Here we go again!! Another free energy machine.

I don't know if this one was posted already, but here it is: The Lutec 1000

www.lutec.com.au...


They're claiming to be ready to sell it already.

The Lutec 1000 is the first free energy machine to be developed to commercial stage anywhere in the world.

The Lutec 1000 generator will produce up to 1000 watts of DC electricity twenty four hours a day, every day, which will be stored in a battery bank and then inverted to AC power and connected directly into the home or business.

The Lutec 1000 draws the power it requires to run itself from the same battery bank. The average house in Cairns, Queensland, uses only fourteen of the twenty four kilowatt hours able to be stored in twenty four hours by this method.

The batteries will last ten years. The generator is expected to come with a conditional ten year warranty.

The real thing??? Or just another scam?? Personally I suspect another scam.

I would have to say scam as I have seen these Magnet powered generators before and they never came to market.

I would love for it to be true

I am still waiting for my free home generator that was promised 3 years ago.

www.electricity4free.com...

Well I know someone from down under that told me about this guy about two years ago. He is a locksmith from a few miles down the road. He told me he saw it work then and the local news showed it powering a light bulb for a day or so with no drop in battery voltage.

That being said I read this on the site:

...with a minimum one hundred and fifty thousand dollars available to contribute, please have them email us at [email protected] and request information. We will also need their full names, address, and contact phone numbers, this tends to keep the tire kickers away. Enquiries from outside of Australia are welcome....

So I don't know.

My friend did seem to think it was real after seeing it run first hand. I haven't invested in it though.

I am not sure about this particular motor? But knowing that magnets have a constant attraction or repulsion. In other words the push away, for example, creates motion. Harness this motion in some way and make the motor spin, and you may just have an engine that works. The sad thing about this is, I bet the oil company would hate it. Getting it on the market might be a challenge, considering the possible opposition of the oil company.

The great thing would be how much cleaner the air would be using a technology like this. I would guess that a person with a pacemaker might have a problem with it though. I think newer model pacemakers are better though about being around magnets. But I suppose the engine could be shielded so it doesn't become a problem.

I think it could be a great technology considering the life expectancy of a magnet. And think of all the fuel that doesn't have to be burned.

Troy

[edit on 11-11-2005 by cybertroy]

Ya, I've seen it.

In fact, here, StellarX brought up the lutec a few months ago.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I've always found magnetic wankel engines interesting but rarely do they have the "hard evidence" to back up the true "free energy"/efv claims.

I really wish someone would put a working, affordable model on the market, but the energy lobbyists' wouldn't be too keen on it and would probably go to great lengths with great pocketbooks to prevent such a release.




[edit on 11/11/05 by redmage]

If this machine is "free energy"....then why do the batteries only last 10years? Obviously energy is being lost somewhere along the way there otherwise the batteries wouldn't run out....

Btw: even perm magnets aren't permanent....so yuh, not really free-energy in the pure sense of the term is it

I have a generator that gives out free power!
But I have to keep putting gas in it to get the free power

I dunno, I personally feel very skeptical of things that are directly against the laws of thermodynamics, not to mention common sense, but, hey, that might just be me.

Very interesting that they're making it commercially available, though.

This guy claims it's his idea from 30 years ago:

Joseph Newman's web site

On the other hand, it's claimed on other websites that Joseph Newman's machine never worked.

Everywhere I look on the web, there are claims that the Lutec 1000 will save the world. That gives me doubts. This is a good place to say: "prove it". I find it hard to believe any radical claim that isn't allowed to be examined and tested.

Well, I hope motors like this do work.

They need to be smart about how they introduce the motor to the market place. Just like you don't tell the wrong people about UFOs, you don't tell the wrong people about your motor that doesn't need gasoline.

Troy

I feel the issue here is one of the inventor already having set up a timeline - of sorts - for public release. More aptly, he's going to either put up, or shut up because it will be within public domain, by their estimation, very soon.

If we need to wait, it shouldn't be for very much longer. And, as I see it, then all speculation stops and testing, independent verification, and sales begin.

Though I find it impossible to throw money behind innovations that knowingly assail the laws of physics, I don't mind throwing a little waiting-time behind them.

Originally posted by redmage
I've always found magnetic wankel engines interesting but rarely do they have the "hard evidence" to back up the true "free energy"/efv claims.

