AOH :: FRENERGY.TXT|
Summary on Free Energy Technology
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Stefan Hartmann)
Subject: Free Energy Machine Technology News !
Date: Wed Jul 20 15:22:00 1994
Summary on Free Energy Technology
please email comments to:
for a review on current free enerrgy technology get all the files from:
phoenix.oulu.fi in pub/free_energy
Summary of recent Free Energy Congress in Denver:
> > [...]
> > One of the most interesting things was Bill Fogal's "Charged Barrier
> > Transistor" technology.
> Hmm, can you email me some more info please ?
> What is it ?
Someone else posted a copy of his paper, I think in sci.electronics. I
forget. I'll look and see if I can find it.
Basically, he takes a standard bipolar transistor, cuts open the case,
and glues a small capacitor element to the base. This is then kept
charged. The electric field affects the electron flow thru the transistor
to align the spins (via Hall effect). This causes a type of room temperature
superconduction. The result is much higher gain, much lower turn on
voltages, and almost complete elimination of noise.
> > Details of how to duplicate Floyd Sweet's device were given.
> Well, I have the videotape of Floyd's VTA.
> I have digitized a few scenes and put them via MPEG compression on an
> FTP site:
> phoenix.oulu.fi in /pub/free_energy
> There is also some more stuff there, especially from the Methernitha
Everyone is pissed, since that group isn't talking.
> > JRR Searl gave several rambling and somewhat incoherant presentations.
> I don't believe in him...
Exactly. He seems to be a publicity hound. And very little that he claims
> > >Was the Adams Magnet motor shown ?
> > Several variants and copies were present. None did anything special.
> > One researcher had done extensive research into Adams, and basically
> > came to the conclusion that it is nothing.
> Hmm, well, so nobody could show a selfrunning motor ?
Right. Many of them were very nice motors, but none of them are over 90%
efficiency. In a totally separate presentation, it was shown that
a device needs to be at least 300% in order to be self-running (due to
> > Stefan Marinov's S-field motor isn't going to work untill the B-field
> > is properly shielded.
> I see, so he was there ?
> Is it his "venetian Coli" motor or something like this ?
> He has so "dump" names for his machines, it is incredible ! :-)
Exactly. The current version is the "siberian colii". Might as well
be called eserechi coli.
> > John Hutchinson was there with samples of things affected by the "Hutchinson
> > Effect", including a block of aluminum with an imbedded piece of wood
> > (no sign of charing or heat of any kind on the wood, and seamlessly
> > surrounded by the metal),
> Hmm, yes, I also have a tape of this, were metal pieces and wood flies
> around in his lab, but you can't see, if it is not faked...
The samples are bizzare enough to conclude that whatever was done to them
is truely weird and worth more investigation.
> > a block of aluminum with an imbedded butter knife, several blasted apart
> > pieces of steel, brass, and copper rods and blocks. Very bizzare.
> Hmm, yes I know somebody from over here, Dr. Amon, who has made several
> investigations into this phenomen with real high tech equipment a few
> years ago and he came to the conclusion, that there is something special,
> but as Hutchinson was hard to contact, nothing happened from it..
Try again to contact him. He seems pretty personable, open and honest.
He's just somewhat shy... considering the shit he's been through, I
can understand why.
> Please let me know more.
> Thanks !
Other related email exchange
to answer your last questions...
> Did you hear anything lately about Meyer ?
> The latest news I heard about his technology is at least one and a half
> year old and he wanted to show a car in a race. Did he ever show it and
> can he prove the over unity effect ?
The only physical evidence I have seen came from a CBC/BBC documentary on
TV on cold fusion and they interviewed Meyer briefly and showed some
footage of his car. Providing their were no tricks or hidden fuel tanks,
it appears to work.
Did the Cold Fusion magazine publish anything about him
yet ? >
not yet, but I believe they will in a future issue. In a brief email from
Jed Rothwell (contributing editor for Cold fusion), he inferred that he had
spoken with him and finds him to be a sincere and dedicated individual.
> Yes Sonoluminescence is a very interesting phenomen.
> Is it possible to make a light source out of it, which needs very low
> power ? But probably first the effect which produces this light must be
> researched enough to understand the effect and to increase the output...
I don't know that the light would be a useful thing, but it is certainly a
fascinating and potentially insightful clue to some amazing new physics.
> > The other device I spoke of earlier (the plasma steam generator) while it
> > doesn't seem to ultrasonically agitate the water molecules, is interesting
> > since it turns the water into steam and then ionizes the hydrogen and
> > oxygen atoms and generates a plasma. Puthoff has speculated that this may
> How is this kind of plasma producing power then ? Are the ions seperated
> via magnets and charge some capacitor plates or how is it done ?
It is just producing excess heat, from which they can drive a
turbine/generator combo I believe. You might want to take a look at the
patent. It was granted in 1988. US patent no. 4,772,775
The inventor, Samual Leach, believes (I feel incorrectly) that additional
energy is arriving through "oxidation of the electrode material". I doubt
that very much. I have been talking with the Canadian company who have
recently acquired the Canadian rights to the device, but they don't know
much either, other than they were sufficiently convinced from evidence in
a video tape that they bought into the idea. They have promised to send
me additional info as it becomes available.
> > Interesting times, are they not?
