More Free Energy!!
Paul Calver of Ecowatts Holds Free Energy Device
Just days after posting Free Energy!, another free energy machine has been discovered. This time it is a water heater that is 150 - 200% efficient. Just plug it in and a “secret catalyst” adds energy to the flow of water. According to Ecowatts, the company promoting this wonder, a professor at the University of York has measured the output and determined that it was indeed producing more energy than was put into it. Please check out our previous post on Free Energy! and how to spot an energy hoax.
I’m afraid even professors at universities can be deceived or they can deceive themselves, remember Cold Fusion?
From The Mail:
The system - developed by scientists at a firm called Ecowatts in a nondescript laboratory on an industrial estate at Lancing, West Sussex - involves passing an electrical current through a mixture of water, potassium carbonate (otherwise known as potash) and a secret liquid catalyst, based on chrome.
This creates a reaction that releases an incredible amount of energy compared to that put in. If the reaction takes place in a unit surrounded by water, the liquid heats up, which could form the basis for a household heating system.
If the technology can be developed on a domestic scale, it means consumers will need much less energy for heating and hot water - creating smaller bills and fewer greenhouse gases.
Jim Lyons, of the University of York, independently evaluated the system. He said: ‘Let’s be honest, people are generally pretty sceptical about this kind of thing. Our team was happy to take on the evaluation, even if to prove it didn’t work.
‘But this is a very efficient replacement for the traditional immersion heater. We have examined this interesting technology and when we got the rig operating, we were getting 150 to 200 per cent more energy out than we put in, without trying too hard.
September 20th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
The professors who discovered cold fusion did not deceive themselves. Hundreds of scientists at national laboratories, universities and corporations worldwide replicated their work, and published roughly 500 positive, peer-reviewed papers in mainstream journals. I suggest you review this literature before commenting on cold fusion. See:
http://lenr-canr.org/
- Jed Rothwell
Librarian, LENR-CANR.org
September 20th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Jed-
I did check out your library, which has a lot of papers from the International Conference on Cold Fusion (?)
In 2004 the DOE published the “Report of the Review of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions”, a review of the literature since Fleishman and Pon’s debacle. They conclude
“While significant progress has been made in the sophistication of calorimeters since the review of this subject in 1989, the conclusions reached by the reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989 review.”
The 1989 review concluded that cold fusion was an illusion.
A quick review of your literature did show tiny amounts of energy eg: Aoki, T., Y. Kurata, and H. Ebihara. Study of Concentrations of Helium and Tritium in Electrolytic Cells with Excess Heat Generations - Their finding of excess energy was so tiny that it could due to equipment error. Also even if their discovery was really of excess energy the amount is so trivial that it could never be harnessed.
Thanks for the comment.
September 20th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
You wrote:
“I did check out your library, which has a lot of papers from the International Conference on Cold Fusion (?)”
Yes, the fulltext papers are mainly from conference proceedings. The indexes list ~500 positive replications from the peer-reviewed journals, but I cannot upload most of these papers because of copyright restrictions. You will find the peer-reviewed versions in a university library. The content is often similar.
(There are ~3000 papers in the indexes, plus ~500 books, newspaper articles, and so on.)
“In 2004 the DOE published the “Report of the Review of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions”, a review of the literature since Fleishman and Pon’s debacle.”
I would not call it a debacle, since hundreds of other researchers subsequently replicated. Or at least, they published peer-reviewed paper in major journals claiming they replicated. Perhaps they are all mistaken but that is unlikely.
You noted the DoE publication said:
“While significant progress has been made in the sophistication of calorimeters since the review of this subject in 1989, the conclusions reached by the reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989 review.”
That was the official DOE stance. The actual comments by the reviewers are more positive in my opinion. You can read them here:
http://lenr-canr.org/Collections/DoeReview.htm
“A quick review of your literature did show tiny amounts of energy eg: Aoki, T., Y. Kurata, and H. Ebihara. Study of Concentrations of Helium and Tritium in Electrolytic Cells with Excess Heat Generations - Their finding of excess energy was so tiny that it could due to equipment error.”