I really wish someone would put a working, affordable model on the market, but the energy lobbyists' wouldn't be too keen on it and would probably go to great lengths with great pocketbooks to prevent such a release.

[edit on 11/11/05 by redmage]

Thanks for the plug! I have spent the last few months reading more about this topic and i am not longer concerned about the scientific validity of the claims made about these various machines. The principle was scientifically acknowledged by awarding the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang in 1957.
www.almaz.com...

Broken symmetry: Fundamentally, a condition in wich the two parts of some configuration or shape, on opposite sides of some divisor or condition or boundary, are not similar but differ.

In vacuum energy physics this is very important because of the broken symmetry of opposite charges - any charge ( wich its associated clustering of vritual charges of the opposite sign) and any dipole or dipolarity represents an assymetry in its fierce energy exchange with the vacuum. This implies that something virtual becomes observable ; ie., part of the virtual EM enegy continuesly absorbed from the vacuum by the charge or by the dipole is changed into observable form and re-emitted as real , observable EM energy. The remainder is re-radiated as virtual EM energy.

A Compilation of Briefing Papers Prepared For: The U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. In this paper Dr Bearden outlines what can be done, how it can be done and just how fast it can all happen once the political will is there.

Bearden : Energy from the vacuum : Concepts&Principles. www.cheniere.org... Free copies of this (950 page) book for everyone that qualifies ( engineering background helps a great deal).

I do think we should solely blame industry as governments gains their power by our dependence on their expensive energy. If we could arrange for independence in just this area it would break a chain that has made independent thought and action very hard.

Stellar


[edit on 13-11-2005 by StellarX]

The whole concept of using permanent magnets to generate "free" energy is fundamentally flawed. People seem to think that magnets do "work" (in the physics sense), however they generate a force, like gravity. In these machines work is invariably done by the "control signal" (the bit that is meant to just flip the magnets on and off, and not by the magnets themselves.

In the "How it Works" bit of the site it says:

that the controlled periodic interruption of a rotating permanent magnetic field, by the temporary and precise introduction of another magnetic field, causes the secondary effect of the naturally occurring polarity flip of the permanent magnet influence

My emphasis. Now here is the flaw: to introduce another magnetic field is going to require some energy....and it will be more than the device will be generating.

It goes on to say:

And most importantly, he agrees that this flip effect is influenced by voltage rather than current, and also allows the flip back to the original polarity to naturally occur at no cost of current, so the rotor is driven onwards at a very small cost of electricity.

No cost to current? Or a "very small cost"? The explanation seems to contradict itself in the same sentance, which doesn't really make you trust it. The fact is there will be a cost and you will have to supply some energy to get this to work.

Always with these machines the energy generated is less than the energy supplied. There is an excellent (and very detailed) discussion by a number of scientists on just such a motor here:

www.physicsforums.com...

It explains much better than I could why such a device will never generate free energy.

Not sure if the Lutek people are scammers, or just misguided - it's quite difficult to tell.....

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer
I dunno, I personally feel very skeptical of things that are directly against the laws of thermodynamics, not to mention common sense, but, hey, that might just be me.

Very interesting that they're making it commercially available, though.

Sketicism can be a usefull thing given you have a open mind to start with.

The motor's in question does not violate the laws of thermodynamics strictly speaking and those claims originates from those who either do not understand physics or those who seek to call their better's cranks for lack of any other means to explain why they did not figure it out themselves. Some of them would obviously have to be part of the conspiracy as their vicious personal attacks seems to indicate.

"If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him."

Mark Twain

To define a closed system as closed only to mass transfer, but not to energy transfer, is a gross non-sequitur. Since general relativity was published in 1915, energy and mass are known to be the same thing , hence the term mass-energy in physics. Whenever energy crosses the boundary of a system , the systems's mass changes and the mass ( or certainly mass change) has also crossed that boundary. In general relativity there can be in fact no energy conservation equations of the kind normally employed elsewhere. This fact has either been missed or ignored by main stream scienctist.

The point is simply that it is extremely hard to prove a naturally closed system and i would dare anyone to prove that even the Universe a closed system with no energy transfer possible. I have an opinion but it's not pertinent here.

Credit Bearden with the principle's and me with the wording in this instance.

