Hermes Free Energy Transformers



parallel input

Parallel Input 2*230 Volt 2*1 Ampere = 2*230 Watt

serial output

Serial Output 230 Volt*1 Ampere+1 Volt*230 Ampere = 231 Volt*231 Ampere = 53361 Watt

serial input

Serial Input 2*115 Volt 2*1 Ampere = 2*115 Watt



serial output

Serial Output 115 Volt*1 Ampere+1 Volt*115 Ampere = 116 Volt*116 Ampere = 13456 Watt


More parallel and serial windings Dual Voltage Transformers New Transformer Phasing: The Dot Notation and Dot Convention

Instead of using one transformer with two input windings and two output winding use two tranformer with two identical primary windings and two different secondary windings.

That is the theoretical way to free energy

- Hermes Atar Trismegistus


Hi Hermes,

I've been working with transformers for a long time, maybe somewhere around 45 years. No matter how you connect the coils, they don't produce more energy out than you put into them - there's simply nowhere for that energy to come from.

As far as we can tell, energy is a fixed resource in the universe. We can't make it, and we can't destroy it, so if we want to get energy out of something there has to be a source of that energy. For most things we convert mass to energy by burning stuff. We can also convert it from one form to another. Exothermic reactions (burning stuff for example) convert mass to energy, but endothermic reactions convert energy to mass. The conversion factor is E=mc˛.

Most people, when they think of Free Energy, try to produce energy from *nothing*, and that's what most of the ideas you put on your website are trying to do. It's why they don't actually work, since energy is conserved. There is however a load of energy all around us, but we can't use it to do work because it's in random directions. In order to do useful work, we need that energy to be moving in one direction and then we can change that direction at will to shift something from *here* to *there*.

Instead of trying to create new energy, which appears to really be impossible to do, it's better to concentrate on how we can change the random energy we have (for example environmental heat) so it moves in one direction. That is actually possible - a solar cell takes in light energy in random directions and puts out electrical energy in a single direction. There are other proven ways of doing this as well, but so far they have only been a low power level because it is believed that this is impossible because of the 2LoT. This seems to blind people to the evidence that those devices actually do work, and that they need to be improved in order to be useful sources of power.

There are two tendencies in action. The tendency to disorder is well-known - shake something up and it becomes less ordered, or shuffle a pack of cards and they will become more random. Force fields on the other hand impose order - drop an apple and it will go downwards and not up or in a random direction. Electrons move one way in an electric field. Somehow that tendency to order is used in many ways but it is not seen that if we can make the field strong enough then we produce more order than disorder and that the direction of energy can be de-randomised. The example of the solar cell, which obviously works, is not seen as de-randomising the incoming energy, though that is precisely what it is doing. The principle of producing real and working Free Energy is thus not noticed by most people, even when it has been explained. We don't need to produce new energy, just re-use the energy we already have.

Yep, Rossi has nothing. I can't see how so many people seem to ignore the bad measurements, but Hope can blind people. I'm glad you're not fooled. There's still a chance that Brillouin really has a working system even though their theory is wrong, and that BrLP may also have something that works despite their theory being wrong too. The replication of Miles' heat-/Helium correlation should prove that LENR works and is nuclear, but that won't be commercially useful. May take a while before people work out why it happens, which is needed before it has a chance of being commercially useful.

Best regards, Simon


The following data is the measure of Andrea Rossi's E-Cat QX

DATA REPORT OF THE MEASUREMENTS MADE ON NOVEMBER 24TH 2017 ON THE E-CAT QUARKX TESTED AT THE IVA, GREV TUREGATAN 16, STOCKOLM, SWEDEN.

Duration of the measurement period: 1 hour: the measurement has been made after the apparatus has reached a reasonably constant temperature amount of water pumped through the reactor: 1 000 g

Water temperature at the input of the reactor: 21 C

Water temperature at the output of the reactor: 41 C

Delta T: 20 C

Energy produced: 20 x 1.14 = 22.8 Wh/h

Measurement of the energy consumed (during the hour for 30' no energy has been supplied to the E-Cat) :

V: 0.3

OHM: 1

A: 0.3

Wh/h 0.09/2= 0.045

Ratio between Energy Produced and energy consumed: 22.8/0.045 = 506.66

Instrumentation used for the measurements: Oscilloscope Tektronix TBS 1052B

K probes Omega supplied and calibrated by Prof. Bo Hoistad of the University of Uppsala

Water pump Prominent. The water pumped for 1 hour has been poured in a plastic container seat on a scale to measure exactly the water passed through the E-Cat.

