http://www.scribd.com/doc/16893258/German-Scientist-Posts-Complete-Free-Energy-Documentation-Online (http://www.scribd.com/doc/16893258/German-Scientist-Posts-Complete-Free-Energy-Documentation-Online)
Too bad you cant download it anymore!
I dunno about his "complete" works", but he seems to leave nothing out at his site. Included is Dr. Turtur's latest Paper, which proves the existence of Zero Point Energy, by rotating a small motor, simply consisting of a vaned rotor, in a vacuum.
His site (in German and English):
http://public.rz.fh-wolfenbuettel.de/~turtur/physik/
PDF of his latest Paper here:
http://www.wbabin.net/physics/turtur1e.pdf
I tried this the other day, as its a pretty simple set up for anyone who's been playing with lifters or electrostatic motors. It seemed to work after a little bit of tinkering, but it does spin very slowly. I'll have to get my camera and make a video in the next few days. I'm certain there will be ion wind claims as well as some other explanations....Professor Turtur makes several points in his papers making ion wind a doubtful mechanism.
Whats the general opinion here?
Wheres Tinsel Koala? I had a chat with him about Naudins poynting thruster a while back, and i wondered what he thought about this.
Quote
PDF of his latest Paper here:
I keep getting a damaged file message.
Hmm... Looks OK to me. Try installing the latest "Acrobat Reader".
http://get.adobe.com/reader/
Just sign up and download it..
Worked for me.
Acrobat Reader is an energy hog. Go here for Foxit Reader:
http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/reader/
My older version 2.2 works fine and opens everything much faster than AR.
Tishatang
Quote from: pcjunkie on July 06, 2009, 01:37:08 AM
Just sign up and download it..
Worked for me.
please attach the file here in this thread so we can all see it.
thanks :)
here it is for all that once it direct down load
http://dc19.4shared.com/download/116401905/30726b84/FoxitReader30_enu_Setup.exe
God Bless
wer
QuoteHmm... Looks OK to me. Try installing the latest "Acrobat Reader".
That did it. I only do auto updates with my virus programs.
If it aint broke I dont fix it!
Im going to try out tishatangs program. I like lean and mean.
Nice find, thanks.
The PDFs open fine epdfview in Linux.
Quote from: FreeEnergy on July 06, 2009, 06:14:03 PM
please attach the file here in this thread so we can all see it.
thanks :)
File size is too big. 1.1mb
If the PDF will not open try using Foxit reader. its way faster than fluffy bloatware Adobe Acrobat.
Flathunter,
Please do post videos/pictures of your set up.
How much power (wattage/volts/amps) are you applying to the field source disc? How much mechanical energy do you get out in comparison?
It appears to me that the device at the presented scale requires an electrical high voltage charge of up to 30 kV but with current as little as 100-130 femtoamps (I = 10 ^ -15). ZPE is achieved by many orders of a magnitude; one configuration offered nearly 52x greater mechanical output wattage compared to input power and losses tested in an ultra-high vacuum environment.
This seemingly simple device should therefore sustain itself easily using space vacuum energy and power a small alternator that'll provide the field source disc with high voltage at low current. While this may seem like overunity, it can be compared to running a toy gas-powered RC car on a tank full of gas the size and volume of the ocean.
Lots of equations and theory but check out pages 66-67 for general test result summary and graph. These papers are pure gold for sure.
Not much life in this thread for a technology that can seemingly save mankind's energy future with virtual none of the problems associated with current alternatives.
I'm convinced that ionization of air molecules are not the main driving source of energy for this device. For one, Mr. Turtur's tests with elongated rotor blades to discover any effect of recoil winds. Next, the simple fact that Mr. Turtur observed a huge median net energy gain--my calculations: 150nW/2.97nW = ~50.5x--when tested in high-partial vacuum conditions but observed a net energy loss when the device was tested in an open air room (first sentence of the first paragraph on page 59). The energy required to ionize gas molecules and create a channel for current to pass from the field source disc to the rotor blade is greater than the mechanical output, yet clearly the opposite is proven in a vacuum chamber, even when considering the additional friction caused by the self-adjusting rotor platform spinning in vicious vacuum oil.
Of course the energy density is very poor and the rotor rotation is within the realm of a few revolutions per hour (gearing ratios can fix that if desired) but who cares? The presented device is an outrageously simple prototype. Even in its current unoptimized form, up to 3 Megawatts of power can be realised from a stack of lightweight rotors measuring approx. 328 feet in diameter and 65 feet high. Although I suppose the initial energy and material costs to create a large, vacuum sealed room (under high vacuum pressure) to house this motor/generator will be significant. Nevertheless, 24/7/365 of free power production will surely pay off the initial costs in the end.
Anyway I shall replicate this and perhaps later build a unit within the 3-5 KW range to power my many obsolete computer systems. ;D
What do you think about this one?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16346474/A-Working-Radiant-Free-Energy-System
Looks interesting and similar to an improved Bedini battery energizer. The circuits look straight forward to replicate. Has it been done? Details and theory on how it works seem rather lacking in the short 7 page document. Maybe create a separate thread dedicated to this battery charging device.