This paper would be a great place to start your investigation and Bearden's work is right at the bottem.

Stellar



[edit on 13-11-2005 by StellarX]

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
The whole concept of using permanent magnets to generate "free" energy is fundamentally flawed. People seem to think that magnets do "work" (in the physics sense), however they generate a force, like gravity. In these machines work is invariably done by the "control signal" (the bit that is meant to just flip the magnets on and off, and not by the magnets themselves.

So does gravity not do work? What powers gravity? Where does the energy come from and how can one argue that gravity does not do any work when permanent magnets proves this reality every day of the week? If your explanation is the truth it will be easy to show that the power input into such a system is no more or less than the output and thus proved a hoax. I fact beleive the power input you mention is only need to polarize the two magnets and nothing more.

In the "How it Works" bit of the site it says:

that the controlled periodic interruption of a rotating permanent magnetic field, by the temporary and precise introduction of another magnetic field, causes the secondary effect of the naturally occurring polarity flip of the permanent magnet influence

My emphasis. Now here is the flaw: to introduce another magnetic field is going to require some energy....and it will be more than the device will be generating.

Do not see what you base that assumption on so please do clarify... Why will the energy input, to change the polarity , be more than what is generated? What law dictates that this need be so? I can prove that there is no such law ( reality being the judge) but i would like to see which once you had in mind.

It goes on to say:

And most importantly, he agrees that this flip effect is influenced by voltage rather than current, and also allows the flip back to the original polarity to naturally occur at no cost of current, so the rotor is driven onwards at a very small cost of electricity.

No cost to current? Or a "very small cost"? The explanation seems to contradict itself in the same sentance, which doesn't really make you trust it. The fact is there will be a cost and you will have to supply some energy to get this to work.

It said that the cost would be small and if their claim is that the device extracts or generates more energy than it uses it would have to be smaller or they device would furnish that small need itself after the initial power up. There is no contradiction in their claims. You will need to supply some power right at the start obviously but assuming that the machine can not use some of the power it generates to furnish future needs is it seems based on your opinion....

Always with these machines the energy generated is less than the energy supplied. There is an excellent (and very detailed) discussion by a number of scientists on just such a motor here:

www.physicsforums.com...

It explains much better than I could why such a device will never generate free energy.

Not sure if the Lutek people are scammers, or just misguided - it's quite difficult to tell.....

I will have to look into their specific claims later but in will probably ( as it always does ) come down to their claims that it's not allowed by physics due to conservation of energy laws.

1) Gravitational Perpetual Motion:

"As we all know, perpetual motion machines are impossible,
and claims of such devices are a clear sign of bad science.
No device (or natural phenomenon) can operate endlessly
without draining a power source, and certainly no device can
operate without a power source at all. Yet, our science states
that an object dropped into a tunnel cut through the Earth would
oscillate back and forth endlessly from one end of the planet
to the other. This is the result predicted by both Newton's and
Einstein's theories of gravity, yet this belief clearly violates our
most elementary laws of physics as well as common sense.
There is no claim of a draining power source, nor even any
mention of a power source at all to drive this process. Despite
detailed atomic theories and even having split the atom we
have never identified a gravitational power source."

www.thefinaltheory.com...

Those laws are clearly only usefull in very specific circumstances and can obviously not be used when it comes to open systems. Proving these machines are closed systems would be a job of the first magnitude wich you are free to assume for yourself.

In fact read the entire page and see how you feel about the claims you made on this thread so far. I had to take a small vacation to deal with this and other things and i suggest you try some time out to consider wether you really want to defend classical physics when it contradicts itself so openly and blatently and have done so for so damn long.

And before you start hating the messenger do read this page and take the hint!

Anyways!

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
I fact beleive the power input you mention is only need to polarize the two magnets and nothing more.

Yes, and everytime someone builds one of these machines (people have been building permanent magnet "perpetual motion" machines for over 100 years) they can never get more energy out of the device than they put in. They might claim they can, but always under inspection it never works. Here is a patent for one from 1979:
www.newebmasters.com...

If this works then why isn't the inventor the richest man in the world? They have had 26 years to get it sorted.

