Are Over Unity Motors Perpetual or a Scam?
Author: Woody Wilson
Are Magniwork and Magnets4Energy promoting a scam? Are Magnetic Motors a scam? Are Over Unity generators a scam? Are Zero Point Motors a scam? Are Perpetual Motion Machines a scam?
Let me give you a few examples. A solar panel gathers energy for free. The source is the sun. The solar panel and sun will not do this forever. It is not perpetual. For your life span the solar panel is capable of "producing" (gathering) power for your entire life. Will it make a difference to you that it is not perpetual? Fascinating lesson on perspective.
When ancestors thought the planet was flat, it took a sailor trying to go around the planet to confirm it round. Subsequently that, perspective changed, not the truth. This happens all the time. Science does not change only the understanding.
Magnets opposite poles attract. Move a strong magnet towards another's opposite pole and they will pull together. What is the force that moved them? Is this force perpetual? Can this force be used over and over again to do work? Before we in the scientific world completely understand magnetism, we can make false calms about it because we do not have a option. We truthful don't know better. It's a mystery and it is human nature to apply rationale, even though the rationale can be incorrect. False claims ought not prevent us from using magnetism’s force for work. Would not you agree?
Magniwork and Magnets4Energy are not selling perpetual motion in my opinion. They have implemented information or guides to build a scientific experiment in magnetism.
Search the Internet for these phrases: Zero Point Energy, Magnetic Zero Point Energy, Magnet Generator, Perpetual Motion Machine, and Over Unity Motors. You will discover all the associated material and know that this magnetic motor design has been around for over two decades. Since the implemented design will "produce" (gather) energy from a seemingly absent force, it looks like something-for-nothing; but is it really?
It is a challenge to believe a magnetic motor can produce its own power, yet search the Internet for its various key words and you will find hundreds of home-grown videos of experiments that show a working motor / generator without applied power. Why do these function? Is it possible that you can convert magnetism into a power producing generator?
The working examples say yes.
What role magnetic motors will play in the future is uncertain but this we do know, an individual with curiosity and some handyman skills can build one and see for his or her self in less than a week. The two guides mentioned in this article are readily available for low cost and the materials will cost between 0 - 0.
Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/diy-articles/are-over-unity-motors-perpetual-or-a-scam-1318423.html
About the Author
If you want my critical review of two of the best guides Go To: www.ResidentialEnergyKit.com
by Woody Wilson
Advocate for homemade energy
Understanding Over-Unity Technologies.?
What are the academic qualifications do I need in order to be able to understand the inventions by Thomas Bearden, John Bedini, Paramahamsa Tewari, Joseph Newman, Lutec, etc and many others that claim to have invented over-unity and zero-point energy generators?
Why do people like to believe pseudoscience?
Like the Searl Effect Generator. We all know that this device doesn’t work unless you put energy into it or else it would start spinning as soon as they popped the magnets in, and would accelerate at an accelerating rate until it overheated and blew up from friction. As over unity would do according to physics if it were possible. The other thing that gets me is his claims that it produces gravity waves thus generating anti gravity.
We have yet to detect gravity waves. The centers that are trying to detect them would have detected his claimed gravity waves.
Yet he has many followers, that I don’t understand why people don’t use common sense.
fuel from water – is hho a scam?
There are numerous websites that claim that drastic fuel efficiency improvements (or even freedom of fossil fuel) can be achieved by seemingly simple system that creates brown gas/hho from water.
these claims are typically divided into 2:
1. HHO introduced in combustion drastically improves combustion efficiency. Though the amount of hydrogen is not substantial enough to be major source of fuel the improved combustion process helps capture a whole lot more energy from the fuel. Improvement in efficiency has to be huge as it is enough to cover the energy used in electric production for the HHO system and substantial improvement in gas mileage.
2. Burning HHO creates much more energy than it takes to create it – this is along the Stanley Meyers’ claims. Basically HHO is actual fuel in the combustion not just helping agent. Thses systems basically claim that you can split water with energy amount X and recover many times X energy by burning the gas back into water. As the suggested us is in internal combustion engines with very low efficiency (25-35% as far as I know) it means that the created excess energy must be huge.
Just to get even the process would be roughly something like this:
1kw electricity (80 amps at 12 volts) used to creating gas has to yield enough gas to create thermal energy of 3kw (at 33% engine efficiency) back on the axle – and this wouldn’t yet yield any mileage improvement.
HHO websites use the term over-unity to explain how more energy can be recovered than was invested. Is this really possible?
Are these claims too good to be true scams / frauds?
