Buoyancy generator [Archive] - The Project Avalon Community Forum

Ted

21st June 2015, 20:32

I've been involved in the "Free Energy" community for over 10 years now. Lots of devices come and go, initially looking very promising, and then fading away for one reason or another. I am convinced working devices exist, yet suppression by the PTB is very effective.
However, there is one fascinating device that has popped up recently, which has been tested by a neutral 3rd party and found to be over unity. It is a generator which is run on floats, which cycle up through a tank and are filled with compressed air. "Scientists" insist it can't possibly work, but evidently it does.
Read about it here: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Thrust_Kinetic_Generator_by_Rosch_Innovations_AG

http://peswiki.com/images/f/fc/Rosch-boyancy_input-v-output-labeled_rd.jpg

Tesseract

21st June 2015, 21:21

The first question you need to ask is: where does the energy come from? Or, like almost every one else in the FE field, did they just by pure chance build a machine that is capable of harnessing some mysterious energy somewhere that they don't even understand? I looked through a few pages of material but didn't find an adequate answer to this question. Just a lot of the usual waffle.

The idea, that this person tries to float http://pesn.com/2015/06/13/9602628_Buoyancy-is-underrated/ is ridiculous. So where possibly could the energy be coming from? I have my own idea, but I'll keep it to myself for now :). Hint: it is the compressed air which is critical for my argument.

I remember a long time ago I designed a 'free energy' machine that consisted of a tube of mercury and a steel ball. The steel ball was to be inserted into the base of the mercury column, whereapon it floated to the top, before falling back down outside the column. It would just go round and round, and you could tap the energy of the ball as it fell. Of course, if you do the maths you will find that the energy needed to insert the steel ball into the mercury is the same as what you get from the acceleration of the steel ball.

Johnny

21st June 2015, 21:32

If it is ridiculous or not, if the math works or not, I really do not care, if it works then it works, that is all we need !!

Johnny :)

Ted

21st June 2015, 23:51

I don't completely understand it either, but like Johnny said, who cares if it works. The "laws" of physics are anything but written in stone. I have found a few flaws myself during my experimentations. Anyway, here is a more scientific explanation I found concerning the device:
http://pesn.com/2015/05/13/9602617_scientific-explanation-for-Rosch-KPP-buoyancy-system/

A method of extraction (restitution) of the energy supply stored in liquid or gaseous mediums and transformation of the energy obtained into mechanical work

In 1607 Cornelius van Drebbel, a Dutch scientist, demonstrated a “continuously operating” clock to the English King James I. The clock was set in motion by a similar “continuously operating” motor, or, to put it simply, a “perpetuum mobile”. Van Drebbel had already patented the clock in 1598.

However, unlike other numerous devices bearing the same name, the motor invented by Cornelius van Drebbel really was a “continuously operating“ one in some sense.

What was the secret of this clock (or, rather, of the motor that was setting it in motion)?

Van Drebbel’s continuously operating clock worked due to the drive, which used, like any other real motor, the single possible source of work - the non-equilibrium (potential difference) of the environment.

Van Drebbel made use of a special type of non-equilibrium, though it was also related to pressure and temperature differences. It may act in an ideally balanced environment, the temperature and pressure of which are everywhere equal. What is the secret of this effect and where does work come from?

The secret lies in the fact that potential differences do exist, manifesting themselves not spatially but temporally (Editor: In Goran´s (Goran is our chief-engineer), given in1996 at the conference “New Ideas in the Natural Sciences”, he proposed a similar principle for obtaining energy from a single—wire power trans-mission line. Instead of a common potential difference U=X1—X2,
He proposed a chronal potential difference U=X(t1)-X(t2). This means that a potential difference may be obtained at a single point if a change in potential values is created). The principle can be illustrated by the example of the atmosphere. Let us assume that no considerable pressure and temperature differences are observed in the area where a motor is situated. But the pressure and temperature (common in all points) still continue to change (both day and night). These differences may be used for obtaining work (in full accordance with the laws of thermodynamics).

In a description of the invention titled “A method of extraction (restitution) of the energy supply stored in liquid or gaseous mediums and transforming the energy obtained into mechanical work" (Patent claimed in Germany we are in the process) a version of a pseudo-continuously operating working solar engine was proposed by him. In order to increase the power and the number of cycles, the properties of two mutually unbalanced mediums — gas and water — are most fully used.

Archimedes’ principle is considered as a corollary of the law of conservation of energy, in which the buoyancy force is tied in with the energy consumed to create water and air. The amount of this energy determined such physical properties as density, thermal capacity and thermal conductivity.

