It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Free Energy: Philippine DOE Verifies Self-Charging Electric Car

page: 6
35
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 07:07 PM

Here is another video of Ismael Aviso (aka Ka Maeng) demonstrating his inverter:

He shows a DC electric motor under negligible load (only one wheel is actually turning in free space i.e. it is not pushing anything) running whilst connected to a 12V lead acid battery, a large bank of electrolytic capacitors and some unknown black box components.

From the comments the electrical engineers make you can see he is using an inverter to increase the 12V to around 300-400V, which charges the bank of capacitors (you see someone repeatedly shorting these to produce a small spark).

The test bed runs for about 6:10 - 2:22 = 3 minutes 48s in the clip, during which the battery appears to go to 12.1v.

Ignoring for a moment that the battery is still connected to a bank of capacitors, 12.1v is the open circuit voltage of a car battery at 50% charge. (It's 12.5v at 90% charge and 12.7 v at full charge).

Given that the battery is a standard car battery, (these are usually rated at 40 A Hrs, but he claims 26 A Hrs in the vid, so let's use that), apparently the device used 13 A Hrs of charge from the battery in total, being 50% of its charge. At 12V that's 156 Watt Hrs.

The motor is 11kW at full power (2000 RPM). In the vid you can see the chain attached to the motor is cycling about 2 times every second. It is about 80cm from top to bottom and the cog driving it is about 8cm in diameter. This means the motor is turning at 13 times a second or 800 RPM. This can be checked, as the wheel is turning about 4 times a second and 3.3 is a believable standard differential ratio.

So the motor is clearly not running at full power. The actual load on the motor is the hardest part to estimate. Given a relatively friction free bearing, the load is negligible once it gets moving. Motor efficiency drops off very rapidly for very small loads, e.g. from about 80% down to about 20% when the load is 35% of the rated load.

A reasonable figure for most electric motors is 33% of the current required to run a motor under negligible load. The speed of the motor on the other hand is directly proportional to the voltage. So we can assume the voltage supplied to the motor in this case is 800/2000*220V = 88 V. The amps must be 60A * 0.33 = 20A. Thus the motor is consuming about 1760 W = 1.76 kW.

So let's be generous here and just say it's 1.8kW for 4 minutes. The total is then 1800 W * 4 mins / 60 mins/hr ~= 120 W Hrs.

In other words, that 156 W Hrs is consumed from the battery to power a motor that requires about 120 W Hrs to perform the demonstration is entirely consistent with the laws of physics. No overunity here.

In other places on the net you can see that the guy has been bothering the DOE for some time about this.

Of course, I'm using all the standard laws of physics here to make these estimations. If we allow non-standard laws of physics in the measuring equipment and in the motor as well then we can easily push overunity. Of course scientists would just contend it's garbage in = garbage out.

posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 07:14 PM

Your answer has nothing at all to do with my question, and is another pile of unsupported gobbledygook.

Do you care to explain your claim that Maxwell's equations show that one can extract gobs of energy from the empty vacuum. I note you didn't actually use Maxwell's equations in your reply.

posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 07:26 PM

Originally posted by FarArcher

No perpetual motion machines, eh?

Well, it appears you're ready to prove Newton wrong. A body in motion will continue in that motion unless acted upon by exterior forces.

A body not acted upon by exterior forces may be moving wrt one inertial reference frame, but with respect to another, it is at rest.

Imagine a universe in which there are only two objects, one moving at a constant speed of 100 km/hr wrt the other. Which one is moving and which one is at rest? It depends entirely on which inertial reference frame you pick. You can pick frames of reference in which one is moving and the other stationary, or ones in which both are moving.

And technically, Newton was wrong. Einstein's special relativity is an adjustment that needs to be made to purely Newtonian physics. To convert from one reference frame to another in a Newtonian universe you only need the Galilean transformation. Einstein discovered this is not actually how our universe works. The correct transformation for our universe is known as the Lorentz transformation.

posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 07:29 PM

Originally posted by FarArcher

Now with the really good stuff, you can charge the battery with 600 amps without blowing it up. In fact, it won't get hot - it will get cold. It loses temperature.