They seem to often involve some kind of money collecting licensing structure and some have been around for long time yet no confirmed proof seems to be around.
3 more things that I can’t quite grasp.
4. None of these systems seem to use any kind of proper fuel metering system – the gas is fed at quite arbitrary rate to the engine – wouldn’t (if indeed there is enough HHO to be substantial fuel) this mess up the mixture of the engine? I get that the gas has oxygen and hydrogen in “perfect” ratio.
5. If indeed the claim 2 was true then wouldn’t it make much more sense to use the HHO in some other way than very inefficient internal combustion engine? Heating for example – us fraction of energy to fire a boiler with HHO. Or turbine generator – much higher reliability and efficiency could be reached. It should be pretty easy to create profitable business for units that use 1kw and return 5-10kw.
6. Where does the extra energy come from – at lest roughly what is teh theory of teh process that creates more energy than it uses?
I undertaken the argument that “if it worked it would be used commonly” – however that doesn’t explain the physics or lack of them.
to the other answerer: Adding oxygen does not improve burning. Engine needs quite accurately metered ratio of fuel and air (oxygen) too much oxygen causes unstable combustion and excessive heat – besides risking catastrophic failure through melted pistons or knocking the very hot flame creates NOx emissions.
Direct injection engines can run leaner (more air to fuel).
Direct ignition allows leaner mixture but the reason is not unburned fuel in traditional fuel metering. Cannot see HHO gas would change anything here. (besides cause too much heat potentially).
And I call it HHO as that is what the fuel cell builders call it. Basically it is water that is split into hydrogen and oxygen through electrolysis.
(and there was no number 3 in my question list – sorry)
Non-Energy Over-unity-Generator?
I was searching the internet for a while and came across the over-unity-generator, but I still wonder if it may be possible to make a generator that only gives energy but does not use any.
no. So called over-unity generators are impossible, as they violate the most basic laws of physics.
There is no such thing as free energy.
.
None. There is no such thing as Over-unity and Zero-point energy generators. Whatever they are selling you, don’t waste your time and money. These charlatans always try to overwhelm you with BS. Believe me, they don’t know what the hell they’re talking about either.
PS – The Casimir effect has established zero point energy as an uncontroversial and scientifically accepted phenomenon. However, the term zero point energy has also become associated with a highly controversial endeavour – the design and invention of so-called free energy devices, similar to perpetual motion machines in the past. These devices purport to “tap” the zero-point field and somehow “extract energy” from it, thus providing an “inexhaustible”, cheap, and non-polluting energy source.
Controversy arises when such devices are promoted without scientifically acceptable proof that they tap the energy sources claimed. Promoters of such devices demonstrate no understanding of how the device might do so, but they do demonstrate misunderstanding of widely accepted scientific facts and methods, in development or communication of a theory concerning such devices; and they make no attempt to provide simpler explanations for the “claimed” performance of their devices.
The extreme weakness of the gravitational force is enough to explain the extreme difficulty detecting gravitational waves. People make money pretending to be psychic, so they work at convincing people it’s real, or that horoscopes and astrology are meaningful. Some say that demonic influence is behind the popularity of astrology and other occult practices.
The more serious overunity ideas relate to extraction of energy from the zero point field, or the energy of free space. Though Alan Guth disagrees with me (and it’s hard to argue with the credentials of his Nobel Prize and other physics accomplishments), I think there’s at least a chance that we might find a use for the zero point field once we learn more about it.
Anyone who makes claim 2 is a fool or a fraud. Splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen takes more energy than can be realized from burning it. The electrolysis process can be made theoretically over 90% efficiency, and then that gas is burned in a car’s engine at maybe 20% efficiency–so 80% of the energy used to spit the water is simply wasted energy. Your points 5 and 6 refute claim 2.
Regarding claim 1: I have read the notes of a dedicated and honest researcher into this claim, he claims a 3% increase in fuel economy based on this principle. He asserts that HHO is generated by excess energy from the alternator, that would otherwise be wasted, but admits that the fuel economy gain is small enough that it could be based entirely on subtly different driving habits. I would also point out the difference could be real, but based on some mechanism other than the presence of hydrogen and oxygen. For instance, the engine running leaner.
I would point out in most of these setups, there is no mechanism to keep the hydrogen and oxygen separate, which means they can (and I assert do) spontaneously recombine. This means what you’re actually injecting is not HHO but H2O, in tiny liquid droplets that are very well mixed with the air/fuel. The water acts to cool the combustion chambers as it changes from liquid to steam. This property permits a leaner mix without pre-ignition, as well as more advanced spark timing.