I imagine the electrostatic vacuum energy generator mentioned in this thread can be adapted to charge batteries too. Since the energy density of the device in it's current prototype form is too small to scale within the dimensions of a typical car engine compartment, stationary units can be very useful in the future to charge EVs with advanced lithium air or zinc air batteries and anything else for that matter.
I might also add... as great a quantum zero-point vacuum-energy is, I don't see any reason why it should completely displace conventional wind, geothermal, hydro, and solar energy. Use all free energy solutions in conjunction because we can.
So now that the energy future is theoretically secure the next logical problem is how do we rid our demand for oil for the production of things like plastic, waxes, harsh chemicals and pesticides, etc.
Here's a partial list of items derived from petroleum (oil):
http://www.mainebrook.com/opac/info/kb/Products_Made_From_Petroleum.php
This is obviously outside the scope of this thread and so I won't carry on with it but its worth contemplating.
Quote from: Xaero_Vincent on July 10, 2009, 12:02:52 AM
Looks interesting and similar to an improved Bedini battery energizer. The circuits look straight forward to replicate. Has it been done? Details and theory on how it works seem rather lacking in the short 7 page document. Maybe create a separate thread dedicated to this battery charging device.
Hi,
The circuit has been introduced and discussed here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=1868.0
rgds, Gyula
Thanks,
So has anyone achieved OU with the Ossie Callanan's device?
The design of Professor Turtur's vacuum energy rotor is much simpler. I'm currently designing a self-adjusting mechanism for the rotors enclosed in a ultra-high vacuum without the use of a hydrostatic bearing in oil or water.
The next issue is figuring out a way to connect an ultra-efficient generator to a rotor and shaft that can self-adjust (move).
I'll post an image of my design when its complete.
Hi Xaero_Vincent.. I´m reading your posts and I see you understand a lot about this issue.
I think the topics about overunity and new energy source very interesting but I absolutely don´t understand.. we have a lot of news here about new and amazing projects but almost that I see fall on the shadows and forgot. I almost don´t understand about Physics but the idea concepts looks so promising.. why its simple disappear ?? Anybody have idea ? ???
See ya
Hi spyblue,
I've noticed how topics tend to fade away too. For example, Ossie Callanan's radiant energy thread hasn't had a post in over a year and a half. This thread isn't very popular either.
The vacuum energy rotor isn't an overunity device in theory because it captures and converts the energy within the Universe to mechanical energy of a rotor. Its no different than any other machine converting one form of energy to another. The principle difference is the sheer amount of this free energy fluctuating in the Universe. Up to 65% of the Universe is comprised of dark/vacuum energy and the calculated diameter of the observable Universe is about 93 billion light-years. Its one very large "gas tank" to be quite sure.
So I've been browsing the web for more details on vacuum energy and there appears to be some scepticism over this device.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/browse_thread/thread/ffe0c3cca0b22e0a
Its concluded that vacuum energy cannot be harnessed by conventional means yet you can clearly witness it from the Casimir effect with two parallel metal plates in nanoscale proximity producing a measurable attractive force.
My theory: This experiment works on the same principle as the Casimir effect except that the plate (field-source) is electrically charged and creates a classical electrostatic field. This appears to amplify the Casimir force by adjusting the wavelength of the vacuum energy oscillations from space, therefore permitting larger distances between the "plates" and a more powerful attractive force. Replacing one plate with a rotor distorts the force in such a way that causes clockwise rotation in addition to lateral attraction.
Professor Turtur observed this attractive force in air and in hard vacuum when the rotors were lifted slightly from the hydrostatic bearing whenever voltage is applied.
Gas ionization creates an electric current that wastes power but in some cases (not all) causes rotation of the rotor. However there is a fine line in which gas ionization occurs and creates a current channel. Lightning is an example of ionization of air molecules and the visible light is plasma. These arcs of lightning were visible in Mr. Turtur's experiment as well as measurable current. The fact that he got the rotor to spin in a vacuum with a voltage well below the breakthrough of the remaining gas molecules in the vacuum (thus no lightning discharges nor measurable current across the plates via the ampere meter and minuscule power loss) proves that the energy can't be from the recoil of ionized gas, especially since the measured rotational speed is the same as when tested in air.
Lastly, the output energy of the rotor is more than 50x greater than the energy lost in a vacuum without gas ionization. However, the onset of ionizations wastes much more power than outputted because the current is discharged to the rotor as an arc and with it recoil winds.
So with all these results taken in account its definitely conclusive that the vacuum energy rotor amplifies the Casimir effect and converts attractive forces into rotation. The only way this would be false is if the the publications were fake. This is highly unlikely due to the comprehensiveness of the work and experimental procedures. A PhD University science professor and his colleague (Dr.Wolfram Knapp) put their reputation on the line just revealing their work to the public for scrutiny; why would they risk career suicide, shame, and creditability with fake publications?