So you claim that after taking really good drugs you think whilst charging a battery at 600 amps the battery gets colder....

They must be good drugs!

posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 07:45 PM
please dont kill this thread, this could be the greatest invention ever, FREE ENERGY!!!

posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 07:47 PM
I embed the video, They are explaining it in English for those techies or Engineers to understand clearly what is happening.

posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 07:55 PM

No drugs. I pity men such as you. So arrogant in your certainty of your own minds, and yet, in just a few minutes the entire basis of your world could be negated.

I don't much give a damn what you believe, as your preconditioning in falsehoods would have you doing the identical same thing as the forensic German engineers hired to test and only report the test data that they came up with.

After test, and test, and test, and testing even more, with the identical same results, it was infuriating, but telling about the current state of science when they stated, "We cannot report our results."

When asked why, they stated they would lose all credibility in the scientific community.

When asked what the problem was - their reply? Nothing scientific, I assure you. "You have ghosts in your batteries."

"But we let you select the batteries, and you can go buy any ones you want."

"We did! They all have ghosts!"

Now that's what I call science.

See, when you can't believe that batteries can be charged from the active vacuum with 600 amps of input, and that they cool instead of heat up - that's because you have a very limited understanding of known, taught, classical physics. It's all right there in the literature. You just don't know what you're talking about.

I'll tell you another thing that will make you think I'm entirely crazy.

In a standard circuit, where you have impedance, you lose energy through heat.

In the alternate circuits, where you have impedance, gobs of energy from the vacuum pour in. In fact you engineer impedance to amplify the power.

OOOOOOhhhh! Crazy, huh?

That's the key. Everything in standard electromagnetics is exactly backwards.

Everything.

If I'm crazy, then you're stupid.

posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 08:53 PM

Your video is not working for me.
edit on 26-2-2011 by XtraTL because: Can't spell.

posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 09:13 PM

Originally posted by XtraTL
In other words, that 156 W Hrs is consumed from the battery to power a motor that requires about 120 W Hrs to perform the demonstration is entirely consistent with the laws of physics. No overunity here.
Great analysis XtraTL, nice to see someone with your caliber of knowledge posting on the forum here.

Originally posted by XtraTL

Originally posted by FarArcher

No perpetual motion machines, eh?

Well, it appears you're ready to prove Newton wrong. A body in motion will continue in that motion unless acted upon by exterior forces.

A body not acted upon by exterior forces may be moving wrt one inertial reference frame, but with respect to another, it is at rest.
Actually the example I would use is a rotating planet. It's a little easier to establish the rotational motion relative to the rest of the universe. It turns out the Earth isn't a very good example of perpetual motion, because there are a lot of frictional losses in the tides, etc so the Earth's rotation is actually slowing down. But if you took a rocky planet and put it in the "middle of nowhere" so to speak with no moon or other sources of friction nearby, then it could spin for a very long time without violating any known laws of physics. A rotating planet is what the Wiki on perpetual motion refers to as "low friction":

en.wikipedia.org...

Once spun up, objects in the vacuum of space—stars, black holes, planets, moons, spin-stabilized satellites, etc.—continue spinning almost indefinitely with no further energy input. Tide on Earth is dissipating the gravitational energy of the Moon/Earth system at an average rate of about 3.75 terawatts.
But even if you accept that if there's nearly nothing to slow down the rotation of a planet it will keep rotating, it might have a rotational motion that you could call nearly "perpetual motion", but I'm not sure it meets my personal definition of a "machine", it's just a rotating body in space. And I imagine most people that want to patent their "perpetal motion machines" are trying to do so for devices that operate on Earth, right? I don't see much point in patenting a planet spinning in outer space, if it spins more or less forever, so what? That's not going to heat your home or propel your car, unless you take energy out of it by slowing the rate of spinning down, and then it's no longer perpetual motion. Any machine you operate on earth is going to have some friction, so the rotating frictionless planet in space really isn't a persuasive argument for the feasibility of a perpetual motion machine on Earth which will be plagued with frictional losses, both examples are just straightforward applications of physics.