The correlation of energy used for creating densities is partially reflected in the non-equilibrium coefficient, equaling 820. If we found a way to fully use this non-equilibrium, we would obtain an 820-fold gain in energy. Non-equilibrium states are observed starting from the moment of feeding air under a column of water. They accumulate when the air rises because the air volume increases, taking away heat from the water. Air is fed under the water column at a temperature less than the temperature of the water, since if during the process of reaching atmospheric pressure the air pressure equals 4 Atm (0.4 MPa) and the temperature is +20°C (293 K). the air will cool down to 75°C (198 K), i.e. by 95°C. Heat extraction will take place in conditions close to adiabatic. This means that heat losses will be minimal due to the fact that water is a good heat accumulator but a bad heat conductor.

Calculation of an energy-extracting pneumohydraulic turbine

A compressor is used as a source of compressed air. Dynamic and positive displacement-type com-pressors are the most suitable for this case. Since a dynamic compressor consumes more energy thana piston-type one, we choose the latter:

Source of compressed air — VP2-10/9 piston-type compressor.
Compressor output — 0,167 m3/sec
Output pressure, MPa — 0.9 (9 Atm).
Compressors shaft capacity— 56.5 kW
Water cooling

The efficiency of a pneumohydraulic turbine will be evaluated by comparing the power supplied and the power obtained, i.e. the amount of work per second.

A compressor’s output is evaluated by the volumeof air fed into it at atmospheric pressure. This means that a productivity of 0.167 m3/sec is the air volume before entering the compressor and after it rises in the turbine. While feeding air under the bottom level of the turbine, 0.167 m3/sec of water will be displaced through the upper level. The same amount of water will be fed again under the turbine‘s bottom level, thus creating an air-and-water mixture and causing it to move inside the turbine. The value of 0.167 ma/sec corresponds to the water consumption taken into consideration during the calculation of the capacity of a pneumohydraulic turbine. The capacity is calculated using the formula used for calculating the capacity of a hydraulic turbine:

N=9.81 x Q x H x n. where 9.81 m/sec2 — the gravitational acceleration;
Q — the water consumption in m3/s;
H ~ the head in (m);
h—Eﬂiciency factor (which reaches rather high values and amounts to 0.94-0.95 or 94-95% under most favorable conditions).

As an air-and-water mixture isused as the working medium, there is a necessity to justify the use of this formula for calculating the capacity of a hydraulicturbine. We believe that the most effective results can be obtained in the operation mode of the turbine when a mixture of a 0.5 t/m3 density is used (comprising 50% water and 50% air).

In this mode, the air pressure is a little higher than the absolute pressure inside the turbine case.

Air is fed from the pressure tube of the compressor in the form of separate bubbles, which come out from it in equal intervals. The total volume of bubbles equals the volume of water between them in the turbine case. A bubble takes the shape of a spherical segment and works as a piston in a limited space, displacing water in an upward direction only, since its backﬂow is impossible due to the higher pressure, while its side-ﬂow is impossible due to the incompressibility of water.

If a constant volume of air of 0.167 ma/sec is fed,0.167 ma/sec of water will be displaced. This means that 2 >< 0,167 ma/sec of the air-and-water mixture will be displaced through the upper level of the turbine, the stream velocity inside the turbine being high.

Thus, we get:

N = 9.81 x 2 x Q x 0.5 x H x 3 = 9.81-Q-H-n

Let us consider an installation with a head of water column equaling 2 m and calculate the compressor engine capacity needed to feed air under this water column, taking into consideration the atmospheric pressure, proceeding from the technical specifications of the compressor:

N=(2m x 56.5kW)/(90m x 1Om)=1.13kW

A rising stream of an air—and-water mixture will be observed on all levels of the installation. No more than 5 working wheels may be installed along the stream due to the buoyant force the intensity of which does not depend on the depth of immersion of a body. The proposed turbine is more energy-efficient than the famous “Airlift” pump, since the ﬂow of water takes place beneath the level of water in the turbine, i.e. in conditions close to zero gravity and without a considerable water level rise inside the turbine, on which the main amount of pump energy is spent. Let us assume that the turbine’s energy efficiency equals 0.9. In this case the capacity will be:

N = 9.810.167 m3/sec x 2 m x 5 x 0,9 = 14.7 kW

Thus, we obtained output energy 13 times exceeding the input energy:

14.7 kW / 1.13 kW =13

An increase in power by means of using additional Working wheels has been observed on working prototypes. The operability of the turbine has been indirectly proven by experiments carried out at Saint-Petersburg State Technical University (SpbSU).

