Air Cars



Air Cars

Patent by Inventor Bob Neal

Neal USP 2,030,759 - Compressor Unit

Patents by Inventor Leroy K. Rogers, Sr.

Rogers USP 4,292,804 - Method and apparatus for operating an engine on compressed gas

Rogers USP 4,693,669 - Supercharger for automobile engines

Rogers USPA 20200040730A1 - Method and apparatus for operating an engine on compressed gas

Rogers USP 10,738,614B2 - Method and apparatus for operating an engine on compressed gas



Hi Simon,

http://gratisenergi.se/aircars.htm

In a closed air circuit, there are always losses. In addition to the fact that cars that run on compressed air are environmentally friendly, they should have a short mileage. But still, there are patents that seem to be perpetual motion machines that run on air. The secret seems to be in the compressor. Can a compressor have an efficiency of more than 100%?

Best Wishes, Hermes


Hi Hermes,

Like most of these questions, the answer is that if someone found a way to make a compressor that was more than 100% efficient, it would be in use everywhere. Thus you don't need to look too hard to realise that what you can buy in the shops isn't OU, and it's not because it's been suppressed since if some big business had the capability to produce energy without having to buy fuel then they'd make even more profit than they do now when they have to buy their fuel. Thus such an OU device would not be suppressed, but would be manufactured and used by the Big Oil, Big Energy, etc. companies.

IIRC Dearborn has a motor that runs on the expansion of Liquid Nitrogen. Good for refrigerated transport, too.... Only really economic because the liquid Nitrogen is a by-product of producing liquid Oxygen, and so the producers make their money on the Oxygen but have 4 times more liquid Nitrogen to get rid of, so it's cheap. If people started using a load of liquid Nitrogen, and thus it became the main product with an excess of Oxygen over what was needed by industry, the cost of the Nitrogen would go up and the Oxygen would go down, so the market was balanced, but the Dearborn motor would no longer be economic. It's only economic while few people use it and while there's excess liquid Nitrogen on the market. Basically that's why people haven't bought into the idea - like me, they can see the economics of it.

I've recently found a rather large hole in how energy is conserved, though. See if you understand it.... To start with, note that a proton or electron will gain potential energy when you move them from a volume where the electric field is low to where it is high. The actual potential energy gained will depend on the voltage potential difference between where that proton or electron is and where the field ends, and since the electron will go to the +ve end and the proton to the -ve end, the actual potential energy (PE) at each point in the field will be different for an electron or a proton, though the sum of the PE for an electron and proton at the same point in the field will be the potential difference across the field in eV. If you move an electron or a proton into the field, each from the side where they have zero PE, they will gain that PE and when you let them go will change that PE for KE in exiting the field volume at the side where they have zero PE.

Now consider a neutral atom outside the field. It has no PE, because it's neutral with equal number of electrons and protons, and thus it costs us no work to move it into the field. However, when we move it into that field, each electron and each proton gains potential energy, but the forces from the field are in opposite directions for the electrons and protons and so it takes no net work to move that atom. Thus this is the point where we create energy, but as PE.

Now ionise that atom. The PE of the electron and the ion can now be converted to KE and they head off in different directions converting their PE to KE. That energy we created by simply moving the atom into the field has now become real.

This needs a specific way to produce the field, since if you use a couple of conductive charged plates, and the electron and ion discharge on those plates, the power supply will simply lose the same amount of eV as we created by moving the neutral atom into the field. This is likely the reason no-one noticed the anomaly - if you use a simple way to create the field then there's no net energy gain involved.

Solar Cell


Instead, we need to use a space charge to produce the field, much the same as we have in a photovoltaic cell (specifically the PN junction field and the potential difference that produces). See attached diagrams. Close enough if we use insulated electrodes to get a field, though, and next to those insulated plates we use spiky conductors to collect the space charge that builds up. As the space-charge from the ions and electrons builds up, it tends to neutralise the field produced by the insulated plates but also we get a potential difference between those collection electrodes, which will drive a current if we connect them through a resistor or other load.

PN junction


In essence this is very simple, and really seems way too easy to violate CoE. It may explain the odd "excess energy" seen in situations with sparks, where the air is ionised and where the potential difference across the gap is changing rapidly thus the field seen by the particles being accelerated is not actually the same as the voltage between the electrodes at that point in time. Thus you can see there may be a situation where a bit more heat is produced than the input energy would produce.