Anyway, here is a video that I found interesting that dives into more details pertaining to vacuum energy:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5738531568036565057
Note: This video was produced long before Mr. Turtur's publications pertaining to vacuum energy.
I added an additional paragraph to the Zero-point energy article on Wikipedia describing the work of Dr. Turtur.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZPE
This is what I wrote:
A German scientist has claimed to of successfully harnessed a small part of the zero-point electromagnetic vacuum fluctuations from space to mechanically propel a rotor, surmounting bearing friction. QED theory as well as successful experiments (tested in high-partial vacuum conditions inside a vacuum chamber to exclude ion wind thrusting) are mentioned in many publications. The operating principle of the device can be partially explained by the Casimir force in connection to the scientist's theory that zero-point fluctuations from space can be influenced by electric and magnetic fields in the same manner normal electromagnetic waves can. According to the publications a high-voltage electrostatic potential placed on a conducting metal plate produces an electric field that can influence the zero-point electromagnetic fluctuations in-between the plate and an electrically grounded rotating plate/rotor, therefore reducing the outward pushing force as seen in the Casimir experiment. As a result, the attractive Coulomb force is enhanced by vacuum fluctuation pressure pulling inward from the exterior of the plate and vaned rotor. The 45 degree orientation of the rotor blades converts part of this attractive force into clock-wise rotation. The influence of electromagnetic and other wave propagation can be described by the Kerr effect on the basis of an altered refractive index of the space in-between the plate and rotor. However, aside from local German physicists and colleagues in personal connection with the scientist, broad verification of the claims from the scientific community has yet to occur.
Ah I see it didn't take long for someone to delete my article commit LOL. It breaks the tradition of blatantly claiming that all alternative theories (even with conclusive scientific evidence) are fake if they conclude free energy extraction may be possible.
I'll probably end up creating a dedicated article after I've done further experimentation on the vacuum energy rotor. An article in which I'll actively defend from misrepresentation of editors.
Anybody find any videos of this yet? Replication ought to be easy enough- he said he got it to spin a revolution using a statically charged balloon...
Hi Xaero!
Thanks for taking an interest. Sorry for not replying, but I kind of forgot about this thread since the Kapanadze/Don Smith thread got going, as it gave me an excuse to get playing with my tesla coil and its been a lot of fun! My set up wasnt oriented towards ''results'', other than trying to see if the rotor turned or not. I dont have a vacuum chamber, and I was using more volts (I tried between 15 and 30 KV), and a smaller rotor. My rotor was balanced on polysytrene chunks, just like the professors. The blades (3) are about 6cm long. The rotor turned (and adjusted its poistion to the centre of the electrode) , and in the same direction professor turturs did, but very slowly. Because of the set up, its impossible to say that i confirmed his results, but it did convince me that the prof is right, anyhow (about motion). But I dont think my one was providing more energy in turning than I was putting in the electrode. In fact, i'm certain it wasnt! But my set up was very very basic. Easy for anyone to try themselves.
I'm glad someone else has taken an interest. i wish you the best of luck with all your experiments. I really hope you're right and there is a way to get this turning faster than the current required to hold a charge on the electrode. If he can get a turn out of a baloon, it bodes well. surely there are better electrets around!
Anyone else trying this?
Nothing practical to be gained from this its a total waste of time.
If you want to do something useful then get a 3 phase motor 3 to 10 HP from the scrap yard which normally draws about 7 amps and convert to Rotoverter. This off the shelf motor is already professionally made and can do much more then making paper boats!
In RV mode requiring simple wiring change and 2 caps will spin on just 20 watts! Now take off the fan and clean and oil the bearings and it will run perfect on 5- 12 watts. That's a massive iron motor very heavy running on just a few milliamps. Now you have something which is useful) Its a partial OU device because this super performance in resonance mode is drawing in free ambient electrons through magnetic ELF induction. This is public domain for over 15 years now and yes its been looped through external gensets or super caps.
Quote from: bolt on July 24, 2009, 05:13:27 PM
Nothing practical to be gained from this its a total waste of time.
I think thats a little strong. At the least, you can prove to yourself that you can get a force at a distance from a charged electrode.
On the other hand, I agree that the power of this motor needs to be a lot more impressive to get attention.
Personally, i think this continues a lot of J L Naudins work, and the best way forward would be investigating different dielectrics, and their effect on thrust (Its what Valone speaks about in the vid posted earlier.) In particular, look into Lafforgue thrusters and Naudins E-motor with different dielectrics. they are both pretty simple to make.
Unfortunately my knowledge of dielectrics is poor. where could you order high K dielectrics of certain shapes?? Is it possible on the net?
Bolt, i would agree with you about the importance of Rotoverter tech ;) And even that the tiny little motor has little practical use.
However, it is the actual event of the Paper itself that is so important. If this holds up for say, a year without being refuted (as it certainly will, Dr. Turtur has left no room for skeptics...much to their dismay lol), it then becomes a critical PRECEDENT, as well as a milestone. The next Paper from another scientist can then be published using this as reference, then more Papers using the two precedents, etc. Eventually, there is a large body of scientific Peer-reviewed work that refutes the classical model on the existence of "Vacuum" or "Zero Point" energy... And it can no longer be ignored... It must then be accepted by the scientific mainstream... This can answer the old "perpetual motion" B-S; by showing it to be an OPEN SYSTEM and therefor not really accountable to the "Laws of Thermodynamics"; since Maxwell and his cronies did not take into account "Aetheric energy".