In fact I'm slightly concerned we might go a little overboard in harnessing the rotational momentum of the Earth-moon system via extracting energy from tides. I saw a calculation someone did if we extracted power from tides enough to slow down the rotation of the Earth by 1% it would meet our current energy needs for 74,000 years (I haven't checked the math but I'll just use the guesstimate to illustrate a point that doesn't rely on an exact figure). If we last as long as the dinosaurs (about 183 million years from 248 million to 65 million years ago), what's going to happen to the Earth's rotation if we slow it down 1% every 20,000 years (assuming our energy demands will continue to grow, and that's a conservative estimate)? We might have to stop using the expression "there aren't enough hours in the day"!

Originally posted by FarArcher
I'll tell you another thing that will make you think I'm entirely crazy.
You mean there's more?

In a standard circuit, where you have impedance, you lose energy through heat.
......
That's the key. Everything in standard electromagnetics is exactly backwards.
I can explain the function of any electrical or electronic device on the planet (that I've ever seen) using the "standard electromagnetics" you say is backwards.

The number of devices you can demonstrate that comply with your thinking is apparently zero since you've given zero evidence to back up the claims that you say will make us think you're crazy (you do apparently have a talent for mind-reading however).

Lots of people make claims like yours, but nobody has ever proven any such claims. On the contrary, when such claims are investigated, the usual outcome, if not outright fraud, is that the inventor doesn't have a clue what "standard electromagnetics" says (such as the difference between volt-amps and watts in a circuit with coils like a motor, or what electrical engineers call "power factor").

posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 09:18 PM

Originally posted by Movescamp

I understand your ideas but if you don't patent monsanto will and then sue you for using their Idea. But you are right if you could get people to make it for themselves you can get away without patents. The trouble is they always find a way to make it hard. Like lobbying to make things illegal. For instance composting toilets in some states. Even though they are a tremendous solution to cut energy and water needs way down (think how many kilowatts it takes to treat and pump water). Obviously doesn't work well for Very populated areas but still....

Who cares. I really don't. It has to be put out, world wide, taught in back yards, with tradesmen teaching the youths to do it with recyled things. You can't take away what they already know. And if any of those negative entities walking around in their cloned suits, show up at my place, I would be performing a citizens arrest for crimes against humanity immediately I don't care, they don't win. And its already out everywhere.

It has to be done eveywhere.

And I'd be grabbing all the useful patent too.

NWO and their fantasy of fascism and corporate rule, is over.

posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 09:25 PM

Is energy lost from a spinning planet due to frame dragging? I don't know the answer by the way.

But I agree that a rotating solid rocky planet on its own would be an example of ostensibly perpetual motion, though not a useful system which you could pull energy from without losing the "perpetual" bit.

posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 09:27 PM
The only thing burying this is the greed and patents. There are other ways, and they need to be done.

posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 10:47 PM
To all engineers that have "Free Energy" in mind!!:

Do the research and work on the invetions on nighttime.
When you have result just release the information and
let everyone take part in spreading and constructin.
It will be done.....

posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 11:07 PM

Originally posted by XtraTL
Is energy lost from a spinning planet due to frame dragging? I don't know the answer by the way.
For a planet spinning at the speed of the Earth, I know the frame dragging effects of the earth-moon interaction are completely dwarfed by the tidal effects, so it's really the tidal effects that are significant and not frame-dragging.

This is one reason I specified that for a planet to spin as long as possible it should have no moon and be reasonably far removed from other potential tidal influences also.

Extracting energy from tides has real potential, but it also has real risks if it's overdone. Here's a site explaining some concepts tidal energy ideas:

www.darvill.clara.net...

I think the idea has merit if it's not overdone, but we humans have a tendency to overdo things.

And I'm not sure this claim is true:

Tidal energy is renewable. The tides will continue to ebb and flow, and the energy is there for the taking.
The forces that cause tidal motion are so massive on a human scale that a single experiment will have a negligible effect so that disproving this statement from the experiment would be difficult.