Thus, Professor V.V. Elistratov, a Doctor of Engineering Sciences, a member of the Commission for Unconventional Power Sources in the government of the Russian Federation and head of the Department of Renewable Energy Sources and Hydroenergetics of SpbSTU wrote: “However, proceeding from the hydraulics of hydraulic units and our numerous experiments of feeding air into the working wheel of the turbine in order to reduce cavitation erosion, an increase of cavitation values was observed accompanied by a considerable decrease of energy values". In this case, the experiments show that the air that is fed into the device creates a counter stream, which, acting on the working wheel from below, makes it rotate in the opposite direction. Such is the design of the wheel. In such a way, a small volume of air acts in a limited space equaling the volume of the hydroturbine case. The proposed installation may extract heat from the water and transform it into mechanical energy. Taking into consideration the temperature difference between the water and the air when the water temperature equals 80°C (the thermal source, water, heated up in a solar collector or in a system of turbine cooling or compressor cooling, em), and the air temperature is 20°C, the coefﬁcient of the air volume increase, according to the

Gay-Lussac Law, will total:
1+ (s0°c - 20°C)/273 = 1.2
The capacity will amount to:

N =14.7 kW x 1.2 = 17.6 kW
Our expectations about a gain in energy were
borne out:
17.6 kW/ 5 = 3.5 kW
3.5 kW / 1.13 kW = a 3,1-fold energy gain per wheel

During the calculation of the power needed to feed air under the water column, we took the atmospheric pressure into consideration (1 Atmosphere = 10 m of the water column). This means that the rising air overcomes the absolute pressure inside the turbine case. The pressure, composed of the water column pressure in the turbine and the atmospheric pressure, equals the pressure of a 12—meter water column. The absolute pressure inside the turbine case is neutralized by the buoyancy force of the air, but since it is still present outside the case, it inﬂuences the feeding of air into the turbine. This inﬂuence can be compared to the inﬂuence of the negative pressure created in the turbine case by the total volume of water inside it on the water stream
(this effect is not present in other hydroturbines).

If the construction of the turbine meets out requirements, we can consider the head as:
H=H of water column + 10 n1
Then the power will total
N=9.81 x 0.167In3/sec x 12 m x 5 x 1.2 x 0.9=106. 14 kW

We obtained output energy 93 times greater than the input energy.

Let us calculate a more powerful energy installation able to power a small urban village, military unit, a vessel etc. A 2VM10 — 63/9 piston-type compressor with the following technical specifications will be used as the source of compressed air:

- Compressor output — 1.04 m3/sec
- Output pressure, MPa — 0.9 (9 Atm)
Compressor shaft power — 332 kW
Water cooling

A calculation will be carried out for an installation with a head of water column equaling 5 m and with 10 working wheels installed inside at a distance of 500 mm from each other. The capacity of the compressor motor needed to feed air under a 5-meter water column, taking into consideration the atmospheric pressure, is:
5 m x (332 kW / 100 m) =16.6 kW

The installation capacity will total:
N=9.81 1.04 m3/sec x 15 m x 10 x 1.2 x 0.9=1652 kW

We obtained output energy exceeding the input energy by a factor of 99.

Thus, the obtaining of any amount of energy is possible, accompanied by an improvement in the gaseous water composition by means of an environmentally friendly method. This method implies the use of an inexhaustible energy source, when a natural non-equilibrium of water and air is used in any climatic zone. There is no need anymore to build expensive dams and sluices, which leads to ﬂooding of valuable agricultural lands.

Calculation of an energy extracting pneumohydraulic engine

- Source of compressed air — VP2 — 10/9 piston—type compressor.
Compressor output — 0.167 m3/sec
Output pressure, MPa ~ 0.9 (9 Atm).
Compressor shaft capacity — 56.5 kW
Water cooling

The efficiency of a pneumohydraulic engine will be evaluated by comparing the power supplied and the power obtained, i.e. the amount of work per second.

The compressor output is the volume of air on the compressor’s input, ie. the volume of air at atmospheric pressure. Then the value of 0.167 m3/sec is the volume of air on the compressor input and on the exit from the upper ﬂoat of the pneumohydraulic engine (Fig. 3).

Floats are released from the air and then ﬁlled with water at a level that is situated below the level of water in the engine case. At an airpressure of 9 Atm it maybe fed under a water column with a head of 90 rn If the air bubbles rise at a speed of 0,4 m/s it will take 225 sec for a bubble to reach the surface. Moving air will be present at all levels of the water column. This ﬁgure of
0.4 m/ s ms obtained during experimental evaluations. If the water column and compressor output remain stable, an increase or decrease in speed at which the bubbles rise, results only in a change in the horizontal dimensions of the ﬂoats (their length and width), since it is the air volume that increases or decreases. This, in turn. only increases or decreases the force, not inﬂuencing the capacity of the pneumohydraulic engine.