> Right. Next big revolution in the technology age will be Free Energy now
> living in the information age... :)
I used to fear for the future of my children, but lately I have become
much more optimistic! Let's hope it happens soon and doesn't have too many
negative effects (I'm just glad I don't work for the hydro or oil companies).
to answer your last questions...
> When was this article published in which issue of Cold Fusion ?
this article appeared in the June 1994 issue (Vol. 1 No. 2) of "Cold Fusion"
You really should try to get a subscription to this magazine, at the very
least try to get your school library to subscribe. The address is:
Wayne Green Inc.
"COLD FUSION" Magazine
70 Route 202 North
Peterborough, NH 03458-9872
> Maybe the Methernitha device is using such a system to gain their high
> power output... I heard that there is some Corona discharge effects
> involved in this Wimhurst type device..
> Did you already get the MPEG movies to run from the FTP server in Finland:
> phoenix.oulu.fi in pub/free_energy ?
I took a look at one of them, but it took quite a while to transfer the
files. It looks fascinating if it is for real. Havew you ever seen a
Methernitha first hand? Do they really work?
Yes, they already work for a few years now. They are just building a 30 KW unit
with discs being about 2 meters in diameter !
I know a few people very well, who have seen it running and I will probably
try to visit them gain this August 94 ! I was there in 1989, but at this time
they only showed me their video tape of the machines..
> > The reason I am so intrigued about this is that Harold Puthoff, (renowned
> > ZPE/vacuum researcher) suggested many years ago that one potential method
> > for extracting usable energy from the vacuum might be to utilize a cold
> > charged plasma which could exhibit a "casimir pinch effect" as he put it
> > in one of his papers.
> Hmm , yes I heard of him. Did he put out some new facts about the device
> he is working on, or how did you come to this idea now ?
I haven't seen any of his recent works, although he published a paper in
Physical Review A in February that explained inertia and gravity as a
vacuum field effect. Apparently this paper has caused some
controversy...particularly since the the critics haven't been too
successful in finding major errors with it!
> Well, I am pretty busy now. Didn't you tell me about a new transistor
> effect, using some kind of room temperatur supra conduction ?
> What about this effect, do you have more infos on this one ?
that must have been someone else...I don't recall speaking to
anyone about super conduction.
One thing that has been interesting me is a very coincidental element that
is common to 3 strange phenomenon that I have been reading about lately.
These 3 apparently unrelated devices all exhibit different energy
anomolies, but they all use water and in all 3 cases the water is
ultrasonically agitated, although in different methods.
1. The ultrasonic pump - mechanically agitates water producing ultrasonic
pressure waves in the pump. This pump produces more heat than can be
explained with conventional physics.
2. Meyers pulsed DC electrolysis device - this device subjects the water
to an electrostatic field, again at ultrasonic frequencies in the kHz
range, and separates hydrogen and oxygen with an alleged over unity
efficiency, or at least greater than the 60% efficiency than could be
predicted by Faraday's law.
3. Sonoluminescence - the strange phenomenon whereby water in a sperical
container subjected to ultrasonic pressures will exhibit vacuum "bubbles"
levitated in the centre of the container. These "bubbles" emit light in
picosecond duration bursts. No universally accepted theory has been put
forth to explain this to date, although several have been suggested.
Julian Schwinger, nobelprize winner in 1965 for QED, has suggested a
"dynamic casimir effect" may be an explanation! (vacuum ZPE field
I really think these 3 things may be somehow linked to vacuum energy.
Follow this closely.
The other device I spoke of earlier (the plasma steam generator) while it
doesn't seem to ultrasonically agitate the water molecules, is interesting
since it turns the water into steam and then ionizes the hydrogen and
oxygen atoms and generates a plasma. Puthoff has speculated that this may
be one means of tapping the vacuum. I am trying to find more about this.
Rumour has it that it might be moving into commercial production.
Interesting times, are they not?
> January 10, 1994
> Report On Visit To Hydro Dynamics
> A Hydrosonic Pump, an excess energy device, was observed during three test
> runs. The first test was a control run to verify the calorimetry, which
> yielded a C.O.P. of 59% compared to apparent electric power, or 98% after
> adjusting for known electrical and mechanical inefficiencies. The second two
> tests both yielded massive amounts of excess heat at levels very easy to
> detect. Test 2 gave a C.O.P. of 110% compared to apparent electric power, or
> 168% adjusted; and Test 3 yielded 109% or 157% adjusted.
> On January 5 and 6, 1993, we visited Jim Griggs and his
> associates at:
> Hydro Dynamics Inc.
> 611 Grassdale Road, Suite B
> Cartersville, GA 30120-9001
> We witnessed a series of experiments with a Hydrosonic pump. This is a brief
> report of what we saw. I can provide additional information including the
> experiment log, and a video showing equipment close-ups and the first two test
> The Hydrosonic Pump is an excess energy device that physically resembles a
> pump in many ways. It appears to produce massive amounts of excess energy by
> creating bubbles in the water with ultrasound, in a process that may be
> similar to the Stringham  device. Whatever it is, I suspect it is related
> to light water cold fusion energy generation, and it does appear to produce
> massive amounts of heat energy reliably, on demand, for years on end, so it is
> well worth investigating. The device is described in detail in Hydro Dynamics
> sales literature and in a U.S. patent.  Griggs described his work at the
> Fourth International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF4). 
