Simon Derricutt free energy resercher
Since this is an open thread, I’ll put up something really surprising
in physics. I’ve had around a couple of weeks to get used to this and explore the
consequences, and first put the idea up on Chiefio’s blog.
The same equations
of motion apply whether the force accelerating a body is relative to the reference
frame (the environment) or relative to the object being accelerated (such as a
rocket). If you calculate the work done as force times distance in the reference
frame, then the force times distance equals the kinetic energy acquired in both cases.
However, in the case of the rocket, the energy consumed to produce the acceleration is
a constant rate, but the work done is the product of velocity times thrust.
The
equation of motion of an accelerating body is d=ut+0.5at², where d is distance
travelled, u is initial velocity, t is time, a is acceleration. Thus if we’re applying
a constant force f, W (the work done) is fd. If we start from stationary, u=0, and the
equation translates to W=0.5fat².
Note that W is the output work, and
translates to kinetic energy acquired. The energy used to produce the thrust is
constant with time, so if e is the energy input per second and E is the sum of energy
used at any point, then E=et (straight line through the origin with slope of e). Plot
E (energy input) against W (energy output) over time. Fairly obviously, since E is a
straight line and W is a parabola, at some point W will exceed E.
Note that
this is totally classical physics and applies to any body that produces thrust
relative to itself, whether that’s by ejecting reaction-mass or any other method. Once
you exceed a certain velocity and you’re still applying that thrust, you will be
producing more kinetic energy than you’re using to generate the thrust. I’ll call that
velocity the break-even point.
See
https://ivolimited.us/press-release-ivo-ltd-introduces-the-worlds-first-pure-electric-thruster-for-satellites/.
This uses electrical power only, with no reaction-mass required, and is specified to
produce 45mN for 1 watt input. Taking these figures as true, the break-even point for
this is 22.22m/s, and it will be producing enough kinetic energy per second to run
itself. Once you reach 44.44m/s it will be producing twice as much energy as it uses
and can power something else too, though right now that’s only one watt. However, it’s
a net gain of energy produced from *nothing*.
On the face of it, this looks
impossible, and of course most people will consider it impossible and thus can’t be
true. I can’t however find an error in the maths. We’re using a single reference frame
here, so no problems from changing frames. It’s hard to see why this has been missed
for so long.
I’m expecting the electric thrusters to be developed as regards
thrust available, since it’s a new technology. It looks like a few orders of magnitude
improvement is possible. Thus in future I’d expect we’ll build these devices (the
design of a generator is pretty obvious) rather than wind or solar. Of course, this
energy will be available 24/7 rather than when the weather is right.
Go through
the derivation yourself. I’m waiting on the tests of the IVO thruster in space, which
will be absolute proof that it works, but I expect it to work given the previous
experimental data.
- Simon Derricutt
Hi Simon,
Thank you very much for your attached information. I have published it on the
following page:
http://gratisenergi.se/simon.htm
with your official photo from Facebook, if you don't mind. If you click on the
photo, you will reach your facebook page. Tell me if you want a link from the
headline:
Simon Derricutt free energy resercher
Are you familiar
with the Centrifugal Energy Amplification Conversion Unit (“CEACU”) of Donnie Watts?
The original Centrifugal Energy Amplification Conversion Unit (“CEACU”)
of Donnie Watts from 1990
http://cqenergy.co.za/cq-unit/
Is it possible to run the electric thruster of IVO Ltd on a wheel, so it
becomes a motor? You will find the links to your webpage and IVO Ltd on:
http://gratisenergi.se/free.htm
- Best Wishes, Hermes
P.S I have my own idea how to improve the CEACU....
Hi Hermes,
The information should help you design something that
actually works, providing you understand it. You need to produce the force relative to
the moving parts, whereas all the current ideas produce that force relative to the
non-moving parts in order to push the moving parts (and thus don't work).
Yep,
it should be possible to run the IVO thruster on a generator. The design is obvious.
There may well be other uses of the underlying principle that have no physical moving
parts, but I can't think of any yet.
I doubt if the CEACU actually works,
either.... Force is applied relative to the environment, after all, so it will conform
to CoE.
- Best regards, Simon
Hi again Hermes,
The
CEACU isn't as wrong as I expected. The site took a long time to load so I couldn't
read it before replying first time.
Problem here though is that you'll need a
rotating seal to get the water into it. The energy required to get the water in versus
the energy needed to produce the thrust at the periphery needs to be worked out, but
there might be a sweet spot where it's generating more energy than it needs to run it.
Collecting the water and recycling it will also use energy.
Here, the reaction
thrust is relative to the periphery. However, note that the mass of the water needs to
be accelerated to the peripheral speed before it will come out of the jets, and then
to be accelerated again at the jets, so that will also take energy, and that energy
needs to be calculated. In order to get a high thrust to power ratio, you need to push
the water out in large quantity at a low speed since energy use is proportional to v².
Against that you have the need to accelerate the water to the peripheral speed, and
the more water you need to accelerate the more energy you'll need, but at a particular
rotation speed that's linear with the mass per second and quadratic (that is, depends
on v²) for the peripheral speed. Thus some equations to solve and graphs to draw, and
there may not be a point where the output energy exceeds the input needed.
The
underlying principle of the CEACU is valid, but needs the parameters calculated to see
if it will actually work in practice.
- Best regards, Simon
Hi Simon
On
http://gratisenergi.se/simon.htm
click on the red wheel to see the 20 minutes video of the CEACU. It was
originally invented by late Donnie Watts in the 1990's. Since then it hasn't made it
to the market, despite several attemps.
Maybe because it doesn't is a free
energy motor?
