Most promising energy source for 2025?



Electricmotor



Hi Simon, It's been a long time since I wrote to you. The reason is that I didn't get any new ideas. In addition to testing the idea that you can extract free energy, by placing the secondary coil 90 degrees in relation to the primary coil in a transformer. The idea comes from Floyd Sweet and you can see it in John Bedini's youtube video Energy from the vacuum: Part 30 Floyd Sweet Memories. It didn't work and neither did Norman Wootan and Joel McClain attempts to build a looped Vaccum Triode Amplifier.

My questions this time are what are the advantages and disadvantages of the following energy inventions and which invention is closest to the market?

Andrea Rossi - E-Cat SKL NGU

Brilliant Light Power

Prometheus Reactor

ENG8 EnergiCell

Paramahamsa Tewari's Reactionless AC Synchronous Generator (RLG)

Motoflux Power

QM Power

Best Wishes, Hermes


Hi Hermes,

I have pointed you to things that will work, and why. Maybe too much against what the OU fora and standard Free Energy ideas say should work, though, even though no-one has proved any of those standard ideas work.

You should understand why Floyd Sweet's 3 coils were at right angles - this is because they needed to provide a changing magnetic field so that the spin-waves in the ferrite were always being started and stopped, and because you need a couple of coils at right-angles with phase-difference in their current to produce a spinning magnetic field. Note that spin-waves are part of quantum physics, so you need to understand them first before designing the device. However, since this only converts thermal energy to electrical output, and ferrite isn't a good thermal conductor, it won't produce a lot of power.

Rossi always lied. Very little chance of working, though there is an underlying effect that he might accidentally get right. If however you trust what Rossi says or his measurements, that's not good.

BrLP - some real effect there, too. Might however be some measurement error in how much power is in the light emitted. Thus might succeed in future, but according to their published data they've been in a position to self-run for years but haven't proved it. Thus maybe they have a big error somewhere in the theory, such as a sign wrong.

Prometheus reactor - no idea on this, but since LENR is real it might work. The website has no data on the technology, just sales fluff.

ENG8 - again, some real basis, and Georg Egely probably has a working system at low power, but there's a bit too much bad history with the directors. Suggests that the intent is to get investors putting in money rather than getting a working device. Might end up with something that works, though - then question is whether they develop it or take the money and run.

Tewari - simply doesn't work, and won't work. Standard problem measuring AC power and ignoring the phases.

Motoflux - looks like a permanent magnet motor, so won't work.

QM power - just more-efficient motors, but nothing over unity.

That's the big problem here - there are some loopholes in the physics that could allow things that traditional physics won't allow, but you can only tell if the theory is near-enough right once you have the experimental data. All the OU stuff you've been quoting for a while hasn't got some working device you can test and prove it is OU, but simply stories and claims that can't be verified.

The loophole in thermodynamics that allows you to convert heat to usable energy is that kinetic energy must be carried by something with a momentum vector, and thus KE should not be treated as purely a scalar quantity. Change the direction of what carries the KE, and you change the direction of that KE too, and KE must in fact have a direction.

The loophole in CoM is that light has a limited speed, and this breaks the symmetry of action and reaction. It's normally so small a violation we can't measure it, but if you know it's there you can design it to be bigger, measurable, and useful. That in turn also means that energy will not always be conserved, and thus that OU is theoretically possible. However, lots of ways that won't work, and a few that should, and you're really looking for broken symmetry there.

Note that coils and permanent magnets won't break symmetry. You put energy into the space, and that's all there is to get out again. You change the amount of energy is space by moving magnets or changing the current in the coils or moving them, but the energy you put in goes into field energy, and you get energy out until all the energy you put in has come out, and then no more. It's totally symmetrical on energy.

A useful place to look is where quantum physics and classical physics give different answers, or where some quantum change changes what energy-levels are available. For example, the transition to superconductivity changes the energy levels from bands (Fermions) to discrete levels (Bosons), and there is thus a step-change in what energy-level the electrons have, and the energy difference has no actual obvious source. They just suddenly have different amounts of energy. There's also an oddity in photovoltaic cells as to what actual energy the electrons within it have, since it's calculated as different whether or not you move the electron across the PN junction. Thus the same electron has two different quantities of potential energy at the same time, depending on how you measure it. That's odd, and seems few people notice that. Still, that situation (different potential energy can be calculated for the same situation) is one thing to look for in finding a real OU possibility.

Figure the people building those devices meant to be OU did a reasonable job. They didn't work - if they had done we'd have been using that idea since then. Thus you need to do *something else* than they did if you want to get something working.

Best regards, Simon


back to linkpage
suggestion
read and sign my guestbook