> I will not describe the Hydrosonic pump here in detail, but I would like to
> clear up one issue that has confused many correspondents. This device is
> called a "pump" for lack of a better word. It does not actually move the water
> very much; "pump" is something of a misnomer, "stirrer" would be more
> accurate. It is a kind of rotor with holes drilled around the circumference.
> When the rotor spins rapidly, these holes apparently create ultrasonic waves
> which in turn somehow cause the effect. Because the device is not actually a
> pump, a small auxiliary pump moves the water from a feedwater tank, through
> the pipes, into the Hydrosonic pump, and out through a steam pipe or separate
> steam and condensate pipes. The pump heats the water by the stirring action,
> but under some circumstances it also creates considerably more heat than a
> motor driving a stirrer would.
> This device is much larger than any conventional cold fusion device that I
> have ever witnessed, and far more practical. During one of demonstrations we
> watched yesterday, for example, over a 20 minute period, 4.80 KWH hours of
> electricity was input, and 19,050 BTUs of heat evolved, which equals 5.58 KWH,
> 117% of input. The actual input to output ratio was even better than this,
> when you take into account the inefficiencies of the electric motor.
> I have been to Hydro Dynamics on three previous occasions, and my friend was
> there once. We have been generally impressed, but there have been some
> inexplicable failures, and they made an embarrassing mistake with some
> untested improperly calibrated thermocouples. On November 22, 1992 however, I
> observed a very impressive demonstration.  In this experiment, a 55 gallon
> steel drum filled with 200 lbs of water was used to capture steam and
> condensate. Both the water in the tank and the feedwater going into the device
> start out at room temperature, so the final mass and Delta T temperature
> increase in the water in the steel drum can be used to estimate the lower
> limit of the enthalpy generated by the pump. This is a lower bound estimate
> because a large amount of heat is lost from the pump, pipes and steel drum by
> radiation during the course of the experimental runs, which last from 15
> minutes to an hour.
> The experiments we saw on January 6, 1993 were far more impressive than
> anything either of us previously witnessed.
> Test Procedures And Instrumentation
> Here is a brief description of the test procedures. For a better understanding
> of this test, I recommend that the reader consult the Hydro Dynamics
> literature, diagrams and patents. For a serious, in depth understanding, I
> recommend you watch the video carefully. (Please note: This document is
> intended primarily for e-mail transmission, so I cannot include a diagram.)
> As mentioned above, the Hydrosonic pump is a kind of rotor device. It is
> turned by an industrial three-phase AC electric motor. The motor turns the
> pump device at several thousand RPM, the pump heats up the water because of
> ordinary friction and because additional heat is generated by the mysterious
> process. In these tests, a 40 HP Lincoln brand motor was used to drive a 12
> inch Hydrosonic pump.
> Before the test run begins, a 55 gallon open steel drum weighing 30.5 lb empty
> is placed on a factory weight scale. It is filled with 350 lbs of tap water.
> Water is fed into the Hydrosonic pump from a 16 gallon feedwater tank. A large
> clear plastic bucket has been mounted on the top of the input feedwater tank.
> The bucket serves as a hopper. It is marked in two scales: tenth-gallons up to
> one gallon; and pounds, up to 8 lbs. (One U.S. gallon weighs 8.3 lbs.) Water
> is added in 8 pound increments from a marked plastic milk bottle. Care is
> taken to ensure that there are no air bubbles in the feedwater tank. The
> hopper makes it easy to record the flow and total water consumed. It is topped
> off to the 8 lb mark at the beginning of the test run, and the amount added
> during the run is recorded.
> Water from the feedwater tank is forced through the Hydrosonic pump by a small
> auxiliary pump. The flow rate is regulated and displayed with a flowmeter.
> The pump is turned on, the water is fed through it, and it rapidly grows hot.
> Within 5 or 10 minutes, all of the water fed into the pump is vaporized and
> forced out of an exhaust pipe, which is mounted about 1.5 meters above the
> floor. A large jet of steam escapes out of the pipe, sometimes billowing a
> meters or two across the room. The steam is quite hot and dangerous, if you
> were to hold your hand it for more than few seconds, you would be severely
> scalded. This machine is not anything like a laboratory test bench
> experimental unit; it is an industrial product designed for applications that
> require massive amounts of steam, like dry cleaning. The steam is dry; Griggs
> demonstrates a rough and ready factory floor technique to confirm this, which
> takes a lot of gumption: pass your hand through dry steam quickly, and you do
> not find droplets condensed on the skin. This is somewhat like passing your
> finger through the flame of a burning candle.
> After 10 or 15 minutes, the machine is warmed up and the flow rate and balance
> of water in the machine is stabilized. In these tests, output was regulated by
> manually opening and closing a valve on the exhaust pipe. After the machine is
> stabilized and preparations are complete, the test run begins:
> 1. A second valve at the end of the exhaust pipe is closed, which shuts off
> the steam jet for a moment. A second valve is opened, directing the steam into
> a large rubber hose. The end of the hose is firmly held at the bottom of the a
> steel drum filled with cold water. The steam swirls into the cold tap water
> and condenses, quickly raising the water temperature. The enthalpy from the
> escaping steam is captured by condensing the steam. This is a remarkably
> effective technique: virtually all of the steam condenses, capturing the
> thermal energy, and the steam jet pushes the water around with considerably
> force, which must capture most of the kinetic energy from the steam jet.