Note that this is a principle of operation that I've explained here. How to actually implement it is up to the experimenter. The production of PE (which is a scalar, and has no direction and no sign) when you move a neutral atom into a field is pretty obvious (at least once it's pointed out), as is that that PE is not available (no force on the atom produced by the field) until you ionise the atom. In effect, what we have here is the ability to switch on and off the force produced by the electric field, since the field produces no net force on a neutral atom but produces a force on the electron and ion once you ionise that atom. If you collect that electron and use it to de-ionise the ion, that gives an electrical circuit and also gives a cycle where the neutral atom gets moved into the field, gets ionised, the ion and electron get acted on by the field and moved to the edges of the field, then we neutralise the ion to get a neutral atom outside the field, rinse and repeat. Should also be pretty clear that ionising the atom is the point where we break symmetry, making the latent PE able to be converted to real KE. Breaking symmetry is essential if you want to break a conservation law, after all.

I'm currently building something to test this, should have it proved in a few months. Delayed a bit since I haven't finished the pruning yet, but I can't see a reason it won't actually work if I can build it well enough.

I've been telling you for a long time there has to be a good reason why something would be OU. It should be pretty obvious why it would work, and have a clear way it breaks symmetry. This seems to comply with those requirements. Seems however that most people I've told find it hard to believe. See what you think....

Best regards, Simon


It makes me remember the case Johannes Wardenier: the motor that worked on compressed air alone. Patrick


Hi Simon,

Thank you very much for the explanation of your free energy theory. I have updated my webpage:

http://gratisenergi.se/aircars.htm

with your comment and the case of Johannes Wardenier which was either a hoax or a conspiracy.

And I am not an expert in nuclear physics, so I have a little difficulty understanding exactly what you mean. But I understand that it is about potential difference and you write that a little more heat than the supplied electrical energy is the result. I can tell you about a patent from 1930 that uses compressed air as a heat source:

http://www.rexresearch.com/huston/huston.htm

From Google:

"Can air be used as a refrigerant?

Air cycle refrigeration systems use air as their refrigerant, compressing it and expanding it to create heating and cooling capacity. Air cycle is not a new technology. Air cycle or 'cold air machines' were available from companies such as J & E Hall (see picture) in the early 1900s."

Recently, an Australian has built a heat pump/air conditioner on that principle. It has a COP=4 and can be used both as a heat source and air conditioner and is cheap to manufacture. Have you considered that a regular air cylinder both compresses and expands air? Can you use that temperature difference to simultaneously heat and cool using the Seebeck effect?

Best Wishes, Hermes


Hi Hermes,

Looks like you may have misunderstood what I wrote. It's simply a logical development based on the work you need to do to move a neutral-charged object into an electric field (which is actually zero) and the work you can then get out of it if you split the neutral object into its component positive and negative charges and let the field act on those charged bits.

I put this in the context of ionising gas atoms/molecules as being a fairly simple practical implementation. However, the principle could just as easily apply to some mechanical system where we move some neutral body into a strong electric field and then separate that body into a positively-charged part and a negatively-charged part, and then allow those two parts to move apart in the field, producing KE, and we then also get the KE back again by allowing those charged parts to recombine before we move the now-uncharged assembly back into the field starting another cycle.

Splitting the positive and negative charges takes a certain amount of energy, allowing them to rejoin delivers that energy back again. Thus the potential energy you get by moving the charged bits into the field (which takes no work because there's no net force because they are combined into an object with no net charge) is actually freshly-created energy, produced from nothing, and is the amount of energy you gain per cycle.

So nothing to do with nuclear physics. It's just a cycle of work that is net positive rather than the usual net zero with some unavoidable losses. Since it's a bit hard to make something that runs the cycle using electrostatics, I sorted out a cycle using gas and ionising it.

Thus the basic principle relies on an electric field producing no force on an uncharged object, but produces a force on a charged object. By splitting the uncharged object into a positive-charged part and a negatively-charged part after we've moved that uncharged object into the field, we can effectively turn the field off when moving the object into the field, and then turn it on to push the two charged objects out of the field. The only really sneaky requirement here is that the electric field you use must not be discharged by the process - It's OK (and expected) that the movement of the charged objects will reduce the strength of the field at one point of the cycle, but when we re-combine the +ve and -ve parts that field will be restored to original strength. Though it's possible to design something that does this mechanically, it's a lot easier using gas and ionising it so the electrons can pass through wires to neutralise the ions.

The symmetry is broken when we either split or recombine the positive and negative charges, because we change the force that the electric field produces on those objects. It's that action that enables us to violate the conservation law. We can move something one way doing no work, then change the force from the field to push it the other way. It's really depressingly simple, and a surprise that no-one noticed it.

Yep, if you compress air, it gets hot, and if you then let that compressed air cool back to ambient temperature and release the pressure on it, it cools below ambient. Look up Joule-Kelvin cooling. Used to make liquid air. You do need to watch out for moisture in the air turning to ice and blocking things like jets or pipes.

Best regards, Simon




back to linkpage
suggestion
read and sign my guestbook