However, we don't get something for nothing. The more energy is extracted from the tides, the more likely it will be to have a measurable effect on the rotational energy of the Earth/moon system. The Earth's rotation is already slowing down due to tidal forces. Increasing the friction of those tidal forces may increase the rate at which the Earth slows down, so I wouldn't call that "renewable", though as long as we keep the energy extraction small, the effect should also be small.

posted on Feb, 26 2011 @ 11:20 PM

Originally posted by XtraTL

Your video is not working for me.
edit on 26-2-2011 by XtraTL because: Can't spell.

sorry here it is again

posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 12:15 AM

You are accurate. You can explain things of normal, transverse electromagnetic energy using current transverse electromagnetic energy physics.

As I said, most other folks haven't seen this, but they could if they wanted to.

It's not a matter of proving these things I've said.

Ask yourself a question. Where does the energy in a generator come from? Where does it truly, at the very beginning - come from? Where does electrical energy really, truly originate?

If any retard starts with coils and magnetic fields, you're about the middle, actually more toward the end.

Where does electrical/electromagnetic energy originate from?

Do you believe that energy cannot be created or destroyed?

When you can really answer to yourself where this energy comes from, then you won't mention proving the things I've said, because by then, you'll know about the inverse of the energy you're accustomed to.

Where does EM energy COME from?

posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 09:52 AM

Well they ruled out batteries and got the patent fromthe doe so no one cares what you think. Real scientist have already verified it. I suggest you stop slandering this man before you look like an idiot. He will be publishing all the information now that he has patents and investors. I also suggest you look on the peswiki website or the links I provided. Peswiki is where before it's news took the article.

There are several overunity patents and this one is the real deal.

posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 05:41 PM

Most of my education and personal interest lies in electronics - every different way of teaching and understanding it that has been taught.

I'm also particularly fond of physics, chemistry, etc, and fairly well versed in those subjects.

I believe it is possible to access some form of unlimited energy.

-However- we've had enough people spinning magnets and black boxes around in an attempt at this, that I believe it will not be all that likely we will discover a means of it through back-yard experiments from people who can barely tell if they are dressed or not.

There is a general formula for these devices: Claim it works. Call people who want proof or don't believe it works ignorant/stupid. Cancel demonstrations due to technical difficulties, but ensure the 'crowd' it works and half-test it with batteries. ALWAYS blame oil companies and governments - they are the true evil ones, here - trying to make it so that people still have to pay for gas and electricity. (Never mind that it would be better for them to have devices that could produce electricity with only a tiny fraction of the overhead - you're not speaking to a particularly bright crowd, it'll slip right past them).

Hell - you can, and some people do, lead people on for decades and take them for millions of cumulative dollars.

With my knowledge of electronics and ability to convince even the most skeptical to give me the benefit of a doubt (it's not about making them believe you - only making them hold on to the hope you're right - a talent I picked up at school and used to gain a few extra minutes for homework) - I could easily make some whirly-gigs and flashymabobs that "access the hidden vacuum of energy" - scribble some halfway convincing numbers down on a dry-erase board and walk away with hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars from people who want to believe I've discovered free energy.

I've even got an easy-out. When I feel I've got enough to just put in the bank and live off of interest, I claim the prototype disappeared and I was harassed by government agents.

The best part about it? I'll get people offering me money to continue to fight against the oppression of the energy nazis.

Motors are a thing of the past - I'd incorporate lasers and more solid-state components. We've seen enough magnets, gears, and motors. This is the new era of quantum mechanics, the mysteries of tunneling diodes, and the awesome names like avalanche diodes. Hell - even the basic transistor still continues to hide a few secrets and be a confusing subject for even post-graduate students.

Which is why the proof will have to be in the pudding for me. Got an over-unity device? Put it in the car and let's go until we stop or run out of road. Or put on some kind of display with this thing running long beyond what should be possible. Demonstrations lasting days - weeks, even years - not just five minutes and saying: "like magic, the battery has a higher voltage!"

posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 11:10 PM

Originally posted by FarArcher
Where does EM energy COME from?
When I turn on my radio the EM (radio) waves are coming from the transmitter, but that's powered by electricity from fossil fuels, which have their origin in fusion from the sun which converts hydrogen to helium and in the process converts mass to energy according to the formula E=mc^2. The energy excites electrons and they give off EM radiation across a wide spectrum of EM frequencies:

en.wikipedia.org...

