EE or Electronics Guru to debunk hoax

This is the place for any magazine-related discussions that don't fit in any of the column discussion boards below.
Post Reply
I_don't_get_it
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2003 1:01 am
Contact:

EE or Electronics Guru to debunk hoax

Post by I_don't_get_it » Thu Apr 10, 2003 9:43 pm

Is there any EEs or Electronic Gurus that would like to painfuly read:<p>http://www.cheniere.org/<p>http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/megv21.htm<p>and then tell me the technical reason why this can't be done? I am not an EE and have no idea what basic electronic laws these 'inventions' are breaking, but I would love to know!<p>
TIA!

rshayes
Posts: 1286
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2003 1:01 am
Contact:

Re: EE or Electronics Guru to debunk hoax

Post by rshayes » Fri Apr 11, 2003 1:45 am

The patent that they reference is no. 6,362,718. This is available at the patent office web site (www.uspto.gov). The patent clearly states that the magnetic paths are not driven into saturation. This means that the permeability of these paths does not change significantly and the core operation is approximately linear. This contradicts the claim that these sections of the core redirect or switch the flux from the permanent magnet, since this would require substantial changes in permeability.<p>The input coils are switched with square waves, but somehow the input waveforms become distorted lumps that are sort of like a sine wave. The output waveforms look like fairly good sine waves. The articles refer to adjusting the drive signal to an optimum frequency. I suspect that there is an LC resonant circuit in there somewhere, probably created by stray capacitances and the inductive windings on the core.<p>If the "Q" of this resonant circuit is high, it can store a substantial amount of energy. This energy is not lost, but is transferred back and forth between the capacitance and inductance in the circuit. The rate of energy transfer in such a circuit can be much higher than the rate of energy loss. Practical Electrical circuits can have "Q" values of several hundred. Mechanical resonators can have "Q" values in the range of several thousand, or several hundred thousand in the case of quartz crystals.<p>I suspect that the "output" power is a measurement of the power circulating in a resonant circuit and that when they attempt to extract power from this circuit to supply the drive power that there will not be enough extracted to make the system self sustaining.<p>The patent application was filed on Sept. 6, 2000. Over 2 years have passed and there still doesn't seem to be a working model of a self-sustaining unit.<p>It would be interesting to see if the operation changes very much if the permanent msgnet is removed.

User avatar
MrAl
Posts: 3862
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: NewJersey
Contact:

Re: EE or Electronics Guru to debunk hoax

Post by MrAl » Fri Apr 11, 2003 2:40 am

Hello there,<p>They are 'breaking' the 'law' of the 'efficiency of a transformer' :-)<p>Here i will attempt to zero in on the underlying concept that
prevents this device from producing more output power then it takes in.<p>I've briefly looked over the schematic and i dont think there is
anything about that setup that i dont understand. It's 'almost'
a common dc-dc converter circuit. There is always a chance that i
missed something, not wanting to devote a heck of a lot of time to this
crazy claim, so i invite anyone to point out anything i could have
overlooked.<p>If i was going to build a dc-dc converter i would probably build it
very similar to what they built up there, with one single exception:
The output transformer.<p>In other words, the only difference between a standard dc-dc converter
and their setup is the output transformer.<p>The only reason the output transformer is different from a transformer
used in a 'normal' dc-dc converter is because it is magnetically biased
with a permanent magnet.<p>In other words, the only difference between their setup and a standard
dc-dc converter (which always has an efficiency of less then 100%) is
the fact that the output transformer is magnetically biased with a
permanent magnet.<p>
This leads to the following question:<p>How does a transformer used in a dc-dc converter biased with a permanent
magnet increase efficiency of the entire converter?<p>To simplify the question knowing the output transfomer is driven with
square waves:<p>How does the efficiency of a transformer driven with square waves increase
as a result of biasing it with a permanent magnet?
This is the crux of the design argument; we've narrowed the argument
down to a single device: the output transformer.
We know that other transformers always produce less output then they
take in (typically 90% or less), and the only thing really different
about this one is that it is biased with a magnet.<p>Even more to the point:<p>How does the efficiency of a transformer driven with square waves increase
above unity as a result of biasing its core with a permanent magnet?<p>Answer:
It doesnt.<p>Reason:
Biasing the core with a permanent magnet forces the core to operate higher
up on the magnetic loop of the core for one half of the cycle, which reduces
efficiency of the core.<p>
Hope this clears things up :-)<p>Take care,
Al
LEDs vs Bulbs, LEDs are winning.