Some papers do show tiny amounts of energy but others show much higher power and energy; in some cases more than 100 W, and 50 to 300 MJ. The signal-to-noise ratio is often high. In some experiments, with gas loading or heat after death, there is no input energy. This reduces the possibility of equipment error. It is difficult to imagine how a calorimeter indicating several watts of output with no input could be malfunctioning. The experiments have been repeated hundreds of times with many different calorimeter types. The Storms book, Table 2, lists ~185 excess heat results, mostly from mainstream labs such as Los Alamos, U. Chicago, U. Osaka, China Lake, Tsinghua U., SRI and so on. (This table does not list the institution, but I am disconcerted to find that I can rattle off the names of most of the institutions from the author’s names.)
“Also even if their discovery was really of excess energy the amount is so trivial that it could never be harnessed.”
Many cathodes have produced as much power density as uranium fission reactor core rods do. In pressurized water cells, reflux boiling cells, and gas loaded cells, high temperatures have been achieved. Cathodes weighing between 1 g and 100 g have produced over 100 W, as I mentioned. At least seven cells have exploded violently, in some cases producing roughly 40 to 300 times more energy than all available chemical energy from all species in the cell. There is essentially no chemical fuel in most cells, so this is not as impressive as it sounds. On the other hand, one of these explosions drove a large shard of glass into the researcher’s neck, and deafened him for a few hours. (All of the cells that have exploded were open; that is, the D2 and O2 gas was exhausted, and sent through a gas flowmeter and mass spectrometer in the case I mentioned.) See:
http://lenr-canr.org/Experiments.htm#PhotosAccidents
There was also a recombiner failure that the caused a fatal chemical explosion, but that had nothing to do with anomalous energy.
- Jed Rothwell
Librarian, LENR-CANR.org
September 21st, 2007 at 12:50 am
Jed-
Your home page has a link to Infinite Energy, a Zero Point Energy site. I’m sure you believe what you post, but I stick by my previous conclusions.
It would be nice if somehow cold fusion or zero point energy worked and became a source of non polluting energy. If it does prove to work I will certainly admit I was wrong.
Cheers
John Barrie
September 21st, 2007 at 2:10 pm
You wrote:
“Your home page has a link to Infinite Energy, a Zero Point Energy site.”
When you reject cold fusion on this basis you commit a logical fallacy, “Guilt by Association.” See:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html
I point to this site because it sometimes covers cold fusion. I have no opinion about zero point energy claims, not having studied them.
“I’m sure you believe what you post, but I stick by my previous conclusions.”
It is not a question of what I believe. I present peer-reviewed, replicated, high sigma experimental evidence for the claim. Thousands of professional scientists have measured heat, tritium, and other nuclear effects, sometimes at levels millions of times above background. Unless you can show an error in the instruments or techniques, you do not have a valid reason doubt their conclusions. Replicated experiments are the only standard of truth in science. Opinion has nothing to do with it. No one can argue with thermocouples, gamma detectors or x-ray film when these instruments show effects far above background in hundreds of tests.
- Jed Rothwell
Librarian, LENR-CANR.org
September 21st, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Jed-
Thank you for the thoughtful comments.
It may be that there are some nuclear interactions (I don’t think the jury is in on calling it fusion) such as lithium tantalite + electric charge + hydrogen that merit further research.
I will keep an open mind on this area of research.
Cheers
John Barrie
June 7th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
There is no such thing as free energy unless unless it comes the forces nature . Any device claimed to produce more energy that it receives is simply a hoax, a scam or stupidity. The output energy will always be less than its input.
July 27th, 2008 at 8:58 am
There will never be a such thing as free energy because greedy rich people will always find a way to charge for it.
November 25th, 2008 at 8:26 am
does anyone ever do any real work that helps mankind
if we have cold fusion why is it not comonaly used
November 25th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Mike-
It looks like all of the mentions is Sustainable Design Update about free energy have over time proven to be false - as we expected. The cold fusion folks point to tiny amounts of energy under very complicated circumstances that can’t easily be accounted for.
No free lunch.
No free energy.
The laws of physics are still inviolate.
What we do attempt to document is the rapid pace of improvements in solar and wind technology. While there are some scammers in these areas too, there are some wonderful new technologies that will drive down the cost of solar and wind to make them competitive with coal.
May 8th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Who do UFO’s pay for their energy? Or is it free? Millions of people have seen vehicles doing things our A/C can’t do and they don’t even have a filling station.
Ben