In Hinduism the sun is considered to be a god as it is the source of life and energy on earth.
I don't know about the god part, but I can't argue about it being the source of life and energy on Earth (not the only source but certainly the major one).

Of course we get a tiny bit of EM from other stars too, and perhaps other miscellaneous sources, but our local star dominates because it's so much closer. And extracting energy from the output of our sun is ultimately where we will end up going, we are already doing this to some extent with wind power, etc, which is also powered by the sun.

Originally posted by Aim64C
ALWAYS blame oil companies and governments - they are the true evil ones, here - trying to make it so that people still have to pay for gas and electricity. (Never mind that it would be better for them to have devices that could produce electricity with only a tiny fraction of the overhead - you're not speaking to a particularly bright crowd, it'll slip right past them).
I don't know about the oil companies, but you're right about governments and their militaries. I've noticed it's a department of the US Navy still doing cold fusion research. The aircraft carrier may be nuclear powered, but the other ships in the carrier group must have a heck of a big fuel bill when they fill up the tanks. I've even heard that military pilots don't get to fly all the hours they'd like to in real planes and sometimes use simulators to cut down on fuel and other operating costs.

Hell - you can, and some people do, lead people on for decades and take them for millions of cumulative dollars.
Some people are STILL waiting for the Keely motor. He bilked investors for \$5 million in 1872 (about \$110 million in today's dollars) and never delivered a real working motor. Wouldn't you think after a century people would get wise? Well many got wise by 1890 but there are still some people who will believe anything and think Keely was a genius instead of a charlatan.

My prediction is, in 2111, 100 years from now, people are still going to be talking about "free energy" motors like Keely promised in 1872, we still won't have any such thing, but gullible people will still believe it. We should have some nice improvements by 2111 though, like solar electric units we can put on our roofs that will yield far greater efficiency than today's units which are relatively inefficient and costly.

posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 11:29 PM

You're exactly right about a number of things. Lots of fraud and sleight of hand. Lots of folks who are trying to pass off short-term results without understanding what they really did - and then can't figure why it won't continue.

One thing different here in what I'm talking about.

We did our research with our own money. We have never sold stock or any other form of promise to anyone as we have no interest in sharing the results of any of our research.

Don't want anything from anyone. You can't buy what we have at any price.

And no, we're not giving away jack ****. It's ours, we bother no one, we are able to continue to expand our knowledge, and that's quite enough. Among our tiny group is a Ph.D in chemistry and physics, who happens to work in the largest, most well-funded research laboratory in the nation.

And his goal? A bit further on, to build his own lab so he can continue his own interests based on what we've found. He says he has to play the game in his profession, as if he let anyone know what he was really doing, they'd fire him and he'd be out of the profession.

Not that he's not doing his job there - it's just that his peers would not take kindly to him for even delving into these "impossible" technologies, but would be embarrassed and infuriated that we have been so successful in our efforts.

As long as we don't try to take anything public, we're left alone.

One other little thing I'll disagree with you on, and I think if you give it a minute - you'll agree with me. All cutting edge, major discoveries have in fact been made by tinkerers and mistakes.

Not long ago, all the physics world was attacking a gentleman for proposing amorphous semiconductors, as they loudly ridiculed him, his idea, and stated that amorphous semiconductors absolutely, positively violated the laws of physics.

So he shut up about it, and quietly made his deal. When amorphous semiconductors suddenly began showing up in household/commercial items - no apologies. No admitting that the entire damned scientific community was wrong, had made a mistake and then apologized.

No.

You couldn't find one single person who didn't suddenly say, "I knew it was possible all along."

Such is the current state of physics, and to tell you the truth, it's rather fun to watch them chase their own tails, caught in a box of their own construction.

And just grin with the knowledge that their smug grins of their faces could be wiped off at a whim.

And by the way. This isn't the only breakthrough technology currently being developed in the Philippines.

top topics

35