Will
Posts: 310
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2003 1:01 am
Location: Katy Texas
Contact:

Re: EE or Electronics Guru to debunk hoax

Post by Will » Fri Apr 11, 2003 1:51 pm

I_dont_get-it - This meant to be humorous - not sarcastic - Go out each night and look at the moon - When you see pigs clearly jumping over it then start to take this project seriously.
There are all sorts of ways you can get out more energy than you put in - but the main point of this is that it all has to come from somewhere - and many, if not most, if not all of the experimental devices will appear to produce some extra energy. For instance, if you have a heat pump at your house then such devices have apparent efficiencies of 200 - 300 % They work by removing heat from the earth or from the air so that 1.0 kW of electric in may produce 3 kW out. It's not magic, of the 3.0 kW produced 1.0 kW of it comes from the electric supply and 2.0 kW from the earth or surrounding air. My house a/c appears to work in this form i.e. it consumes about 6.0 kW of electricity (Which is the order of 20,500 Btu/hr and outputs 5 ton of a/c which is 60,000 Btu/hr. That means it takes in 20,500 Btu/hr from the electric supply and 60,000 fropm the house, which it is cooling and throws the total i.e. 80,500 outside of the house by heating the air. If I was interested in the heated air then I would have a device with an apparemnt efficiency of the order of 400%. It's all in the words.
In the case of the experiment/device to which you are referring then, if he is producing a one million to one ratio of output to input power then he could start with one Watt and then put the One MegaWatt output into one million of his patented machines and produce one million MegaWatts - more than enough to replace all of the Nuclear Power Plants in this country, if not in the whole world. It simply isn't going to happen because it violates the principle of Conservation of Energy which basically states that what comes out must go in.
There are machines which do appear to produce more energy than they take in but, in all cases they are impractical to use because of enormous capital costs. That applies at present to solar energy -( which is not violating Conservation of Energy) but that may not always remain so. Will
BB

bodgy
Posts: 1044
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: EE or Electronics Guru to debunk hoax

Post by bodgy » Fri Apr 11, 2003 4:37 pm

I just know I'm going to get shot down here, and I admit I haven't read this article, BUT-----,<p>I always have this vague feeling of uneasiness, when people shoot down some theories by saying it goes against the laws of etc.<p>My reason? Well the very people who suggested those laws waaaay back when, were also often regarded as being off their trolley and charlatans. Time proved that they had a point (not about being charlatans).<p>However, even there theories which became accepted at the time, it was found sometime later on were not entirely correct - some of which still are around in both versions today, causing confusion. Others had the there theories totally rewritten, but the end result to the layman looked exactly the same as it did before.<p>The point I'm sort of making, is that all the rules of physics etc, are man made interpretations of what has been observed, and have the edge, in that they are repeatable. <p>But have a look at statistical analysis and other mathmaticians rules, you'll see the joke where they have made a rule, then found a situation where it didn't fit, so they didn't say well we must be wrong, they fudged the issue by saying, 'well that rule doesn't work, so I'll invent another one'.<p>It may be that we have made a miscalculation in understanding of the rules of physics and at some time in the future some one will fall out of their bath, shout Erica (sic) I've found it and toddle down the high street naked, and rewritten the rules once again.<p>OK I'm off my soapbox now.<p>Colin<p>[ April 12, 2003: Message edited by: bodgy ]</p>
On a clear disk you can seek forever.

rshayes
Posts: 1286
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2003 1:01 am
Contact:

Re: EE or Electronics Guru to debunk hoax

Post by rshayes » Sat Apr 12, 2003 5:17 am

The point of my previous posting was that the measurements made are explicable using the known laws. It is well known that the circulating power in a resonant system can be much higher than the power being put into the system. It appears that the circulating power is being represented as the output in this system. The present laws don't say this is impossible.<p>If the output is indeed higher than the input, then it is obvious that it can be rectified and used to supply the input. The patent even describes such a system as being posssible, but does not claim that it has actually been done.
This would be the final step toward building a generator. Such a step might take two days. One to wind a matching transformer and the other to go down to Radio Shack, buy the parts, and wire them up.<p>Yet we are supposed to believe that, rather than taking this final step, the various inventors instead spent several days writing up a draft of the patent, hired a patent attorney, had several pages of drawings prepared for the patent application, and filed the patent without taking that one final step that would make it a working generator. I would have done the final step before filing the patent and would have included it in the patent.<p>Had they taken that final step, their case would be much more convincing, and would indeed require a reconsideration of the principle of conservation of energy.<p>In the patent, the inventors specifically state that this is not a perpetual motion machine. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, what is it? Those of us who are unaware of the physical laws that are yet to be discovered will usually identify it as a duck, absent any evidence that it is really an elephant. Of course, there is the possibility that it indeed a white elephant, with severe arthritis, breathing helium, and viewed through a telescope backwards. Possible, but not very probable.<p>Our present physical laws allow us to understand how a 42 mph wind can twist and break millions of pounds of reinforced concrete without violating the principle of conservation of energy. Put "Tacoma Narrows Bridge" in a search engine and look at some of the sites. This is a classical example of resonance and is very impressive.

Bernius1
Posts: 349
Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2002 1:01 am
Location: NY
Contact:

Re: EE or Electronics Guru to debunk hoax

Post by Bernius1 » Mon Apr 14, 2003 5:47 am

If Y'all want to get crazy,let's get crazy. The movie 'Predator' depicts the alien with blurred invisibility. TECHNICALLY, that IS possible,but you'd have to be able to affect the absorption & retention potential of the electrons in the media so that the greatest probability amlpitude is to release the photons laterally in the media, & not out at the 'angle of incidence'. The scattering of photons, which allows two people to see the same table, is a function of angle of incidence, and time,and material properties. A mirror has a 'planar alignment' effect, so that, while the mirror itself CAN be seen,its image is much more prominent. So, THEORETICALLY, say you had a mylar sheet, with a deposited 'media' on it (like those photonic crystals I recently read about);A phased signal on a matrix of the media could receive a photon on one side of the 'object',pass it laterally through the media, and re-emit it at the desired point on the opposite side. Circa 2050?? Now, back to daydreaming.
Can't we end all posts with a comical quip?

Will
Posts: 310
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2003 1:01 am
Location: Katy Texas
Contact:

Re: EE or Electronics Guru to debunk hoax

Post by Will » Mon Apr 14, 2003 4:42 pm

Of course we understand the laws of energy including those of resonance. There is no misunderstanding about this a resonant system gets it's stored energy from the source - usually cycle by cycle (During tne time the magnitude of the oscillations is decreasing. The Tacoma Narrows bridge got it's energy from the wind and vortex shedding. I think it's a mistake and confusing (My own opinion - not necessarily correct) to referred to stored POWER in resonant systems - it's stored ENERGY.
As far as I am aware there are no known cases in history of natural phenomena, scientific discovery etc where more energy/power has been extracted form a system than was put into it. It should be fairly obvious that if you built a system which produced twice as much power as input
then you would have achieved the essence of perpetual motion. Even if you only got twice as much out as you put in then, say you got 2 kW out for 1 kW in then you could take half of the output and run a 1 kW motor with it, put the remaining 1 kW into another 1 to 2 kW device and Wow! - you've got perpetual motion. The idea of the inventor under discussion appears to produe one million times the power - not just twice as much. If such devices were available then why would we need oil, coal or natural gas ?

