Holcomb Energy Systems:Breakthrough technology to the world

[Feb2006]

There is no OU device, and never was,

"The Wrights have flown or they have not flown.
They possess a machine or they do not possess one.
They are in fact either fliers or liars.
It is difficult to fly.
It's easy to say, 'We have flown'."


Welcome to OverUnity.com
The International Open Source Free Energy Research Forum


Here we discuss the impossible, if you don't believe in the impossible, why are you here?


"Only those who attempt the absurd can achieve the impossible." Albert Einstein

[SolarLab]

 Novus,

Thanks for the info and link. Check out the "video" folder - there's one 2.6GB mp4 video
"presentation-for-web" where, amongst other things, Ellen discusses the certifications.

[CuriousChris]

OnePower said...
Thus the total energy is the heat of combustion stored in the mass and the heat generated by the work in falling 30 km.

Which begs the question... where did the supposedly extra energy come from?.

This analogy ignores the potential energy given to the gas in its capture and storage. Lighter than air gas requires energy input to keep it at ground level, while we do not specifically think of giving the gas energy by creating it and storing it at ground level, in fact we are doing so as a side effect of the production and storage of a lighter than air gas.

TrueSearch said...
@AC

I find your analysis and suggests interesting. . . .  To take it one small step further is that in your hypothetical example of using the "hydrogen gas" to lift a mass to 30 km is that at that altitude the gas SHOULD be fairly pressurized so perhaps releasing that pressure through a turbine as it is burnt would harvest even abit MORE energy. . .

For exactly the same reason as above, the pressure in the gas did not magically appear (it is actually less at altitude assuming some expansion of the container) the "extra" energy came from the process to capture and store the gas under pressure. The pumps used to move the gas into the storage container gave it the energy you are thinking of as free energy.


On to the hyperbolic claims of Holcomb:


I watched the claims of Holcomb of having a four to one no five to one (it changed mid sentence) energy in, to energy out. This does not make any sense.

For starters electrical steel is not an accident of nature, this material is the culmination of many years of research and design, you would think along the way some one would have noticed a COP of > than 1.

So assuming all these engineers and scientists are just dumb and missed this significant fact (or deliberately hid it) how does this claim stack up?

For starters domains are not neatly ordered in a 50/50 arrangement such that they neatly cancel out, No they are randomly ordered resulting in canceling of any magnetic moment. But lets assume a neat arrangement of domains 50% of domains pointing in the "wrong" direction, we input enough energy to rotate those domains 180' so they all align into one direction. That requires at a minimum 50% of the magnetic field strength as input. At its absolute best its a 2 to 1 ratio, not 4 or 5 to one as claimed.

The above ignores the energy lost while trying to re-orientate the domains they resist re-alignment so you actually need to put more energy in than you can get out. The result is actually less than a 2 to 1 ratio. The missing energy is lost as heat.


Now consider that most domains are ordered in a random fashion, only a small percentage are already aligned in the direction you want. Therefore the input energy needs to re-orientate much more than 50% of the domains, albeit some less than others, so on average it should be about 50% however you now have the added losses of trying to re-orientate not 50% of the domains but 80% - 90% of the domains, this adds to the overall efficiency losses.

The above shows that even assuming the best case scenario (where we ignore losses in the copper windings, the introduction of air gaps because no winding is perfect or even close to it, and probably a dozen more sources of loss I am not even aware of) it takes more than 50% of the energy input to magnetise the electrical steel in the required orientation. Even a 2 to 1 ratio is impossible.


But this is not the end of it. Sadly, otherwise we would still have overunity.

All electric motors are imperfect devices. The reason is, they all operate using shear forces. That is the fields need to pull or push sideways to move the stator (i.e give it torque). If you are not familiar with shear forces in magnets and you happen to have two identical magnets nearby, put them together with say a thin piece of cardboard between them (like a business card) this simulates the air gap between the stator and the rotor, now try to pull them apart, it requires a certain amount of energy to pull them apart. Now put them back together again and try to slide them sideways off each other. It requires far less energy. That is because you are "shearing" the magnetic fields.


This is the way all electric motors work, the force used to rotate the rotor is a shear force and it requires, or in the case of an electric motor, 'creates' a torque that is much smaller then the magnetic field strength. Thus the motor cannot by design create more than 50% output force than input energy.

But "Ah Ha" you say, well designed electric motors are around 90% efficient, therefore what you are saying above seems to say that is impossible. And we know its not!


Well perhaps those much maligned engineers and scientists did understand that the re-alignment of magnetic fields only requires around 50% of the energy input to gain 100% re-alignment and factoring in losses a well designed electric motor can get greater than 90% efficiency.

Just my 2c

Oh and in case you didn't know it, I am not anti overunity as per my other thread in the raising capital topic. I just think time and energy shouldn't be wasted on false claims.
   

[Beginners Mind]

In addition I found below link with access to various files from Holcomb

https://holcombenergysystems.com/wp-content/uploads/

Of particular interest maybe the 2 versions of the DNV Verification Statement which are filed under 2019/08 and 2020/08

@Novus - Thank you for this tremendous find!  The DNV Verification Statement (attached from your link) should be of extraordinary interest to everyone on this thread.  Patent application WO2021063522A1 references this DNV verification on page 65 and thus likely describes the generator configuration used in the DNV tests.  That configuration was stationary "rotor" / stator / stator / stationary "rotor."  Per recent HES posts their current generators consist of only two stators and run solely on AC.    I have not found their current configuration described in any patent searches.  If anyone has, please post.

[Jimboot]

Just my 2c

Oh and in case you didn't know it,
   

no and don't need to.