To go back to the site's claims:

They will both perform the same task, that of holding the ten kilos off the floor. The electro-magnet, however, has needed to be fuelled by electricity provided by a generator of some kind - it could be hydro, nuclear, wind, solar, coal or oil - and has cost a large amount in terms of energy. Much work (in the scientific sense) has been done to provide the constant electric current necessary to maintain its magnetic hold on the steel girder.

Now take notice, the permanent magnet has not needed to be energised by an external source, it has done the job for “free” using only the magnetism it contains to perform the same job. The clue here is in the title of “permanent” magnet.

If you think this through you can see the fallacy. The magnet stuck to the steel beam isn't actually doing anything, no more than a rock that rests on the floor is doing any work. Great - it's stuck, but to break it away so that that you can let it re-stick again you have to do some work, either via an eletrical current or manually pulling it off. And what's the total gain? Nothing. If you can show me some theory, or even a practical device that refutes my statement I would be very interested.

It is the equivalent of trying to generate energy from a rock falling endlessly down a hill with no bottom. That is impossible.

From the site again:

That same principle is one of the reasons the Lutec 1000 motor turns, it is of course the spinning of the centre core of the motor which is caused by the permanent magnets being attracted and then repulsed from the steel cores of the fixed stator coils. It is this primary movement that allows the magnetic fields around the stator coils to be “cut” by the effect of the permanent magnets sweeping past the steel cores of the coils.

Can you tell me one difference between this description and one for a normal electric motor? As that is what these guys always end up when they have finished - a normal permanent magnetic motor.

Do not see what you base that assumption on so please do clarify... Why will the energy input, to change the polarity , be more than what is generated? What law dictates that this need be so? I can prove that there is no such law ( reality being the judge) but i would like to see which once you had in mind.

Well it was the First Law of Thermodynamics I had in mind. But just working from first principles as well. I know that the first law applies to closed systems, but do you have any reason to think that the Lutek generates energy from somewhere else other than it's own components? The site makes no such claim....

There is no contradiction in their claims. You will need to supply some power right at the start obviously but assuming that the machine can not use some of the power it generates to furnish future needs is it seems based on your opinion....

Well come on now, it's not just my opinion, it's well established scientific theory. I would love it if you could find one engineer or physicist working for a major (or any) university who would disagree with my "opinion"

www.physicsforums.com...

I will have to look into their specific claims later but in will probably ( as it always does ) come down to their claims that it's not allowed by physics due to conservation of energy laws.

Those pesky physical laws eh? If you have a look at the site some of the people discussing it are engineers who work with motors, they say in very practical terms why such a device never generates free electricity.

A class in thermodynamics would help alot of you out...perpetual motion machines just aren't possible. If you understand how engines works, you'll understand efficiency. Read up on ya entropy...

If somebody ever really invents such a machine, then of course it wouldn't violate the laws of thermodynamics. It will just be tapping from an energy source that mankind has not discovered yet, or theoretically has discovered already, but does not know how to make use of it yet. I'm talking about Zero Point Energy. And with that comes two big if's..... If it exists, and if we can make use of it to power engines.

It's not that the engine is going to start motion out of nothing, and/or produce more energy than it's using. It's just the fuel would be almost undetectable with phyisical machines. We don't know everything yet, (and almost certainly never will) and who knows new scientific discoveries in the future would force science to do a major overhaul in theories and laws of physics.

Originally posted by LordGoofus
If this machine is "free energy"....then why do the batteries only last 10years? Obviously energy is being lost somewhere along the way there otherwise the batteries wouldn't run out....

Assuming that this machine would be real (Which I still think is a hoax), the batteries do not have anything to do with the free energy device expect for storing the energy in the form of electricity. So your comment does not make any sense.

This is my understanding on how a motor like this might work. Magnets have their own energy, correct? A battery is there to help keep the engine running, and/or start the process. Anyway, when the engine starts rotating, the energy of the magnets is used (repelling force in this example). And considering the repelling force of some magnets like Neodymium magnets, the engine may be able to pretty much put out more energy than supplied, as a result charging the battery. I think there is more to it than this, but that's part of my understanding.

You are using the battery to supply the voltage needed to keep the engine running, which in turn releases the energy of the magnets through the repelling forces of like poles.

The great thing about magnets, the magnetic forces can last for many years.

Seems like it might be possible.

Troy

[edit on 14-11-2005 by cybertroy]