Temperature Data Logger: PICO Technology

The scale to weight the water passed through the E-Cat has been supplied by Eng. Mats Lewan of Stockolm

William S. Hurley

Senior Engineer- Endeavor

Los Angeles


The claimed COP of the E-Cat QX is >550. But that is not true. The energy produced by the E-Cat QX was 22.8 Watt but the maximum output from the controller was 50 watt and cooled by a 10 watt fan? making a total input power of 60 watt as you can see from Mats Lewan Slides of Test Protocol. So the Ratio between Energy Produced and energy consumed: 22.8/60=0.38.

As you can see, there is no need to invest in Andrea Rossi's E-Cat QX for the moment, until he figure out how to improve the controller so it draws less watt. In the meantime you can support my free energy research. I have built a high freqency transformer that is less than 100% effective, but my goal is overunity.

- Hermes Atar Trismegistus


Hi Hermes,

I think your theory is incorrect. Use better theory of transformers that actually describes what is going on. Read this transformer theory and the history behind it: https://wiki2.org/en/Transformer. Transformers act according to natural laws. There are many models describing transformers depending on what they're used for.

Read Kirchhoff's current law: https://wiki2.org/en/Kirchhoff's_circuit_laws#Kirchhoff.27s_current_law_.28KCL.29

Current transformer (shorted or heavy loaded secondary): https://wiki2.org/en/Current_transformer

Article describing the difference between voltage and current transformers: https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-voltage-transformer-and-a-current-transformer

Regards
Ole


Hi Hermes,

There are so many other places to read (and comment) about Rossi that I don't see a lot of point putting an article up at R-G. You've seen that there's obviously more power being used than was measured as output, and the puzzle is why some people don't see that point. Much the same as the 2011 demo where a 500kW Diesel generator was running throughout and the power produced was shown to be 470kW when it was billed as supposed to be 1MW.

Basically, Rossi is all about smoke and mirrors and I don't see anything anomalous there, except that people who ought to be more discerning aren't.

Of course, there's always that hope that Free Energy claims could be true. There is good evidence that Pd/D LENR works (and that should be confirmed again fairly soon) and the Thermacore data implies that there's a good chance of Ni/H LENR being real as well. I think Brillouin are telling the truth, but so far they've got a few watts and can't self-run. I can't predict when or if they'll come out with something commercially useful.

As I've said before, the bottom line is really how much it costs us to get the energy. What is the cost of the device, how long does it last and what are the running costs? How much does it cost you per joule or per kWh? Currently, electricity wholesale cost is around 5 US cents or 5 UK pence per kWh, so that's the number you need to beat however you do it. Getting that power to the end user costs around the same amount in some places, though in some locations we find the transmission costs are a lot higher or the base generation costs are a lot higher (for example if you need a Diesel generator and are a long way from the source of that fuel). As such, in some places a power source that costs $1 per kWh may be viable. The cheaper you can get it, though, the more places it will be competitive with other ways of getting the power.

The strategy is thus to look for energy-flows we can utilise (for example solar power, wind power, wave power, tidal power) and build something to harvest them cheaply, or to create that energy-flow using a fuel and burning it. Personally, I see environmental heat (which is a random flow of energy) as able to be rectified into a unidirectional energy and thus be useful for doing work, but of course this is a little difficult to actually make the device since it uses thin-film fabrication methods. We'll see whether I'm successful at making something fairly soon. On the other hand, trying to create energy from nothing seems to be not a good strategy since that is most likely never going to be possible - if it was we'd have seen some indications in cosmology or in one of the historical experiments that tried to do this - lots of claims, but there's nothing extant that demonstrates it in a way we can measure.

Best regards, Simon

back to linkpage
suggestion
read and sign my guestbook