And that then makes it MUCH HARDER for them to knee-jerk deny devices that operate on it. And once THAT hurdle is past, we will eventually see them marketed and studied in Universities openly.
As for working devices, we will probably always have to just build and carefully test them "Empirically" first... THEN after they are proved to work, tie them back to the theoretical side ;)
This is how nearly every great move forward in science has worked... Provide the real-word proof, and thus force the change in accepted Theory over time.
Actually there is plenty of room for skepticism in Turtur's work. While he is a careful scientist, I believe that he has not yet fully eliminated possible sources of artifact in his system.
Any time you have high vacuum, high or even elevated voltages, and physical stuff in close proximity, you will have all kinds of random and not-so-random thrusts and attractions and repulsions and environmental influences to contend with.
I'm just saying, this set of experiments is hard to do right, and the difficulty increases inversely to the pressure.
8) I have watched Turtur work for a long time. Here other missing documents:
http://rapidshare.com/files/259985134/Turtur.zip.html
Power of this device exponentialy increase with size or voltage, or both. Turtur is teoretical oriented, not too much interested on material problems of device. Study those documents, results are suported by math and teory. Just need to build bigger and stronger model of this currentless motor
Quote from: flathunter on July 24, 2009, 03:58:37 PM
Hi Xaero!
Thanks for taking an interest. Sorry for not replying, but I kind of forgot about this thread since the Kapanadze/Don Smith thread got going, as it gave me an excuse to get playing with my tesla coil and its been a lot of fun! My set up wasnt oriented towards ''results'', other than trying to see if the rotor turned or not. I dont have a vacuum chamber, and I was using more volts (I tried between 15 and 30 KV), and a smaller rotor. My rotor was balanced on polysytrene chunks, just like the professors. The blades (3) are about 6cm long. The rotor turned (and adjusted its poistion to the centre of the electrode) , and in the same direction professor turturs did, but very slowly. Because of the set up, its impossible to say that i confirmed his results, but it did convince me that the prof is right, anyhow (about motion). But I dont think my one was providing more energy in turning than I was putting in the electrode. In fact, i'm certain it wasnt! But my set up was very very basic. Easy for anyone to try themselves.
I'm glad someone else has taken an interest. i wish you the best of luck with all your experiments. I really hope you're right and there is a way to get this turning faster than the current required to hold a charge on the electrode. If he can get a turn out of a balloon, it bodes well. surely there are better electrets around!
Anyone else trying this?
Yea, at close distances voltage of 15 to 30 kV in air will surely cause electrical breakdown of the air causing havoc on rotation. This should be clearly visible with corona discharge and sounds with that much voltage. The power loss would be very great in this scenario if measured with a multimeter. BTW, Dr. Turtur concluded that clock wise rotation will still result from gas ionization wind with normal rotor blades. I'll have experiment with the curved tip blades to check for counter-clockwise rotation.
Dr. Turtur was able to achieve rotation in air with as little as 1.1 kV. He concluded ionized winds weren't occurring at that voltage since the distance between the rotor and the field source was about 4 cm (1.5 inches). A rotation of 12 RPMs was observed at 1.4 kV at the same distance, which still cannot explain ionization winds.
Partial breakdown is required (not always visible via arcs) to generate ion wind thrust and the voltage here clearly isn't enough at the measured distance because electrical breakdown of the air dielectric begins at about 3 kV/mm (.039 inches).
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/AliceHong.shtml (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/AliceHong.shtml)
The balloon isn't an effective electret because I observed that ionization can still occur (audibly) with the charged surface of the balloon. I measured a current and voltage across a balloon as soon as I brought it near a sheet of aluminium foil hooked up to my multimeter. However the balloon can be positioned far enough away that no discharge occurs yet still observe an attractive image charge to the foil.
Bolt has a point in the sense that while Dr. Turtur may have possibly discovered something here distinctive from electrogravity (which many reports claim dont occur in vacuum) the energy density is poor.
For instance, Dr. Turtur calculated that a few rotors of 100 meters diameter and 20 meters high stacked upon each other, perhaps with a 125-150 meter diameter field source disc can produce 2 or 3 megawatts of power. What he doesn't explain is whether or not a vacuum would be needed here--my guess is yes to reduce isolation losses.
So I suppose reality sets in... a 3 MW power-plant generator with with rotors the size of large ferris wheels must be lightweight and balanced properly on an axis. On top of this the motor must be housed in a large vacuum-tight generator room with a vacuum pressure of probably in the magnitude of at least 10 ^ -4 Torr. I'm not sure we have the technology (or money) to create such a vacuum in such a large enclosure?
The machine becomes very interesting in space, though. The vacuum of space is quite free there.
