Jul 4, 2007
Free Energy with Magnetic Reluctance
As I think I’ve mentioned before, I get a lot of emails from people claiming to have solved all the world’s environmental problems through some perpetual motion device or similar. These are not the usual run-of-the-mill spam messages, they are usually targeted at me as a science journalist and talk of big solutions. If they were sent by snailmail they would be in green ink, the majority of them, I suspect.
Some of these claims seem to reach global proportions as we’ve seen with the Steorn research, which is yet to bear fruit [and never will, having failed miserably subsequent to the appearance of this article, DB]. In fact, I created a new section on SciScoop to cover and discuss just such controversial conjectures; I highlighted several odd scientific claims some time ago on Sciencebase too.
Anyway, Thane Heins, of Potential Difference Inc, contacted me recently with the claim that he has developed a device based on a bi-toroid transformer prototype that in tests proved to be 7000% efficient. Just for comparison’s sake, engineers operating everyday electrical apparatus would die even for efficiencies of a few dozen percent. 7000% is such an outstandingly high value of efficiency…
“This past weekend we gave a product demonstration (generator and transformer) to an international transformer manufacturer,” Heins told me, “Our transformer used 0.2 Watts in the primary and produced 14 watts through a 180 ohm – 25 watt resistor. We will be producing 1 – 7000 Watt toroids in the near future and even larger industrial ones.”
Could he be on to something? It’s a controversial claim, indeed, and certainly one that might warrant refiling in SciScoop’s Controversial Conjectures. But Heins claims to have reproducible evidence to support his claims. “We have third-party data,” he told me. Moreover, “the power dissipation calculations are very simple and can be verified by anyone.”
Heins confessed that he is still trying to get the physics aspect of the technology, which he refers to as the Perepiteia Transformer, evaluated and published by a university. He says he has been trying for almost two years.
Heins also sent me comments from various academics who have looked at the work. One of them states, “Your claims seem
to
violate the
law of conservation
of energy
and Maxwell’s equations
of electro-magneticsclaims seem to violate the law of conservation of energy and Maxwell’s equations of electro-magnetics.” Heins perceives this as a positive statement, “It is very positive and rare for someone to actually put that in writing – very brave in my book,” he told me. However, Heins adds that the academic in question has not been able to take physical readings on the transformer prototype, and to my mind it sounds more like a skeptic’s voice rather than a supportive comment. Indeed, I’ve spoken to various people off-the-record who say such claims about the breaking of physical laws are often seriously exaggerated.
Another academic describes the technology as “a new source of electric power” but then goes on to advise Heins: “Do Not explain the physics – stay with explaining ONLY the electrical POWER measurements – it will keep you out of a lot of media trouble.” That sounds a little hesitant and cynical, if you ask me.
That correspondent “was responding to the press release not the transformer data or diagrams/explanations,” retorts Heins, [he] did not understand at the time that the back EMF that would otherwise couple back to the primary is now diverted into secondary coil 2 doing real work, I assume that [he] thought that I didn’t know where the extra power is coming from but I do and designed things to work as they do.”
Heins talks of how the technology is “Based on the unique theory of leveraging back EMF and upsetting the power balancing mutual coupling coefficients”, his company has apparently “developed and produced an operational transformer which exceeds 100% efficiency.”
“Any skeptic can recreate the same transformer in about 8 hours and get virtually identical results,” Heins adds, “I wound ours by hand so I know.” He concedes that it is hard to comprehend and says he was skeptical at first. “For a transformer the Law of Conservation of Energy can ONLY APPLY if mutual coupling exists from the secondary back to the primary. The Bi-Toroid diagram shows how this cannot happen and how the Law of Conservation of Energy is violated by simply employing Lenz’s Law and Maxwell’s Equations and controlling flux path magnetic reluctance.” Magnetic reluctance is the analogous phenomenon of electrical resistance, but unlike electrical resistance consumes no energy.
Heins adds that he and his colleagues “have coupling from the primary to the secondary. The reluctance flux path in the secondary is lower because either the secondary core area is greater or because we employ core material with a higher relative permeability which results in a decrease in reluctance. When the secondary reluctance is lower – back EMF induced flux from secondary coil 1 must follow the path of least reluctance into secondary 2 and not back to the primary. The primary operates only at magnetizing current levels (reactive current only) and does not draw any non-reactive current from the source. The law of conservation of energy for a transformer requires secondary back EMF to be able to mutually couple back to the primary – but if this flux path is higher it will not be able to do so.”