> 2. At the same moment the steam jet is redirected from air to the steel drum
> full of water, a power meter is reset, so that the total electric energy
> expended in by the electric motor driving the pump is recorded from that
> moment on. The power meter prints an instantaneous reading of kilowatts every
> minute; it prints a subtotal expended kilowatt hours of power any time during
> the test on demand; and at the end, it prints the total kilowatt hours used.
> 3. The water temperature in the steel drum and the instantaneous power levels
> are recorded manually every two minutes in a lab notebook. Temperature
> readings are taken at different depths and the water is stirred vigorously
> with a detached mop handle to ensure that the temperature readings are
> uniform. Because the steam is swirling into the bottom of the water, the
> bottom is
> 4. From time to time, 8 lbs of additional tap water is added to the hopper and
> recorded in the lab notebook.
> 5. After a set period, 30 minutes or 1 hour, the electric power driving the
> pump is cut off. A closing temperature reading is taken. At this point, Griggs
> is in the habit of venting the remaining steam into the barrel, which raises
> the temperature 4 or 5 degrees and adds about 3 pounds of water. I think this
> extra boost of energy should not be include in the totals, because I think it
> should be classified as "latent" or "stored" energy that was captured in the
> pump and pipes before the test began. Therefore, in this report, I have used
> the closing temperature readings taken just before venting the steam, and I
> use a low estimate of the mass of water.
> 6. The steel drum, which is sitting on the scale, is weighed. The total amount
> of water consumed, as measured in the hopper, is compared to the increase in
> the water in the steel drum. The numbers match closely, to within 2 or 3 lbs,
> proving that most of the steam is condensed and captured. If the steam is not
> vented in the last step, the final mass in the drum will probably be a few
> pounds less than the amount consumed, because some water will be lost to
> evaporation in the air from the surface of the water in the drum. If the steam
> is vented, the final mass in the drum might exceed the amount fed into the
> hopper by a few pounds. Where there was a measurable discrepancy, I took the
> lower figure. The BTU content of a 3 lb mass of water is negligible, in any
> case. For example, in Test 2, a 3 lb change in the mass of water would change
> the output energy computation by 0.8%.
> 7. Total output energy is computed in BTUs by multiplying the mass of water
> with the temperature increase in degrees Fahrenheit. Total input energy, as
> recorded by the power meter, is compared to total output energy.
> Power was monitored with a G.E. Dranetz model 808 Electric Power/Demand
> Analyzer, which was calibrated by G.E. on October 5, 1993. In previous tests,
> the Dranetz compared within a percent to a second power meter, a BMI 3030,
> which was installed in parallel. According to the Dranetz specifications, the
> maximum error at full load is 1.5%. Full load for this meter is 800 KW; power
> levels during these tests varied from 14 to 23 KW. At these lower levels,
> errors will be less than 0.5%. 
> Temperature was measured with 2 or 3 electronic thermometers which agreed to
> within 1 deg F, and one Taylor cooking thermometer, marked in 5 deg
> increments, which agreed with the electronic thermometers. A pyrometer is also
> used to measure water temperature and the surface temperature of the pump,
> electric motor, and pipes. The pyrometer agreed closely with the thermometers.
> The Micronta electronic thermometer began to malfunction towards the end,
> jumping from 60 deg to 90 deg down to 40 deg , probably because of a weak
> battery. This event proves yet again the wisdom of these experimental
> techniques and rules: use multiple instruments; use simple rough-and-ready
> backups to do "reality tests"; keep an eye on things at all times, and use
> common sense. Dennis Cravens  and I are both strong advocates and
> proselytizers of these principles, and Griggs personifies them.
> The weight scale was checked on November 16, 1993, by the Georgia Tech team.
> They brought iron weights which they had checked on an accurate scale at Tech,
> and they determined that the Hydro Dynamics scale is correct through the full
> range of its rated capacity, up to 1,000 lbs. On January 7, Mallove and I both
> checked the calibration of the scale by standing on it.
> Here are some important differences between this test and the mixed steam and
> water test I described in the November 22 report:
> This was a test of steam only, not water, or mixed water and steam.
> The plastic bucket hopper was added to the feedwater tank, and a new flowmeter
> was installed, allowing finer control with low flow rates. These improvements
> make it much easier to observe and record flow rates and total water consumed.
> The flow rate and total amount of water consumed in these tests is much
> smaller than with the hot water and mixed hot water and steam tests. This
> makes the experiment much easier. Because the flow is so much smaller, the
> steel drum can be filled with much more water to start with; 350 lbs versus
> 200 lbs in the previous experiments. 350 lbs is enough to condense virtually
> all of the steam, as long as the output hose is held down at the bottom of the
> drum. Another great advantage of this is that the water temperature does not
> rise much in a given period of time, so that heat losses are smaller, the
> temperature is easier to measure, and the steel drum is safer to be around,
> with less danger of scalding.
> January 6 Tests
> We witnessed three experimental runs on January 6, 1994, one in the morning
> and two that afternoon.
> Test 1. A 1 hour blank run generating little or no excess heat.
> Test 2. A 19 minute excess heat run.
> Test 3. A 30 minute excess heat run with flow rate, pressure and other
> parameters adjusted as closely to Test 2 as possible, which generated nearly
> the same amount of excess heat per minute.