So I've created a simple rotor and tested it with a charged balloon. At best the rotor will spin for a quarter of a revolution. I don't think ionized winds is causing rotation because there is an attractive image-charge and unless I hold the balloon perfectly the rotor wont turn at all but you'll still hear crackling sounds (which is a static discharge) to the rotor. So the balloon is discharging so thats why it wont spin for long.
I'm going to try a rotor made out of paper. That should mitigate discharge current since paper is a poor conductor but the image-charge force will persist.
BTW, J L Naudin's PFT mk motors are quite interesting, especially the mk2. Hook this up to an earth-field antenna and the power would be free, literally. Radiant energy harnessed in this fashion is completely conventional and valid by our current laws of physics. A nice thought/project to revert to in case I'm wrong about Dr. Turtur's device and that it actually doesn't work.
Field source need to be hard isolated from everything, and charged with vandegraff generator, othervise results won't be noticeable. Rotor may stay not isolated. Use blades with triangle shape, as described in earlier documents. You can't use ballon and paper to make it work. It requires litle bit more precision, or rotor get stuck in one position :D
Well I observed rotation with a rotor made of flash card paper, plastic drinking straws for axis supports, wooden toothpick shaft, and a rubber eraser base.
A charged balloon over the top of paper rotor made it spin about one revolution before stopping. Holding the balloon to the side of the rotor will cause rotation as well. Moving the balloon back and forth around the side of the blades causes the rotor to move back in forth like a magnet attracted to a screw.
I cannot fully discredit ion winds because there is a leakage current occurring somehow because the rotor doesn't spin indefinitely. Additionally, I've witnessed rotation in opposite directions fairly easily by bending the tips of the rotor blades or positioning the balloon differently near the rotor blades.
However, if the motion is caused by ion winds generated between the balloon and the non-conductive paper rotor with a wooden shaft and rubber eraser base then...
a) Why is there no crackling discharge sound or ion wind hissing sound when I bring the balloon close to the rotor and watch it spin? Note: I hear absolutely no sound caused by the rotor even when wearing a hearing amplifying device with the volume turned to maximum.
b) Why isn't there any visible corona discharge even in a dark closet? I can clearly see such discharges rubbing the balloon against a blanket but not near the rotor.
c) Why does the rotor move back and forth in attraction with a balloon hovering back and forth? This is exactly what to expect from an attractive image charge.
With this said its appears plausible to suspect that the rotation might be caused by the attractive forces generated by the electrostatic field. This is Mr. Turtur's conclusion as well but he adds the vacuum energy element into the equation, namely the birefringence of zero-point electromagnetic waves near strong electrostatic and magnetic fields.
My next move shall be testing a metal version in a vacuum with some sort of high-voltage power supply. I have a cheap vacuum pump that hooks up to a garage air compressor. I can probably make a cheap HV power supply with batteries, an inverter circuit with step up transformer or voltage multipliers. Other possibilities include buying a Van de Graaff generator or building a stationary earth-field antenna which captures free electricity from the atmosphere.
I'm not sure when I'll find the time to conduct the the vacuum experiment. I'll leave this thread to rest until I do. :P
Quote from: Xaero_Vincent on July 27, 2009, 11:40:17 PM
BTW, J L Naudin's PFT mk motors are quite interesting, especially the mk2. Hook this up to an earth-field antenna and the power would be free, literally. Radiant energy harnessed in this fashion is completely conventional and valid by our current laws of physics. A nice thought/project to revert to in case I'm wrong about Dr. Turtur's device and that it actually doesn't work.
I've built a PFT mk2 motor with a kinder surprise case as my dielectric rotor, and 2 kronenburg cans as the stator electrodes. do you have any links to earth field antennae designs that would power it?
Flathunter,
try this archived link (its dead now):
http://web.archive.org/web/20070831015229/http://www.wireservices.com/n9zrt/live-wire/events/marconi/kitefaq.html
*also*
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.only1egg-productions.org%2FAltSci%2FElectrostaticMotors%2FImages%2FAmazing_Motor_That_Draws_Power_From_The_Air_PS_Apr_1971.PDF&ei=l7V1StqaBoKwsgPgw4X8CA&rct=j&q=earth-field+antennas&usg=AFQjCNFsAfnN4YW1cLNKHsaYRuNJsmPaCw
It has information on kite-lifted antennas. Balloon lifted antennas could work as well.
Essentially all this is a very long wire hooked up to a balloon or kite with a needle-like tip at the top. There is danger evolved so be careful and know the local laws--low-flying aircraft, hitting power lines, etc.
It would be interesting to see if a stationary antenna (a long metal pole or rod in the ground) with a sharp mildly radioactive tip could induce ionization current at a much lower altitude (say perhaps 10 or 20 meters or less). Such a design can be on your property and not interfere with air traffic or risk coming in contact with power lines. With some land acreage perhaps an array of these stationary antennas can be hooked up to multiply the power.