- Best Wishes, Hermes
P.S Micro-Cap is avaible for
free. I have download it and it seems to be easy:
https://www.spectrum-soft.com/download/download.shtm
Hi Hermes,
The CEACU uses grease-nipples as the jets, which will of course have
turbulence inside them which reduces the flow-rate and wastes energy. Not good design.
As I said, you need to calculate over several variables and conflicting energy
requirements and production to find the best combination of rotation-speed and
jet-size that might produce more energy than it uses. I'm not sure that such a best
combination would in fact be OU, but you don't need to build one to find out. Just do
the maths. You only build it when the calculations show that it will work.
The internal construction will need to include baffles to accelerate the incoming
water to the peripheral speed. It's possible that once you get it spinning fast-enough
(maybe by using the generator attached as a motor) that you can simply pour water in
at the top, so you wouldn't need a rotating water-seal that will take the pump
pressure. That seal would have a fair amount of friction. You also need some way to
recover the kinetic energy of the water-jets, since otherwise you're wasting that
energy, and this waste of energy is probably one reason why it wasn't successful.
As I noted, you get a better thrust to energy ratio by using a lot of mass at
a lower velocity (energy use rises as v²). Using a fine jet, as here, gives you a bad
ratio of thrust to energy use. Also bear in mind that using wide pipes reduces the
energy needed to shift the water, and the pump needs looking at too. Turbulence also
loses energy.
Thrust here is mass times velocity. Kinetic energy is 0.5mv².
Work out the torque that thrust produces, and see if there's a combination of
rotational speed and water-flow that overall gives you a gain. Even so, it looks
pretty marginal and, for a reasonably-sized machine, not a lot of net power even if
you can get it to work.
Incidentally, I'm not a free energy researcher. Mostly,
I've been debunking claims of free energy. Finding the way to violate CoE was largely
accidental, while looking at methods of non-reactive propulsion.
- Best
regards, Simon
Hi all,
I made a mistake in the calculations,
by not considering the energy requirement to accelerate the reaction-mass up to the
working speed. The extra power for a reaction engine is real, but it's only available
while the reaction-mass lasts and was put in in accelerating the reaction mass in the
first place.
Thus a reaction-engine will not violate CoE, and there is no
exception there.
However, the electric thrusters will do the job, and generate
energy continuously, since they don't need reaction-mass. I'm waiting on the
space-based tests of those to see if the thrust is real or is somehow a reaction
against the environment.
My apologies for jumping too soon.
- Best
regards, Simon
Hi Simon,
A
few minor notes
1) I have emailed some questions to SEMP. The company with
AISEG.
Still no answer.
2) Added my test of one of the ideas behind
AISEG at the internet address:
http://gratisenergi.se/aiseg.htm
The test was not completely successful due
to too little effect on the built-in frequency generator
3) Added the Jukka
censorship attempt at the bottom of the Don Smith page:
http://gratisenergi.se/donsmith.htm
- Best Wishes, Hermes
Hi Hermes,
Sorry for late reply but it dropped off the end of the day and there are other
things happening.
My bet is that AISEG is based solely on resonance and thus
VARs, and that if you drive a resistive load you get a bit less real power out than
you put in. It's been tried many times, and never worked.
Rather than show the
results on meters, you need to show that power doing actual work that definitely uses
up a known amount of power and does an easily-measured bit of work, so that means
either heating something like water (where the specific heat is known) or pumping
water from a lower container to a higher one, where again you know the weight that is
transferred over what height and can thus calculate how much work has been done.
Meters can be fooled, and of course with AC people forget to measure the phase or
make some error, so you need a method of measurement that can't be fooled.
I'm
not worried about Jukka saying I'm wrong. In fact I'd rather like to be wrong on this
stuff, since that would be much better for the world and Free Energy is a great thing
to work towards. Since unfortunately I'm not wrong on the Don Smith stuff, best leave
that to people who think they can make it work, and get the proof of work done (as
above) before you spend a lot of money on replication.
Funny thing is that Free
Energy isn't impossible. I've been pointing you at the "reactionless" space drives for
a while, and if you can get a higher thrust with maybe a better thrust per watt you
can make more energy than it takes to run them. As far as I can tell, the thrust is
real and well-measured, and this is a valid way of making energy. Just add the
thrusters on a disk mounted on the axis of a generator, feed power to the thrusters,
and make it spin fast enough. When it's spinning fast enough that the peripheral speed
of the thrusters is (in metres per second) the same as the watts per newton thrust you
get, it's break-even and you can run the thrusters on the power from the generator and
it keeps spinning (OK, maybe 10% more because of the generator losses and air-drag).
Double this speed, and you produce twice as much power as it needs to run it, so you
can run something else too. This is of course why people think those reactionless
thrusters are impossible. Any of them will do this, independent of what theory you use
and how it is constructed provided it can take the spin. See the APEC talk on 23rd
December 2023, especially the second hour.
This is thus a way to get something
that actually works. Measuring the thrust can be done using load cells or simply a
pendulum and measuring the displacement from vertical, which both allows an easy way
to measure small forces and also avoids the problem with digital kit lying to you.
Only real problem is shielding it from air movements.
Later on I'll return to
these sorts of tests and see if I can get a simple way to make a thruster. At that
point I'll tell people how to do it, probably starting with a post on R-G. It may be
possible using simple techniques than anyone can do. At this moment, though, I'm still
not quite finished with the 2LoT problems, so the thruster tests are on the back
burner. Enough other people working on this to expect some breakthrough from them.
- Best regards, Simon
back to linkpage
suggestion
read and sign my guestbook