> These tests showed that Griggs has considerable control over the reaction. He
> can start it and stop it on demand, even though he says he does not understand
> the deep underlying cause of the reaction.
> Some Considerations Regarding Input Power Computation
> There are two important factors which should be kept in mind when evaluating
> the input power in these experiments:
> 1. An electric motor works most efficiently at the peak ratings for which it
> was designed. When an electric motor runs at a much lower load than it was
> designed for, the difference between Apparent Power (volts times amps) and
> "True Power" becomes large. The ratio of True Power divided by Apparent power
> is known as the Power Factor (PF). This is described in many introductory
> texts on A.C. power.  The PF is computed automatically by the Dranetz power
> meter, and an average PF for the run is displayed.
> In these tests, a 40 HP motor was used to drive a relatively small, 12 inch
> rotor, so the PF was lower than other tests I have observed, varying from 73%
> up to 84%. A 30 HP motor would be more appropriate for this pump, it would
> have yielded a higher PF.
> 2. All electric motors suffer some degree of mechanical power loss. Conversion
> from electricity to rotary motion cannot be 100% efficient. The motor used in
> this test is rated at 82.5% nominal efficiency by the manufacturer. It is
> likely that the actually efficiency is somewhat less than this. Energy lost in
> the conversion appears in the form of waste heat. Motors of this size get very
> hot, and they are equipped with blowers too keep them from overheating.
> Tests 2 and 3 showed excess heat even when compared to the unadjusted Apparent
> Power. In Test 2, The Coefficient of Production (C.O.P.) was 117% measured
> against the Apparent Power. However, if we take into account the relatively
> low FP (caused by the inefficiency of this large motor driving the small
> pump), and the energy lost in conversion to mechanical, rotary motion, the
> C.O.P. was closer to 170%, that is, the input to output ratio was roughly
> 1:1.7. A great deal of other energy was not accounted for, in readily apparent
> losses like radiation from the pump, which is the size of a small automobile
> engine block, and which was over 300 deg F during the run. The 117% C.O.P. is
> the most conservative, lower bound estimate that would be reasonable. This
> fact was demonstrated by Test 1, the null run. In this test, the lower bound
> C.O.P., comparing to Apparent Power, was 59%. Adjusted for FP and mechanical
> losses, the C.O.P. was 98%, which is a close balance of input and output.
> The Performance Window
> Griggs explained that his machines have a window of performance, defined by a
> set of flow rates, pressure, speed of rotation, and so on. If you operate one
> of the machines below or above the window of that particular machine, it will
> produce little or no excess heat. He demonstrated this fact.
> The pump used in these experiments was a new, experimental design, optimized
> to create steam, rather than hot water. He had not finished working out the
> range of operating parameters for it. This particular machine, unfortunately,
> suffers from a rather narrow window of performance. It works best with a flow
> rate between 0.15 and 0.25 gallons per minute, and for reasons he has not yet
> determined, it requires a relatively high input pressure. It is much more
> difficult to adjust than some of his previous models, but it has a high C.O.P.
> and it produces pure steam without a mixture of unboiled water. He expects to
> fix the narrow window requiring the finicky adjustments with a new pump which
> will be ready in a few weeks.
> During the demonstrations, he had difficulty getting the machine to balance
> input water and output steam rates properly, and he had difficulty keeping the
> flow high enough. He demonstrated what happens when the flow is too low; the
> water in the narrow compartment around the spinning rotor suddenly drains off
> in what he calls "deloading," which is an explosive burst of steam after which
> the motor spins freely, drawing about 4 KW, the level you see when the pump is
> run without water. It is surprisingly difficult to fill up this particular
> experimental unit after this happens. You have to shut the output valve, fill
> it up, and gradually open the valve again. This pump was equipped with a thick
> glass porthole at the end of the outer bearing (the side away from the motor),
> allowing a view of the water sloshing around inside, which allows you to gage
> the water level in the pump. Getting the input and output flow to balance is a
> little bit like trying to adjust a hose so that it will fill a bucket with a
> hole in bottom up to a certain level, and no higher. However, once you get
> everything in balance, the machines tend to stay in balance for extended
> periods of time. An actual operating pump at a customer site is equipped with
> preset flow control and pressure control valves. Most operating pumps are
> bigger and they have wider "windows;" for example, an ideal flow might be
> between 5 and 7 gallons per minute, which is much easier to ensure than the
> 0.15 and 0.25 of this experimental unit.
> When the pump is too full, or some other "performance window" operating
> parameter is not right, the pump generates exactly as much heat as you would
> expect any other stirring device to generate, according to the classic
> experiments of J.P. Joule. When the correct flow and pressures are achieved,
> the effect turns on, and this fact is easy to observe. The flow rate of water
> going in remains constant, and the cloud of steam coming out remains the same,
> but the electric power draw drops dramatically, by 20% to 50%, say from 23 to
> 14 KW. The sound the machine makes also changes noticeably. Sometime the drop
> in power draw will fluctuate around, as the effect fades in and out, but it
> will soon stabilize and the machine will go on producing the same amount of
> steam as it did before, with far less electricity than it used previously, for
> hours or days.
> When the machine is not producing any excess heat, the power draw kilowatt
> numbers on the Dranetz are proportional to the flow, increasing as the input
> flow valve is opened, decreasing as it is shut, just as you would expect. When
> the excess heat effect turns on, input power no longer changes as much in
> response to flow adjustments.