This radiant source of electricity can be used power Dr. Turtur's electrostatic motor as well. In this case the power would be free regardless of whether or not his and my rotor harnesses vacuum energy to amplify the output power. Although he's performed measurements and experiments, so unless all his experiments were conducted incorrectly the output power is up to 50x greater or more than the input.
BTW, I wouldn't spend much time on dialectic materials. If you look at Naudin's graph the rotation begins to slow down as the capacitance increases. So while the voltage stays the same and the current is reduced the rotation is reduced as well; its certainly not a way of achieving OU. This is probably why he hasn't experimented with the motors since 1999.
Quote from: IotaYodi on July 05, 2009, 06:56:44 PM
I keep getting a damaged file message.
I just loaded and ran the file in Reply #2 successfully. If I had had that problem in the past, going to a bigger computer and/or working a faster throughput data line often cured the problem.
I'm on a relatively new computer at a State University in San Francisco.
--Lee
Here's a photo of my electrostatic motors.
The unit with triangle shaped blades is made of aluminium foil and covered with duct tape to reduce static discharge. The paper model is shown sitting next to the larger metal rotor on the plywood base. During actual testing the paper model is nowhere near the metal rotor.
Both shown motors spin from the power of a charged balloon held above the blades. However the paper model spins faster and longer.
Looking good there vincent!!!
Great to see some progress. Thanks a million for the links to earth antennaes - i wont be able to try it for a good few months - i live in a flat at the moment, but i'm hoping to buy some land next year, and then try and get some volts from the sky, and get that motor running freely.
Thanks flathunter.
Your replication of the PFT mk2 motor is looking nice as well. May I suggest you try operating it inside a vacuum chamber. If it spins in a evacuated chamber with extremely small power loss then this motor might be worth a further look. I mentioned this motor to Dr. Turtur and he too is interested in testing it in a vacuum chamber.
I've been in contact with Dr. Turtur over the last couple weeks. He answered all my questions and cleared up the believability issues for me. I'm now very confident of his results obtained from the electrostatic rotor inside the vacuum. We also discussed the magnetic analogue of the rotor using diamagnetic and paramagnetic rotor material and a permanent or electromagnet; ferromagnetic material is unlikely to work. Unlike the electrostatic rotor, he hasn't yet achieved success with the magnetic analogue because easily obtainable permanent magnets possess too high of an inhomogeneous field to permit continuous rotation and electromagnets require a lot of power and waste a great deal of it to heat.
I'm currently working on a magnetic rotor myself and haven't witnessed success either. These experiments are being done in the meantime, while I save up for a powerful turbo molecular vacuum pump to perform experiments with the successful electrostatic rotors. Dr. Turtur made it very clear that he never achieved "overunity" results with the electrostatic vacuum energy rotor while operated in air because ions will cause an electric current and generate unacceptable power loss, even at voltages less than 1 kV. A high or ultra-high vacuum (as in space) is required to ever witness a net energy gain.
Thanks for the reply Vincent. Really pleased to hear you've been in contact with Dr Turtur, and very happy that he's interested in the Poynting Flow Thruster. Like I said in another post, I think his experiment is very relevant to Naudins PFT projects. Unfortunately I dont have any vacuum chambers handy (would a vacuum desicator do? or is it not powerful enough to get a decent vacuum? I've used these before at university, and i know they are simple enough for a guy like me to get working :)) Anyway, I've made a couple of videos if you're interested, of my PFT:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6bSjSnMMo0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smSTEkezHuQ
Thanks again for the info on atmospheric generators. Cant wait to get a house with some land and try some! Like you say, energy from the vacuum or not, this is FREE ENERGY (hooray!)
test
Flathunter,
There can be a connection with Dr. Turtur's electrostatic vacuum energy rotors but we can only make that determination if the PFT mk2 works in a high vacuum and measures a net energy gain. Mr. Turtur's rotors had a COP in the range of 30 to 52. With some further optimization of the machine and a higher vacuum, an even higher COP might be attainable. Of course, once an electrical generator is hooked to the rotor via a driveline shaft and electronics to convert power to 60Hz 120VAC, there will be some efficiency losses that bring down the COP value a bit.
A glass vacuum desiccator will work but the vacuum achieved probably won't be enough to make a measurement. Dr. Turtur worked in chambers at a pressure in the magnitude of 10 ^ -4 and 10 ^ -5 mbar. This was the pressure needed to make extremely low current measurements with a pico ampere meter with a voltage potential of 16 - 30 kV. By extremely low current I mean in the range of 80 - 100 femtoamps.
In order for a power generating machine to be kept at a reasonable size, extremely high voltage potentials in the range of 1 - 10+ Megavolts will be required. By reasonable I mean a machine in a vacuum chamber 40 - 50 ft diameter at pressure of 10 ^ -8 Torr or better and maybe 10 Megavolts of potential at the field source. Such a machine might generate 13 - 27 horsepower (10 - 20 kW) before generator and power conversion losses.
Mr. Turtur and I both agree that the high cost of a vacuum environment and low power output from conversion of vacuum energy will limit the success of this technology--at least on Earth. Its a different story in space, where vacuum exists freely.
