Return to the INE Main Page


From: NEN, Vol. 4, No. 3, July 1996, pp. 1-3.
New Energy News (NEN) copyright 1996 by Fusion Information Center, Inc.
COPYING NOT ALLOWED without written permission.

Courtesy Stefan Marinov, Patrick Bailey, Jerry Decker

Reidar Finsrud, Norwegian Sculptor, Invents "Moving Sculpture".

For one of the few times in mankind's history, a perpetual motion device has apparently been successfully developed. Stefan Marinov, Editor of Deutsch Physik called NEN from Austria to report on a Norwegian TV broadcast showing pictures of Reidar Finsrud and his latest work.

Apparently this Norwegian Sculptor has solved the problem of how to keep a device moving with the use of magnets. Patrick Bailey faxed us some information from the KeelyNet and Jerry Decker sent us further information in the Plenum publication. Frode Olsen of the Norwegian Free Energy Group sent KeelyNet the following description of how he believes the device is constructed, see Fig. 1.

A steel ball about two inches in diameter and weighing about one kilogram is placed in an aluminum trough in the form of a circular track about 25 inches in diameter. Three sets of strong magets are positioned along the track and mechanically arranged so that when the heavy ball gets right to the magnet, the magnet is moved out of the path of the rolling ball. Jack Schow, a Salt Lake friend of NEN, worked several years in Norway and volunteered to call Reidar Finsrud at his home near Oslo. Apparently, there is more to the device than shown on the Norwegian television because Reidar mentioned that part of the mechanism was not shown. We are corresponding with Mr. Finsrud and expect to get further information. He indicated that he has an improved model that he expects to build in the near future.

We commend Finsrud on his work. We think it is a clever idea to make the device into a moving sculpture and place it under glass for public show. NEN will publish further details on this new moving sculpture as we receive them.

By Stefan Marinov (Editor of Deutsche Physik, Gras, Austria)

"A war has not been won if this was not announced by CNN," General Karatashvili

"Ein Gespenst geht um in Europa - das Gespenst des Freiener-giesmus," Charles Xram. A free translation: "There is a ghost going around in Europe - the ghost of the Free Energy Movement."

When people ask me about my profession, my answer is: "Engineer for perpetual motion machines." I constructed my first such machine half a century ago, at the age of 15, by sending the current produced by a bicycle's dynamo to a motor rotating the bicycle's wheel. My two machines with modest over-unity effect, MAMIN COLIU (Nature, 21 August 1986, p. x) and VENETIN COLIU (Deutsche Physik, 2(5), 5, 1993) were exactly of this type: the current produced by an electromagnetic generator was sent to the motor which rotated the generator. In half of a century I realized dozens of projects of free energy machines and some months ago I succeeded finally to run one of them with a closed energetic circle, i.e., as a perpetuum mobile: the machine SIBERIAN COLIU (Nature, 28 March 1996, p. xiv).

Let me note that under the name free energy, our free-energy community understands either energy produced from nothing (SIBERIAN COLIU) or energy whose source still cannot be identified (the so-called "cold fusion"). A machine has over-unity effect when it produces free energy, i.e., when its efficiency is "over unity." A machine with a considerable over-unity effect can be run as a perpetuum mobile if the input and output energy are of the same kind and the latter surpasses the former. If, however, the output energy is heat, as is the case with the cold fusion machines, the closing of the energetic circle remains problematic. The recently developed Patterson cell (Infinite Energy, 1(5/6), 18, 1996) which is a kind of cold fusion machine has over-unity effect about 1,000.

The first functioning perpetual motion machine I saw, was the machine TESTATIKA, constructed by Paul Baumann in 1977 in the Christian community METHERNITHA in Linden, about 20 km south of Bern, Switzerland. I am member of the community and have tested the machine. The fifth volume of my series The Thorny Way of Truth (1989) is dedicated to it.

In 1989, I tried to present this machine in an advertisement in Nature and prepaid a respective sum but just before the publication the advertisement was rejected and the prepaid sum was sent back (see the whole documentation in the sixth volume of the series The Thorny Way of Truth (1989)).