Will
BB

User avatar
frhrwa
Posts: 897
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Eastern Washington (state) and N. Las Vegas (winter)
Contact:

Re: EE or Electronics Guru to debunk hoax

Post by frhrwa » Tue Apr 15, 2003 7:34 am

"If such devices were available then why would we need oil, coal or natural gas ?"....<p>I would imagine that if such a device had been invented, we would still need oil, coal and/or natural gas.. because the U.S. Government has their hands so deep in the pockets of the oil barons, electric companies, etc. that we'd be pinching their fingers with such a machine.. and we all know they don't like their fingers pinched.. If word got out that anyone was even getting close to such a machine, they would be locked away in solitary confinement and all trails would be erased!... Not that I don't trust our government.. Tires that never wear out, carburetors are capable of 100mpg.... ha
;)<p>[ April 15, 2003: Message edited by: wayne ]</p>
JESUS”…… don’t leave EARTH without HIM!

Will
Posts: 310
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2003 1:01 am
Location: Katy Texas
Contact:

Re: EE or Electronics Guru to debunk hoax

Post by Will » Tue Apr 15, 2003 12:48 pm

I see wayne; you don't believe in our government, you apparently don't believe in the laws of physics, you believe that anyone who criticizes Bill Gates is a prude ? and you like Bill Gates - Is there some sign of a pattern here ?
BB

User avatar
jollyrgr
Posts: 1289
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Northern Illinois
Contact:

Re: EE or Electronics Guru to debunk hoax

Post by jollyrgr » Tue Apr 15, 2003 3:57 pm

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by wayne:
[QB Tires that never wear out, carburetors are capable of 100mpg.... ha
[/QB]<hr></blockquote><p>Of all the things I have read on this thread, this quote explains why this project does not work. <p>THERE IS NO 100 MPG CARBURETORS!<p>(Long, be patient, please.) I have heard this Urban Legend passed around for years, and repeated as fact from people that should know better. A carburetor is a metering device. It mixes X amount of fuel (gasoline, propane, diesel, etc.) with Y amount of air. It is not some sort of magic device that puts extra power inside an engine. It simply takes fuel, meters it out to a specific amount, and puts it into a stream of moving air. This stream of moving air mixes the air molecules with fuel molecules. There are many settings on a carburetor to change this ratio and the amount of this mixture that enters an engine. The ratio is set based on air pressure for the most part. Thus a good setting in Death Valley would be quite poor in Denver. In a small airplane the mixture control is right on the console next to the throttle. The mixture setting controls the ratio of Av Gas mixed with air; the throttle controls how much of this mixture enters the engine. A pilot will lean the mixture as the aircraft climbs higher in altitude. That is because the air gets thinner as the aircraft climbs. This causes a higher amount of fuel compared to air to enter the engine unless the mixture setting is changed. The pilot changes the mixture ratio by backing out the mixture control. As the mixture leans the plane consumes less fuel and the engine runs faster (without adjusting the throttle). Thus the pilot can compensate for the lower amount of air. But what if the pilot continues to lean the mixture setting? Eventually the engine stops running and the pilot has to push the mixture back to a richer setting. The mixture setting is such that you can lean it as much as you want. But if you lean too far, the engine stops running. (In fact the proper way to shut down an airplane engine is to pull the mixture control to full lean.) So what does this all mean? A carburetor is simply a mixing device. So you are not going to bolt on some "magic" carburetor to an engine and have the car (or whatever) go from getting 20 miles per gallon to getting 100 miles per gallon. Nature does not work that way. <p>But I hear those of you out in the Peanut gallery already. "The newer fuel injected cars get more miles to the gallon!" Yes, very true. But many more things are going on in a fuel injection system. A computer measures air pressure (a MAP sensor), air temperature, oxygen (O2 sensor), engine RPM, speed of car, throttle position etc. It then adjusts on the fly the RATIO of the fuel to the air. In the "old days" a mechanic set these parameters until the engine ran smooth and produced the most power it could. Now a computer takes all the guess work out of it. Thus the computer does what the carburetor could not; adjust automatically on the fly. <p>But what does it all mean to this project. A substance (fuel) can only contain so much energy. Thus it can only do so much work. Most of the energy in a car goes out the radiator and tailpipe as waste heat. Sorry, that's the fact.<p>This project is a farce. There are other projects that try to use the heat difference in the ocean to cause a waterfall under the sea. Just like this project, it does not work. You then place turbines in this waterfall and generate electricity. The underwater system is hidden from the public so the ocean is not harmed. A river is not dammed up and everyone is happy. But it does not work.<p>You CAN use the tides to generate energy, but it would ruin miles of shoreline. What you would do is build a pseudo dam. During the low to high tide water would flow inland moving generators with the motion of the waves. When the tide moves out the trapped dammed water is let out over turbines again to generate electricity. Not the best way to do it but it could work. But who would want to destroy miles of coastline to do this?<p>Try this experiment. Get two identical rechargeable batteries and charge them up all the way using normal means (i.e. wall outlet). Now take one battery and set it aside. Put the other battery in a flashlight or other electronic device and use it up. When exhausted, charge it up using only the battery you set aside. Sounds silly right? Even if you transfer some of the energy from the unused battery eventually they will both be dead. If the batteries were over unity you could charge one from the other forever. In fact you could build a battery factory that used only the energy from the batteries it made! Doesn't work.<p>Solar and wind can be used. But it is a true alternate energy source. In my area they have just started a project to use wind turbines to generate electricity again. They tried this in the 70's and it didn't go far, maybe this time it will. Solar is a very good alternate source, but not photovoltaics. Biomass is the clear way to go.<p>You take a plot of land and grow some high energy, high strength, easy to grow plant such as corn, hemp, wheat, etc. (Hemp is an easy to grow plant that is a weed. Corn is widely grown; it grows real easy. The cobs can be used for food, including corn syrup, oil, etc. the waste for fuel.) You then convert this biomass to an alcohol. Will little modifications to current engines (mainly changing the rubber seals, etc.) a gasoline engine will run on this fuel. In fact many gas stations mix some of this with gasoline. This product is known as ethanol.<p>To explain this even further. If you were able to get out more energy than what you put in, this would be an over unity device. Thus you could start the thing running from a known power source, let's say a battery. You would then get everything running off the battery. Once it was producing more power than what the battery was supplying, you would then disconnect the system from the battery and connect it back to itself. (For the sake of argument, you have connected the output of the over unity device to the input of the unit and connected it in parallel to the battery. Since it producing more power than what was supplied, it should keep the circuit running just fine. There would also be plenty of energy left to recharge the battery. Or run the house, power a car, etc. <p>This is NOT over unity. Neither are a number of other schemes.<p>A fine example of would be an electric motor's shaft connected to an electric generator's shaft. The electric motor spins the electric generator. For arguments sake, throw in a big flywheel. Now power up the electric motor and let it spin up to its maximum speed. The generator will be producing electricity. Disconnect the motor from the "mains" and connect to the generator's electrical output. Eventually friction, heat, and the generator's load (i.e. the motor) will stop the unit from spinning.<p>So to explain what is happening. There is errors in the process of measuring the input power and the output power. My guess is the waveforms being measured are distorted such that they give false readings. Thus the meter is looking for a pure sine wave but is seeing a more square wave.<p>But then again I could be wrong. Maybe the VISITORS staying at Area 51 can do this and these scientists (or should I say pseudo scientists) making these projects have something.<p>[ April 15, 2003: Message edited by: Jolly Roger ]</p>
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. But billions of electrons, photons, and electromagnetic waves were terribly inconvenienced!

russlk
Posts: 563
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2001 1:01 am
Location: New Hampshire
Contact:

Re: EE or Electronics Guru to debunk hoax

Post by russlk » Tue Apr 15, 2003 6:45 pm

I have to comment on the "tide mill" process of producing electricity from the ocean tide. Such a generator was proposed for the bay of Fundy in Nova Scotia. I am against this way of generating power on the principle that the power comes from the rotational energy of the earth and will slow it down more than the tides are already doing.