Anyway, the point I was making is that a powerful machine will require extreme electrostatic potential with minimal leakage losses. That translates into the need for a very good vacuum, perhaps even in the range of ultra-high vacuum like deep space. Cheap garage vacuum pumps won't do unfortunately.
Nice videos flathunter. Thing spins fast. :D
Where did you get the power supply?
Arching represents a complete electrical breakthrough of air. Ion wind and current loss occur at voltages far below complete electrical breakthrough. This obviously means that the efficiency of the PFT motor in air is low.
Atmospheric electricity is a cool idea but I think you might run into trouble with a high-altitude balloon connected to a wire. A popped balloon means the wire will fall and potentially hit a utility line. That wouldn't be good heh.
I think grounded poles with sharp tips (similar to lightening rods) with a tiny bit of radioactive isotope to induce ionization current through the pole is the real solution. Be aware that the resulting power is high voltage and I think its a unsteady modulating DC current.
Hi Vincent,
I got the power supply from http://www.amazing1.com/
You're right concerning a ballon - i suppose it depends where you live. If i manage to buy a house next year I may have to go with your suggestion of grounded poles - radioactive tips sounds good! But for the moment I've got to wait ....i'm trying to keep up with the Don Smith thread at the moment, as its a project which I can play with in my tiny flat. Nonetheless, i wont be forgetting about my PFT or Dr Turtur (or my first inspiration for becoming a hobby scientist - Mr Naudin) - so please keep me informed on your own experiments and Dr Turturs. I'll certainly respond with great interest.
Be Lucky in all your experiments - We all know how much the world needs some intelligent free energy solutions in these troubled times.
Thanks for the link.
I'll certainly keep everyone informed on my experiments with vacuum energy rotors. Since its impossible to achieve a COP > 1 with the rotors in air, I won't be conducting many more experiments until I can afford a vacuum pump and build a chamber, which also isn't cheap.
I'm also interested in the elemental rod generators. I'll be working on this too. If they are real then a replication can be as simple as two rods mounted to a piece of plywood with a switch. Of course not just any metal will work for the rods.
Hi Zaero_Vincent and others,
Was able to inspire Professor Turtur to make his own video of his Zero Point Electrostatic Rotor. Just uploaded it to YouTube tonight. You can see it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiC2IGLl90Q
Liberty, Peace, Prosperity and Love
Jimi
Cheers for the link Jimi!
very clear video. Cant listen to what Turtur is saying at the moment as the baby is asleep, but I will do later without doubt. Fascinating stuff.
liberty, peace, prosperity and love back at you :)
Quote from: flathunter on September 08, 2009, 04:37:49 AM
Cheers for the link Jimi!
very clear video. Cant listen to what Turtur is saying at the moment as the baby is asleep, but I will do later without doubt. Fascinating stuff.
liberty, peace, prosperity and love back at you :)
Get a pair of headphones, sennheiser hd201 .
Quote from: lltfdaniel1 on September 09, 2009, 01:42:27 AMGet a pair of headphones, sennheiser hd201 (http://www.thomann.de/gb/sennheiser_hd201.htm) .
Or Beyerdynamic DT-770 Pro 80â,,¦ (http://www.thomann.de/gb/beyerdynamic_dt770_pro80_ohm.htm) if you are willing to spend about 8 times as much... ;D
I got sennheisers hd555.
Hi Jimi,
I just saw the video right before I read your post heh. Dr. Turtur has a new web page with the link to the video.
I've been in contact with Dr. Turtur the last couple months.We've discussed ways to improve the design of the rotor and possibly use a magnet rotor as well. I have designed an oil-less self-adjusting mechanism and a keyed shaft design to reduce friction of the bearings. I think my design ideas will solve the mechanical issues of the rotors and make power generation possible.
The video you see is a rotor tested in air. Ionization occurs in air so the power loss will always be greater than the driving force caused by vacuum energy. This problem can only be avoided in a high vacuum environment. Dr. Turtur has expressed his willingness to help me design a build a vacuum chamber to build a power producing machine.
The problem is the cost of building a vacuum chamber, buying the vacuum pumps and necessary monitoring equipment.
The chamber shell will need steel (preferably stainless) at around 1" thickness to withstand the pressure of the outside air. Steel sheets at this thickness are very expensive, heavy and must be rust-free and welded by a professional. Turbo molecular vacuum pumps with backing pumps are also necessary and these can cost several thousand dollars. The monitoring equipment and ionization gauge aren't cheap either.
I imagine we can expect to spend $10-20K to build a machine capable of only producing 1 kW of power. If it weren't for the need of a vacuum chamber, a machine capable of producing 1kW could probably be built for under $200.
We need to think of effective ways to significantly reduce the costs if this technology is to ever take off.
Couple of thoughts:
- considering the cop of 50 experienced in the vacuum chamber, will a partial vacuum chamber get us practical results? A cop of 1.01 and the world changes.
- along the same line of thought, can we achieve practical results with better insulation to reduce ionization of the environment.
