Finsrud's Perpetuum Mobile

[Omnibus]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.