Recently another perpetual motion machine was presented to the public: the machine of the Norwegian sculptor Reidar Finsrud. A whole-page article was published in the Norwegian local journal Ostlandets Blad on 2 May 1996 and a 5-minute film was presented on May 10, 1996 on the Norwegian TV. I saw the film but I have not seen the machine. However my good friend and free-energy enthusiast, Frode Olsen, was for two hours in Finsrud's studio and convinced himself that the machine, indeed, is a perpetuum mobile, rotating [over] more than a month. The inventor is an artist and does not give some physical explanations. He calls the machine a "moving sculpture." After a couple of conversations with Frode Olsen and Reidar Finsrud, I came to the conclusion that the explanation of its functioning is the following:

The machine consists [See the picture below, which is a touched-up (dark background removed) copy of a photocopy of a poor newspaper picture. We are trying to get a better picture.] of two bicycle hoops with slightly different diameters on whose edges an iron ball with diameter of 6.8 cm can roll. In the inner space of the smaller hoop there are three pendulums to each of which a horse-shoe magnet is fixed. The ball must be set to roll with such a velocity that the time of one revolution must be equal to the period of oscillation of the pendulums whose phases of oscillation differ with 1/3 of the period. The pendulums oscillate in such a way that when the ball approaches the respective horse-shoe magnet the ball remains longer time near the magnet than when the ball escapes from the magnet. In this way the positive impulses which ball receives on the approach of the ball are larger than the negative impulses obtained at the escape of the ball. The first impulses support the motion of ball and pendulum, while the second impulses oppose their motion. If the magnets would be at rest, supporting and opposing impulses will be equal in value and because of the inevitable losses after certain time, the rolling ball will come to rest.

We can consider the rolling ball as a rotor and the magnets fixed to the pendulums as a stator. In all machines constructed by humanity the stator magnets are always at rest and for this reason a Finsrud effect was never observed. This is the whole trick in Finsrud's perpetual motion machine.

Will the Finsrud machine repeat the story of the other free energy machines which were constructed in human history (Bessler, Tesla, Morey, Schauberger, Hendershot, Coler, Gray, Mayer, Takahashi, etc.): after having found coverage in a local journal or local TV station, a couple of curious persons will go to visit it and then will it be covered by silence?

NO!!! This time when in my hands I have my own perpetual motion machine, I shall put a full stop to the eternal story. This time soon, very soon there will be a breach in the wall of silence with which official science encircles the free energy evidence and soon, very soon the children of the world will breach this wall, as they have breached Berlin's wall!

By Hal Fox

One of the world's most prestigious science publications is the 400-year-old Nature magazine. Although Stefan Marinov has submitted numerous publications to Nature, his papers are seldom published. Recently (see report in New Energy News April 1996) Marinov bought advertising space in Nature to get his message to their readers.

When Marinov recently learned about the Finsrud perpetual motion moving sculpture he sent an article to Nature with the offer to place it as an advertisement if they didn't want to publish the article. Here is the response from Nature's editor:

"I am sorry to have to tell you that I am not willing to publish any of your submitted papers in Nature because in my judgement they will not persuade readers of the validity of your claims. Finally, we are not willing to publish further papers as advertisements. I think it is permissible, very occasionally (less than once every two years), to allow somebody with unorthodox views to advertise them to our readership. But anything more frequent becomes in effect a policy of systematically selling space to people who have failed our usual tests of acceptability, which would be quite unacceptable."

"Yours sincerely, /s/ Dr. Philip Campbell, Editor"

The message is that if you are not following orthodox teachings you will not be published nor allowed to advertise in Nature. In case you haven't looked it up recently, orthodox is defined as conforming to established doctrine. It is the nature of true science to periodically unestablish orthodoxy. Then, of course, after an appropriate number of years, we have a new orthodoxy that somehow forgets its radical past and becomes the conservative line.

Return to the INE Main Page
Oct. 7, 1996.