> TEST 1 January 6, 1994 11:30 a.m.
> When we arrived, Griggs explained to me that he was having trouble boosting
> the flow rate and maintaining pressure on the unit, so he was not getting a
> measurable effect. However, he had managed to balance input and output, and to
> bring the machine into a steady state, so we decided to let it run for an hour
> producing little or no excess heat, as a control or "blank" test run of the
> calorimetry. The flow rate was below the window, at 0.05 gallons per minute.
> Results were as follows:
> Starting mass and temperature of water in steel drum: 350 lbs, 55 deg F.
> Water in input hopper also 55 deg F.
> Ending mass and temperature in steel drum: 376 lbs, 127 deg F
> Water temperature Delta T: 72 deg F
> Energy added to water: 72 deg F x 376 lbs = 27,072 BTUs, which equals 7.93 KWH
> It is important to remember that all of the water that ended up in the steel
> drum was tap water starting at 55 deg F. Ambient temperature was slightly
> higher, at 63 deg F, but this large mass of water could would not absorbed any
> significant amount of heat from ambient in spite of the 8 deg F difference,
> because it was heated above ambient by the pump 6 minutes into the test.
> Dranetz input power: 13.46 KWH
> Dranetz PF: 73%
> C.O.P. computations (C.O.P. is output energy divided by input expressed as a
> percentage) --
> Input KWH C.O.P.
> Apparent 13.46 59%
> Adjusted for PF 9.83 81%
> Adjusted for PF and Motor efficiency 8.12 98%
> Conclusion: This is close to a balance of input and output. Because there must
> have been significant radiant losses, with no excess heat I expect the C.O.P.
> would be lower than 98%, so these results might indicate a small effect.
> TEST 2 January 6, 1994 3:00 p.m.
> In the afternoon, after the machine turned on and warmed up for 5 or 10
> minutes, Griggs and the others tinkered with the input and output flow valves
> and some other parameters, and after about 20 minutes in all, they announce
> that the flow was steady at 0.20 gallons per minute, and the power draw
> kilowatts had fallen, so the effect was turned on. The valve venting the steam
> outside was shut, the valve leading into the steel drum was opened, and we
> collected the steam for 19 minutes, 40 seconds. The run was terminated when a
> circuit breaker in another part of the building shut down the controls. The
> main power feed did not fail, but it is held on by solenoid actuators, which
> opened up. The recording Dranetz meter has a battery back up, so no data was
> lost. All other data collection is by stopwatch and pen on paper. (Events like
> this remind us that sometimes, the old, simple ways of doing science are
> Results were as follows:
> Starting mass and temperature of water in steel drum: 350 lbs, 53 deg F.
> Ending mass and temperature in steel drum: 381 lbs, 103 deg F
> Water temperature Delta T: 50 deg F
> Energy added to water: 50 deg F x 381 lbs = 19,050 BTUs, which equals 5.58 KWH
> Dranetz input power: 4.80 KWH
> Dranetz PF: 84%
> C.O.P. computations --
> Input KWH C.O.P.
> Apparent 4.80 117%
> Adjusted for PF 4.03 138%
> Adjusted for PF and Motor efficiency 3.33 168%
> Conclusion: excess heat was detected at levels far beyond any reasonable error
> limits for the instrumentation used. If the equipment had been performing the
> same as it did in Test 1, the final water temperature would have been closer
> to 80 deg F than 103 deg F. This is computed as follows: 4.80 KWH Apparent is
> delivered to motor, adjusted for PF and efficiency, would have created 3.33
> KWH of heat, which equals 11,372 BTUs, which would have raised the 381 lb mass
> of water by 30 deg F, but it went up 50 deg F, instead. I am certain that even
> my kitchen cooking thermometer can detect the difference between 80 deg F and
> 103 deg F.
> This test ran for one-third the time of Test 1. The flow rate was 0.20 gallons
> per minute, compared to 0.05 g.p.m. in Test 1. The improved PF was because the
> motor was carrying a greater load with the greater flow rate.
> To look at it another way: the rate of energy generation was 10.00 KW input to
> the pump, 16.74 KW out; the excess was 6.74 KW, or 0.4 MJ per minute.
> TEST 3 4:04 p.m.
> Test 3 ran normally for 30 minutes.
> Results were as follows:
> Starting mass and temperature of water in steel drum: 350 lbs, 53 deg F.
> Ending mass and temperature in steel drum: 392 lbs, 122 deg F
> Water temperature Delta T: 69 deg F
> Energy added to water: 69 deg F x 392 lbs = 27048 BTUs, which equals 7.92 KWH
> Dranetz input power: 7.26 KWH
> Dranetz PF: 84%
> C.O.P. computations --
> Input KWH C.O.P.
> Apparent 7.26 109%
> Adjusted for PF 6.10 130%
> Adjusted for PF and Motor efficiency 5.03 157%
> Conclusion: nearly as much heat as Test 2. Again, the results are far above
> any possible experimental error.