- should we set our target output lower to reduce development costs for proof of concept. I wouldn't want to sink 20k into something still unverified. We've still not seen this device looped and self running.
Great to see the continued interest, and I think spoondini has a good point.
Can we not try for COP greater than 1 with a vaccum desicator? I dont have one, but i'm very tempted to buy one, as I love the simplicity of Turturs rotor - and I'm a simple kind of guy ;)
Nonetheless, I dont wont to dissuade you Vincent, if you've got the cash!!! I say go for it! ;D
Another thought, if we can loop and self run in a laboratory vacuum chamber (excluding power required for vacuum chamber), it should be no problem to secure funding for commercial prototype if the math indicates likely cop>1 after powering chamber of a scaled up version. Folks, there's plenty of money on the sidelines without good ideas to fund.
Those are some good thoughts. The greater the vacuum the lower the leakage loss, however if Dr. Turtur's theory is correct, a moderately high vacuum should be enough to obtain a COP slightly above one.
I'm pondering if the vacuum can be replaced by gases or oils with high dielectric properties. Compressed sulfur hexafluoride is a gas used in high voltage application for its high dielectric strength. Certain types of oils are also known for their dielectric properties. Perhaps the electrostatic rotor can be submerged into mineral or organic oils. I'll mention these thoughts to Claus and get his opinion.
Think there's any chance for dr turtur to join this discussion directly? I could understand why a professor would be weary of posting on such a message board, however there is a community here interested in multiplying his efforts.
Quote from: Xaero_Vincent on August 02, 2009, 11:31:26 AM
Flathunter,
try this archived link (its dead now):
http://web.archive.org/web/20070831015229/http://www.wireservices.com/n9zrt/live-wire/events/marconi/kitefaq.html
*also*
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.only1egg-productions.org%2FAltSci%2FElectrostaticMotors%2FImages%2FAmazing_Motor_That_Draws_Power_From_The_Air_PS_Apr_1971.PDF&ei=l7V1StqaBoKwsgPgw4X8CA&rct=j&q=earth-field+antennas&usg=AFQjCNFsAfnN4YW1cLNKHsaYRuNJsmPaCw
It has information on kite-lifted antennas. Balloon lifted antennas could work as well.
Essentially all this is a very long wire hooked up to a balloon or kite with a needle-like tip at the top. There is danger evolved so be careful and know the local laws--low-flying aircraft, hitting power lines, etc.
It would be interesting to see if a stationary antenna (a long metal pole or rod in the ground) with a sharp mildly radioactive tip could induce ionization current at a much lower altitude (say perhaps 10 or 20 meters or less). Such a design can be on your property and not interfere with air traffic or risk coming in contact with power lines. With some land acreage perhaps an array of these stationary antennas can be hooked up to multiply the power.
This radiant source of electricity can be used power Dr. Turtur's electrostatic motor as well. In this case the power would be free regardless of whether or not his and my rotor harnesses vacuum energy to amplify the output power. Although he's performed measurements and experiments, so unless all his experiments were conducted incorrectly the output power is up to 50x greater or more than the input.
BTW, I wouldn't spend much time on dialectic materials. If you look at Naudin's graph the rotation begins to slow down as the capacitance increases. So while the voltage stays the same and the current is reduced the rotation is reduced as well; its certainly not a way of achieving OU. This is probably why he hasn't experimented with the motors since 1999.
I know for a fact that my father had a long radio antenna wire stretched between our house and the barn. It was a un-insulated copper wire on insulated wooden poles about 30-40 feet high and about 100feet long that had enough voltage to light up a 1.5V bulb when connected between the antenna and the ground. The ground was a big copper rod buried deep in the basement floor. We had a knife switch in the window and we used to ground the antenna every time a storm was coming in case of a lightning strike.
Xaero_Vincent said:
Quote
..I'm pondering if the vacuum can be replaced by gases or oils with high dielectric properties. Compressed sulfur hexafluoride is a gas used in high voltage application for its high dielectric strength. Certain types of oils are also known for their dielectric properties. Perhaps the electrostatic rotor can be submerged into mineral or organic oils. I'll mention these thoughts to Claus and get his opinion.
@Xaero_Vincent
You might also ask if Claus has heard of this?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/289/5479/611
Transformer manufacturers are trying to get away from SF6, since the daughter molecules it produces can be strong Global Warming gases.
--Lee
Quote from: the_big_m_in_ok on September 13, 2009, 10:20:40 PM
Xaero_Vincent said:@Xaero_Vincent
You might also ask if Claus has heard of this?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/289/5479/611
Transformer manufacturers are trying to get away from SF6, since the daughter molecules it produces can be strong Global Warming gases.
--Lee
http://energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4673-think-i-found-some-missing-info-teslas-radiant-energy-patent.html
We have two of the Super E Baldor 7 1/2 hp motors connected by the shafts. Each motor will run when connected to 110 volts, when we turn on the prime mover the other motor does not act as a generator/alternator and will not produce anything. We configured as Mr Perez did, flashed the coils, but still no juice from the alternator. What are we doing wrong?
Thanks for any help for this newby.