The possibility to change the horizontal dimensions of the ﬂoats allows making ﬂoats of a needed volume preserving the water column.

The volume of air on the output of the compressor’s pressure tube at a depth of 90 m will total (taking into consideration the atmospheric pressure):

0.167 (m3/sec) / 10 Atm = 0.0167 ma/sec

since the pressure of a 10-meter water column will equal 1 Atm and due to the fact that an increase in the volume of air by the value of the initial volume takes place every 10 meters the air rises. If the air volume remained permanent, at the moment of reaching the surface its volume would be:

0.0167 (ma/sec) x 225 sec = 3.757 ms

Taking into consideration the volume of air at the moment it reaches the surface, its total volume will amount to:

3.757 ma x 10 Atm = 37.57 ms

Taking into consideration the coefficient of thermal expansion, its volume will total:

37.57 m3 x 1.2 = 45.084 m3

The buoyancy force of a 1 m3 of air equals 1000 kgf The amount of work performed by this volume of air as it rises will amount to:

45084 kgf x 0.4 m/sec =18 033 kgf x m/sec
or 18033 kg x fm/sec

Since 1 kg -fin = 9.81 W, the result of recalculation is the following:

18033 kg x fm/sec x 9.81 =176903.73 W or 176.9kW

By adding no less than 30% of the energy that is returned, obtained due to the reactive force that is created during the ﬁlling of a ﬂoat with air, to the energy that is received, we get:
176.9 kW +18 kW = 194 kW

We obtained the output energy exceeding the input energy by a factor of 3.4.

The mechanical energy efficiency of a pneuniohydraulic engine will be rather high since during operation the engine is well lubricated by water, while the ﬂoats are mutually balanced. The energy efficiency of the compressor is taken into account during consideration of the compressors engine capacity. The pneumohydraulic engine is equipped with a brake that makes it stop during operation.

When the engine stops, air is still present in the ﬂoats, which means that no energy will be consumed on the next start-up since the engine will be put in operation by the air left in the ﬂoats.

In our calculations, we proceeded from parameters of a serially produced compressor, able to feed air under a water column with a head of 90 m. This is a way to increase the effectiveness of hydroelectric stations by means of installing pneumohydraulic engines in pontoons at water—storage ponds. Increasing the effectiveness of hydroelectric stations by using tail ponds is considered in the description of the patents claim in Germany.

The design of the pneumohydraulic engine is remarkable for its low steel intensity, thus making it very light. Any river, pond, spring, thermal source or cooling tower may become a source of energy. A leveling of the water temperature at hydroelectric stations will become possible be means of blending lower, more warm water sheets and cold upper water sheets. The process will be accompanied by a simultaneous extraction of heat from the water. The most important point is that there will be no need to economize energy, since we do not amplify the natural energy imbalance by using a natural non-equilibrium. On the contrary, we restore it by getting rid of the consequences of thermal pollution. As for the solar energy, we do not spend more of it than we obtain.

We considered a method of obtaining energy in industrial conditions, but there is a great need for energy installations with a wattage of 3-4 kW. Let us try to estimate their sizes. Take an installation with a head of water column equaling 2 m. Using the same type of compressor (only for calculation) we may find out the capacity of the compressor engine needed to feed air under a 2-meter water column:

N=(2m x 56.5kW)/(90m+10m)= 1.131 Kw
The compressor output — 0.167 m3/sec
A 2-meter water column creates pressure equaling 0.2 Atm. Then the water volume at a depth of
2 m will amount to (taking into consideration the atmospheric pressure):
0.167 (m3/sec) / 1.2 Atm = 0.139 m3/sec
The time needed for a bubble to rise equals:
2 m / 0.4 (m/sec) = 5 sec

The volume of moving air that will be present in the ﬂoats of a pneumohydraulic engine in 5 sec-onds (taking into account the increase in volume as the air rises and the thermal expansion coefficient) will total:

0.139 (m3/sec) -5 sec x 1.2 Atm x 1.2 = 1 m3

The amount of work performed will amount to:

1000 kgf x 0.4 m/sec = 400 kg -fm/sec

The amount of work per second equals the power.
Since 1 kgf = 9.81 W, the capacity will be:

N = 9.81 W x 400 = 3924 W = 3.924 kW

By adding 30% of the power returned, we get:

3.924 kW + 0.34 kW = 4.263 kW
If the mechanical energl efficiency equals 0.9, we
get the following capacity:
N = 4.263 kW x 0.9 = 3.84 kW
We obtained output energy exceeding the input
energy by a factor of 3.4:

3.84 kW / 1.13 kW = 3,4

In order to once again make sure of the effectiveness of the proposed method of obtaining energy, let us compare its effectiveness with that of a storage plant, in which water is pumped to a high-level storage pond by means of a pump or a reversible hydroset and then used at a lower level in a turbine.

