltale electromagnetic signals from eventual hidden electrical source. Possibly a compass will be placed near the apparatus which will be videotaped. Lack of such telltale signals will be a proof, in addition to the result from the experiment with the non-magnetic ball, that there is no hidden electrical source of energy driving the machine.

Gregory · « **Reply #59 on:** September 18, 2006, 07:17:34 PM »

Well designed protocol Omnibus, I like it.
Point 2 is very good!

A must. I wonder what will happen in the case of the non-magnetic ball. I guess the machine will stop.

Well done, waiting for the new results, and videos.
Thanks for your time, work, and persistence to do all these things.

I think the most important thing is to find out exactly how the machine works, and what does it do while it works.

Good luck!

P.S.: I hope Finsrud is going to create some new devices.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Finsrud's Perpetuum Mobile (Read 110208 times)

Gregory

Re: Finsrud's Perpetuum Mobile

Gregory

Re: Finsrud's Perpetuum Mobile

noodles

Re: Finsrud's Perpetuum Mobile

noodles

Re: Finsrud's Perpetuum Mobile

Gregory

Re: Finsrud's Perpetuum Mobile

Omnibus

Re: Finsrud's Perpetuum Mobile

energyman8

Re: Finsrud's Perpetuum Mobile

noodles

Re: Finsrud's Perpetuum Mobile

Gregory

Re: Finsrud's Perpetuum Mobile

Omnibus

Re: Finsrud's Perpetuum Mobile

Gregory

Re: Finsrud's Perpetuum Mobile

Gregory

Re: Finsrud's Perpetuum Mobile

Omnibus

Re: Finsrud's Perpetuum Mobile

Omnibus

Re: Finsrud's Perpetuum Mobile

Gregory

Re: Finsrud's Perpetuum Mobile