> 1. R. Stringham, "Cavitation Induced Micro-Fusion," ICCF4 paper C 3.9
> 2. J. Griggs, U.S. Patent Number 5,188,090, Feb 23, 1993, Apparatus for
> heating fluids
> 3. J. Griggs, "A Brief Introduction to the Hydrosonic Pump and the Associated
> 'Excess Energy' Phenomenon," ICCF4 unnumbered paper. This will appear in the
> full ICCF4 Proceedings, and it is available in from Hydrodynamics
> 4. J. Rothwell, "Brief Report on November 22 Demonstration of Griggs Device,"
> 5. General Electric Corp, Dranetz Series 808 operator manual equipment
> 6. D. Cravens, "Factors Affecting the Success Rate of Heat Generation in CF
> Cells," ICCF4 paper C 3.12
> 7. V. Valkenburgh, "Basic Electricity, Revised Edition," Hayden Books
Griggs is now installing new test equipment including a dynamometer. He
is working with the retired head of Mechanical Engineering at Georgia
Tech (second only to M.I.T. in the U.S.). They hope to finish in month
or two. I hope these tests will be considered definative proof.
The following article appears in the June 1994 monthly technical
edition of Superconductivity News (Vol. 6, No. 42).
William Jay Fogal, president of Quick Chek Industries (Martinez, GA)
has invented and patented an electronic device for which he has made
very broad claims. Others learning about the device have further
extrapolated the claims to the point that if real, the device means
the end of power utilities, the rendering useless of the entire
electrical power grid, the demise of manufacturers of electrical
generators and electrical cable, and a dramatic reduction in the
activities of hundreds of thousands of ancillary service providers.
Most industries will have to change or die. The infrastructure
alterations will be the most profound the world has ever witnessed.
While the odds are stacked against it being real, the staff of
Superconductivity News (SN) believes it is important to report the
events as they occur.
Fogal is not claiming he has invented a room temperature
superconductor. What he has invented is either completely fatuous or
it is astounding in that it strikes at the very core theoretical
underpinnings of electromechanics. Fogal told SN that his device grew
out of his efforts to fix a broken car radio in the mid 1970s. As he
got past the wiring and the circuits and into the semiconductors
actually running the radio, he made changes that greatly improved the
audio quality. He then let his ideas lay idle for more than a decade
before finally returning to the research in the late 1980s.
Fogal says his charged barrier semiconductor device allows electrons
to flow without resistance (i.e., as in superconductors) at room
temperature. He claims the device demonstrates a very high AC voltage
and AC current gain. His charged barrier device is on a bipolar
design that can be incorporated in (MOS) metal oxide semiconductor
designs, as well as multiple gate devices. It operates on a hall
effect electromagnetic field internal device. The hall effect
magnetic field forces electron flow and angular spin of the electrons
in the same direction to the top of the conduction bands in the
crystal lattice on semiconductor devices, unlike (SOI) silicon on
insulator devices that force electron flow to the surface of the
semiconductor lattice. "Unlike superconductors which generate an
external field, my semiconductor creates a self-regulating magnetic
field internal to the device," Fogal said.
-- Fogal's Description of His Device --
Charged barrier semiconductor devices incorporate a base plate member
of a semiconductor crystal. Also incorporated with the base plate
member is a dialectic material and a second base plate member. The
combination of the two base plate members constitutes an electrolytic
capacitor. The first base plate member will create a transverse
electric field that is known as a hall effect in the base plate member
of the semiconductor crystal. The ratio of the transverse electric
field strength to the product of the current and the magnetic field
strength is called the hall coefficient, and its magnitude is
inversely proportional to the carrier concentration on the base plate
member. The product of the hall coefficient and the conductivity is
proportional to the mobility of the carriers when one type of carrier
is dominant. Since the base plate member is tied directly to the
emitter junction of the semiconductor, the hall coefficient comes into
play with the creation of a one pole electromagnet in the base plate
The hall effect of the electrolytic capacitor, in relation to the
position on the crystal lattice, will force electron angular spin in
the same direction and electron flow to the top of the conduction
bands in the lattice. The magnetic flux and the density of the
carriers on the electrolytic capacitor plate are in direct proportion
to the magnetic flux and carrier concentration on the emitter junction
on the semiconductor crystal.
Since the angular spin and the flow of the electrons are in the same
direction, due to the influence of the electromagnetic field, the
electron lattice interaction factor does not come into play. The
electron wave density is greater and the mobility of the electron flow
is faster. The device does not exhibit frequency loss in the wave.
The base or gate of the semiconductor is more sensitive to input
signal. These devices will typically turn on with an input to the
junction in the area of 0.2 MV to 0.4 MV with an output at the
collector junction of 450 MV at 133.5 UA of current.
-- Electron Wave Function In Charged Barrier Technology --
Think of the conduction bands in a crystal lattice as a highway.
Electrons in the free state will move along this highway. The only
difference is the electron angular spin can be in different
directions. With the electrons spinning in different directions, the
electrons would travel on different lanes of the highway and
collisions can occur. The scattering and the collision of the
electrons can cause friction and resistance to the flow. The
resistance to the flow and the friction can cause semiconductors to
In semiconductor devices, this is called lattice scattering or
electron lattice interaction. If we could make the electrons move in
one direction, and also spin in the same direction, then we could have
more traffic electrons (on the highway) without having the resistance
or the collisions. We could put a barrier between the lanes on the
highway. But, the electrons could still spin in different directions.