User avatar
MrAl
Posts: 3862
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2002 1:01 am
Location: NewJersey
Contact:

Re: EE or Electronics Guru to debunk hoax

Post by MrAl » Wed Apr 16, 2003 5:43 am

Hello again,<p>I thought i made it clear that the reason the
project wont work is because there is no
transformer that has an efficiency of greater
then 100%, but the posts have certainly been
interesting.<p>It doesnt really matter whether or not some other
design works or not (as alluded to in another post),
as long as we can prove that this design doesnt
work we have answered the question adequately.
This is not to say that it is possible to rule out
every possiblity that comes up in the mind of
the inventer or scientist, as there is always
the chance something, as yet undiscovered, will
turn up. We can, however, rule out this particular
design by examining the circuit and construction
details and discover the underlying principles of
operation and subject them to analysis. This is
what has been done and the results agree with the
previous notions of the laws of physics.<p>As a side note...
Another way to simulate the design is to remove
the permanent magnet and instead drive the
output transformer with a non symetrical square
wave (a regular square wave with some dc offset).
This is indeed done on MANY dc-dc converters
today and is sometimes said to "not utilize the
core area as effectively as other designs", but
the simplicity of the designs make them attractive
for small converters that dont have to supply
that much power (less then 100 watts).
The point is, NONE of these converts will EVER
exibit more then 100% efficiency, and most will
never even break the 90% barrier, mostly because
of the output transformer or inductor. You
can see why the output transformer is so important
in considering the efficiency of a design like
this.<p>There are designs that are breaking the 90% barrier,
but, interestingly enough, they DONT use transformers!
Instead, they use high efficiency capacitors.
Surprising? Transformers have lots of losses:
-DC resistance in the windings
-AC resistance in the windings
-Core losses<p>Take care,
Al<p>[ April 16, 2003: Message edited by: MrAl ]</p>
LEDs vs Bulbs, LEDs are winning.

User avatar
frhrwa
Posts: 897
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Eastern Washington (state) and N. Las Vegas (winter)
Contact:

Re: EE or Electronics Guru to debunk hoax

Post by frhrwa » Wed Apr 16, 2003 7:49 am

"I see wayne; you don't believe in our government, you apparently don't believe in the laws of physics, you believe that anyone who criticizes Bill Gates is a prude ? and you like Bill Gates - Is there some sign of a pattern here ?"<p>WILL:
Yes, I believe in our Government! Yes I support the war in IRAQ, Yes I support President Bush, Yes I believe that protesters are DEAD ENDERS (no home, no job, no balls)! No I do not believe in over Taxation, or tax on tax! Yes I believe in the "Laws of Physics"! No I have not called anyone a prude or anything else for that matter regarding their personal feelings about Bill Gates. I do not know him personally, nor do I care to, but to condemn him for making more money than most of the rest of the people in the world, nope, not me... I would never critize a man/woman for making themselves a healthy living.
Yes, I like electronics, and Yes I enjoy reading these threads because of the wealth of information and knowledge that you guys have! and, Yes this particular thread interested me because of the high prices of power these days and because they told us once we couldn't fly! Do you have anymore questions?
JESUS”…… don’t leave EARTH without HIM!

Bernius1
Posts: 349
Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2002 1:01 am
Location: NY
Contact:

Re: EE or Electronics Guru to debunk hoax

Post by Bernius1 » Wed Apr 16, 2003 1:04 pm

Oy, what a long post!!! So to offer addenda;
A) energy out = energy in + misc.losses (<100% eff.)
B)Laws or thermo dynamics stand.
C) electro-perpetual motion? impossible
D) Mechanical perpetual motion? impossible
E) every mech. perpetual motion scheme involves either a loaded member ( a spring ),or 'uses' gravity. However,(I've seen a number of the patents)they all work vertically. Would a propellor-driven plane fly if it had a 'water-wheel' propellor?? No. It rotates in a plane perpendicular to the force's vector. Now, as you drearily read this, your buttocks numbs because of the Force (F=MA) of gravity. So to create a rotating, imbalanced member, you would be tapping off of the gravitational force which is constantly on us. The 'energy-in' would be gravity itself. The problem is setting all 'normal' forces on the rollers 'off-normal',and in the same rotational vector. Take any 'T' shaped object, invert it, and start to lean it up on an angle. It will want to turn. Hold it still, and you're applying a holding torque. So the torque exists. Bingo, you've rotated gravity's vector 90°.
...neural synapses toasting....golden brown...
-george
Can't we end all posts with a comical quip?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 14 guests