I’d be interested to see comments on these claims from the physicists among youI’d be interested to see comments on these claims from the physicists among you, although better still it would be educational if someone were to reconstruct the device, test it and post their results. Can the laws of physics cope with a 7000% efficient transformer? Can we really get more energy out than in by diverting magnetic reluctance? If so, then it might be worth breaking open the fireworks early this July 4, but I suspect that this really is simply one for the Controversial Conjectures folder once again…shame.
It seems that one possible explanation of Hanes observations is that his device is simply a brake and that when the circuit is shorted the brake is released and the wheel accelerates. “The changes in mechanical drag are due to changes in inductance and hysteresis,” explains Peter Lindemann.
In February 2008 Lindemann explained: “I have reviewed all seven video links. In all fairness, I would like to say that Thane has built some nice demonstrations and spent a lot of time running experiments. That said, the films show nothing important. First of all, the films do not show enough detailed information to evaluate the demonstrations. Second, no free energy is shown. In fact, the generators are never shown producing any useful outputs. They are either shown producing voltage in “open circuit” mode, or they are shown in “short circuit” mode, where the generated voltage drops below one volt. So, ZERO WATTS are produced in either case.”
Sciencebase FAQ
Contact me
Twitter
Delicious Links
LinkedIn
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Flickr 
FriendFeed
Steven,
If I gave some logical fallacy in the form of an ad hominem, then I truly apologize. I’m pretty sure it’s the wild claims that are being investigated and attacked here.
Now you say that you aren’t creating over-unity devices in a closed system….that’s great, but most of the websites are named exactly that, or contain information that is exactly that. Maybe they’re just being foolish and are destroying your “cred”. Fine. You should say so more clearly, and correct those who think otherwise. An example of this is to kick out of your club anyone who claims water is a fuel, or hydrogen can be extracted using less energy than you get from burning it, etc. I’ve done plenty of research on your website and others, and you freely let the kooks in. It ruins your reputation. Might as well believe in xxx or yyy. “Believe”. Scientists don’t believe in things. They create or refute. Right now I’m refuting, and you’re not creating.
So you then are now extracting energy from unknown sources. Ok. Make one. Stop being greedy and release the plans to the world so that we all may make one. What’s more important, money, or everlasting fame? Did Einstein sell his research, or Galileo, or Newton, or Copernicus?
I guess Edison and Tesla did…but Edison actually created stuff (stolen ideas or not, it’s in my house).
Regarding Moray: “Moray refused to sell his technology to corporate interests, fearing its misuse.”
“Moray, as Nikola Tesla before him, was unsuccessful in introducing his devices working on this principle. Some report that his secret was forgotten. Moray tried for several patents to no avail. ”
What could possibly motivate him to do so? Would you rather look like a fool or a distinguished scientist? The line separating the two is not a fine one – it is broad, testable and repeatable.
BTW, a search for Moray pulls up “free energy” more often than not. Why?
This is not new. You and your ideas are not new. They have been around for centuries, and not one yet has produced anything that will power my computer. The reason why there are skeptics in this fringe field is because people have been promised energy and let down over and over again. For CENTURIES. Either end the nonsense, or stop filling the heads of those who don ‘t know better. This whole “movement” is doing more harm than good to modern day science.
Most cold fusion press releases sound like this:
1. We looked for excess neutrons
2. We found excess neutrons!
3. ?????
4. Cold fusion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I agree that some science is being done, but they just don’t know what it is yet. When I can buy one on eBay, then your revolution has come.
From your link: “This proof was brought with the experiment reported here, whereby an electrical power loss of (2.87+/-0.89)nanowatts is seen in comparison with a produced mechanical engine power of approx.(150+/-50)nanowatts, so that at least the difference is taken from vacuum-energy for sure.”
Wow, nanowatts. Congrats on doing the science. But this isn’t an alternative energy source. He’s invented a fancier radiometer.
http://images.google.com/images?&q=radiometer
And in real science, there’s no such thing as a skeptic. It either works or it doesn’t. 0 = 0, or 10 = 0. Skeptics only exist in the realm of the make believe.
Again, if these free energy devices worked, then why don’t we all have them in our homes, if they work, there’s nothing stopping you building one and running your TV off it, is there? But are you? No? Didn’t think so…
Thanks for sharing your biased and uninformed opinion.
Debunk Moray then….
You can’t, smarter people than you have tried for over 70 years. Have fun.
And you can stick your ad homenim’s up your “Maxwell’s Demon”…. Here’s a clue for you (..which these peeps never seen to get): All those comments do is show the rest of us what you are really about.
Debunk Dr. T. Henry Moray’s device that produced up to 50k Watts of energy in the 1930’s and early 1940’s from the environment… And we’ll talk ;) You can forget about “batteries” or trying the old “close-coupled inductance” B-S, you will get your head handed to you. But please try it anyway.