But, what if we could charge this barrier?! Turn this barrier into an
electromagnetic field! An electromagnetic field in one direction. A
one pole electromagnet! A hall effect magnetic field. This one pole
electromagnetic field would make almost all of the electrons spin in
the same direction. Because the electrons are a negative charge and
the electromagnetic field has a negative charge, the electrons travel
in unison and then we could have more electrons on the highway, and
the electron travel could be faster.
The orientation of the spin of the electrons in the crystal lattice,
due to the electromagnetic field, has a direct impact on the formation
of the wave. If the orientation of the spin of the electrons are in
unison, there will be no loss in the wave nature, and the density of
the wave will be greater, and the frequency of the wave will be
complete. If the spin of the electrons in the lattice are in
different directions, the wave nature will be affected and there will
be a loss in the density of the wave. And, there will be a gap in the
frequency of the wave.
-- Patent Issued --
Fogal filed an application for a US patent covering the design on
March 1, 1991 and awarded No. 5,196,809, titled "High gain, low
distortion, faster switching transistor," on March 23, 1993. The
patent includes figures, diagrams, and several data plots, e.g. output
signal vs. input signal (vac) for the Fogal device vs. a standard
transistor. The patent was Fogal's first, but he has since
received a second patent, No. 5,311,139, covering a fuse testing
device that has nothing to do with the semiconductor. Another US
patent application covering improvements to the semiconductor was
filed in January of this year. The patent abstract and claim 1
-- Patent Abstract --
A transistor in which the emitter terminal is coupled to ground
through a filter capacitor. The filter capacitor has a capacitance of
from about 0.2 uf to about 22 uf and can be connected either by itself
or in parallel with a resistor, depending upon the circuit in which it
is used. The incorporation of a filter greatly of such a capacitance
level provides greatly improved gain and less distortion of the input
signal, to permit a high output to be achieved in fewer amplifier
stages and with less current draw and heating than in conventional
transistor amplifier stage circuits. Additionally, the transistor can
be provided in a unitary structure by incorporating the filter
capacitor directly on the transistor chip, and can also be provided by
incorporating the transistor and a resistor within the casing of a
a) a substrate;
b) one of a NPN and a PNP transistor integrally formed on the
substrate, the transistor having a base, a collector, and an
c) a parallel resistor and filter capacitor network coupled with
the emitter and mounted on the transistor, to form an integral
part of the integrated circuit, the filter capacitor including
an outer casing; and
d) base, collector, and emitter terminals on the substrate and
coupled with the base, the collector, and the emitter,
respectively, to permit the integrated circuit to be connected
with an electronic circuit, wherein the integrated circuit is
contained within the filter capacitor outer casing.
-- Prototypes Fabricated --
Fogal told SN that he has made six prototypes of his device.
Prototype radios and computer modems have been fabricated employing
the device for demonstration purposes. Fogal emphasizes the noise
reduction aspects of his semiconductor.
Through the help of a colleague, Allan Ames of Advanced Scientific
Applications (Houston, TX), one of Fogal's semiconductors will be
tested by scientists at the Texas Center for Superconductivity at the
University of Houston. This is being arranged through Wei-Kan Chu.
SN discussed the situation with Chu and he confirmed that testing will
be done after the documents he had received were reviewed. SN's
editor-in-chief reviewed what the device might mean with Chu. Clearly
Chu had not had the opportunity to give the matter much thought.
Thomas E. Bearden (Huntsville, AL) believes Fogal's semiconductor
represents a true overunity electrical device. "Electromagnetics is
over 100 years old; many of its assumptions are flat wrong," Bearden
told us. He relates the way the Fogal semiconductor works to the way
heat pumps function, but says it takes it one step beyond. A Fogal
semiconductor simply stops electrons from flowing and passes the pure
potential energy from the now-free electrons with the circuit blocking
the drift current. Unlike superconductors, pairs of electrons are not
needed to pass the current along without resistance.
Bearden added that, based on endurance load tests on the Fogal
semiconductor, they are led to the firm conclusion that the chip
actually stops the longitudinal flow of electrons, strips them of
their energy, and passes the pure energy along without resistance. In
this regard he says it behaves like a heat pump but goes one step
beyond to pull energy from the vacuum.
-- SN Analysis and Comment --
It is important to note that the device does not violate the rules of
thermodynamics involving the conservation of energy. It does not make
energy from nothing. One end of a Fogal circuit would provide
electricity for work such as running a light bulb or a computer, and
the other end will draw energy from the environment and get quite cold
in the process.
The best aspect of this story is that either a Fogal semiconductor
works or it doesn't. There is nothing sophisticated in its
construction and there are no mysterious materials fabrication steps
involved. There should not be any gray or cloudy areas. Testing
should be straightforward.
Q: What are the odds of its being real?
A: If it is real, you will hear more about it soon enough. If it
isn't, think how much fun you have had reading this article.
Q: Are there any intrinsic limitations if the device is real?
A: None we can foresee.
Okay folks, this is the latest news about free energy machine development.
If you know of somebody else having something that runs on by converting
zero point energy, please let me know.
Regards, Dipl. Ing. Stefan Hartmann.
c/o Workshop for Decentral Energy Research, Berlin, Germany.
The entire AOH site is optimized to look best in Firefox® 3 on a widescreen monitor (1440x900 or better).
Site design & layout copyright © 1986- AOH
We do not send spam. If you have received spam bearing an artofhacking.com email address, please forward it with full headers to email@example.com.