Otherwise, you should keep your ad hominem attacks to right-wing neo-con rah-rah web sites, where they are the usual method of communication.
Those out there genuinely interested in learning more about these subjects of “non-conventional alternative energy” that have been suppressed for over 100 years to keep us using as much fossil fuels as possible; for as long as possible… Can go here for starters (many links there):
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=55551307954
Most content there is presently in the “Photo” section (the Facebook site is meant as a “teaser” to get peeps studying on their own, to MAKE UP THEIR OWN MINDS.
You will soon see that the Open Source paradigm, eliminating the usual pitfalls of “Secretization” of Patent Requests by the U.S. military industrial complex (which has happened to over 3,000 applications), and the problems of “Corporate Shelving” and of inventors being “blackballed” from reaching Market through constant legal attack, will soon bring these technologies out into the light…
Forcing Universities to finally start doing open Peer-Reviewed Abstracts and Studies on them. Because that IS ALL we are asking: That these highly promising technologies that would provide cheap, clean, and save energy be Studied openly. WHY HAVE THEY NOT BEEN? Because presently in the U.S., all Grant funding to the institution is cut if they try. Why again? Because any energy solution that is cheaper than coal or oil cannot be accepted in a society built on “scarsity”.
The Open Source Free Energy movement allows these techs to be verified and proved, then released to the world. No one is asking for money; no charlatans or deluded inventors’ devices get by our testing (and there certainly are some out there lol.. But Thane Heines IS NOT one of them; his devices work as promised). So the only way they can stop us now, is to convince us to stop study ourselves (and they certainly try, usually quite pathetically lol).. So no worries folks, that ain’t happening’ ;)
…. And you can stick this below link the same place you put your ad hominems:
Prof. Dr. Claus W. Turtur of the University of Applied Sciences Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel in Germany has built a simple motor, that spins within a vacuum using only the Zero Point Energy field as propulsion.
His site (in German and English):
http://public.rz.fh-wolfenbuettel.de/~turtur/physik/
PDF of his Paper on the subject here:
http://www.wbabin.net/physics/turtur1e.pdf
The knee-jerk naysayers (not actually “Skeptics”, since that requires intellectual engagement and research: Meaning actual WORK) want you to believe that we are promoting “perpetual motion”…. That is a deliberate lie and NOT the case at all. We are describing OPEN systems, with energy entering the equation from unseen sources… Not a CLOSED system. Don’t let them pull the “perpetual motion” and “conspiracy theory” B-S for denigration and ridicule (..used for emotional response): They are their favorite methods of denial, and useful for never having to answer the important points brought up. But i think most of you out there are smarter than that, lol.
It may appear that very soon, perhaps even by the end of this year…. These same folks who denied LENR / Cold Fusion for exactly 20 years, and had to eat a particularly-nasty tasting crow 5 months ago when it was finally accepted by the U.S. mainstream scientific community.. Will be again eating it for other subjects.
Bon Apetit ;)
Jibbguy (Steve Windisch) 7-29-08
P.S.: Have fun debunking Moray, and ‘good luck”… You will need it.
The voice of reason at last Erik! Many thanks. You make all the valid points. These people are chasing rainbows pure and simple, no question, there is no conspiracy, they are not martyrs to the cause, and there is no such thing as free energy just as there are no crocks of gold at the end of those rainbows. Crocks of something else perhaps, but not gold.
Oy…this over-unity crowd is maddening. It is maddening because we all WANT free energy in our emotional minds, but our scientific minds are saying “don’t be foolish.”
It usually starts out by someone proclaiming to end our dependence on fossil fuels, and then ends up saying it “doesn’t have to be commercially viable to be scientifically valid”. Which is it? What problem are you trying to solve?
People (like Mark) get so heated up when people dismiss their wild claims…well, wild claims demand wild evidence. Power your computer off of this free energy, and I’ll construct a device of my own.
If something creates free energy, one should be able to couple multiple devices together and create, in effect, INFINITE ENERGY. Do this, power your home by it, and sell it back to the grid, then scan in the Electric Company’s receipts, and you’ll be a millionaire overnight and go into the history books.
That hasn’t happened, and it won’t happen, because it’s not possible in our current understanding of the world.
A fun side-step into this over-unity crowd is the “big corporations control the world” sub-group. This often leads into a treatise on economics and capitalism etc etc blah blah blah. Stick to science and let the educated people in their respective fields worry about the outcomes of your inventions.
BTW it’s not nice to make wild claims, and then mock the people who dismiss your wild claims by comparing yourself to past scientific martyrs like Galileo. That just adds emotion into a debate that doesn’t need it. We know what you are saying. You aren’t being persecuted, you just have to produce.