In this case, if the energy efﬁciency factor amounts to 100%. it means that we obtained an amount of energy that equals the amount of the energy consumed. Let us calculate the capacity of a pump engine needed to lift water to the level of 90 rn, the output of which is 0.167 ms/sec:

N=(9.81 x 0.167m3/c x 90 m)/0.75 = l96.5 kw Let us compare the power obtained by a pump engine to that obtained by a compressor engine with a capacity of 56.5 kW and air output of 0.167 m3/sec. The latter can displace the same amount of water, lifting it to a level of 90 m and feeding it to a turbine. An amount of power equaling 196,5 kW is obtained, which means that 3.5 less energy is spent.

Besides, the moving air that remains throughout the head of the water column will also perform work, which is confirmed by the aforecited calculation. The possibilities of implementation of the proposed method are reflected in the diagram shown below (Fig1)

It can be seen from this diagram that the buoyancy force manifests itself starting from the volume V0. The cross-hatched part of the picture is a water column H, to overcome which the energy generated by the compressor is spent. Vo is the volume of water at a depth of H; Vk is the volume of air, expanded due to the fall in pressure as air rises Vq is the active air volume. The diagram shows that the volume of active air in a pneumohydraulic engine equals V 4, while the volume Vk is essential for a pneumohydraulic turbine, since it operates on a displaced volume of water. This fact explains the difference in their effectiveness.

The inexhaustihility of the energy source, its absolute environmental friendliness, the ease of production and quick payback due to the ever-growing need for energy provide for effective marketing of the proposed construction, while the diversity of designs provide for a wide area of application

Cheers,

Ted

Tesseract

22nd June 2015, 02:02

So, none of us really purports to exactly know how this machine works to produce free energy. That is a reassuring fact. The contraption’s key mechanism appears to be the replacement of water with compressed air within a submerged cylinder, which prompts it to float to the surface, exerting force on a wheel.

The problem with this kind of fairly simple, mechanical, free energy theory is that, if such effects were real, they would manifest in nature and upset the balance that we observe as our reality. Over the course of millions of years there would be so much free energy generated, for example by simple ocean wave processes, that the oceans would heat up of their own accord, and maybe even boil off completely. It’s actually a rather terrifying thought. This is not to mention the likelihood that life forms would evolve certain hydraulic organs to replicate the same free energy, self-heating, effects. It would save mammals from having to eat carbohydrates, and snakes from having to lie in the sun.

I do agree that if we don’t know how any particular machine works, then, in a sense, it doesn’t matter. However, if the inventor who claims inventorship of the machine also does not know how it works, something isn’t quite right. This is always the first thing I look for from free energy claimants. I don’t completely understand how a microwave works. It’s perhaps not super important that I don’t know, since I enjoy the benefits of low energy cooking regardless. However, the person who invented the microwave knew what principles they needed to manipulate, and they knew where the energy was coming from that, in modern times, ultimately is transferred to your food.

I said in my earlier post that there is something about the compressed air that might be interesting. When the compressed air is released into the cylinder, it cools down spontaneously. Heat from the environment then warms it back up to room temperature. One could arguably try and work off this principle to make a machine that converts ambient heat into mechanical energy (but I won’t go any deeper down that rabit hole). Ted's last post describes ways of extracting the thermal energy of a fluid. The trouble is that the device in the OP purports to continuously provide 10s or 100s of KW of power. If ambient heat were the energy source, the water in the tank would turn to ice fairly quickly, and the surrounding air would never be able to dump heat into it fast enough to melt it or keep it liquid to begin.

All this reminded me of a very simple REAL energy machine, that is indeed free, that is based on bodies of compressed air moving in a fluid (literally, a bubbly stream). This apparatus is called a Trompe. It works by entraining air bubbles into the flowing river or stream. The flowing water with entrained air bubbles is diverted down a pipe. Towards the bottom, where pressures are high, the bubbles compress to smaller and smaller sizes due to the pressure. These bubbles are then collected in a reservoir. This reservoir then is simply tapped to provide the compressed air to wherever the energy is needed. The whole thing operates continuously so long as the stream continues to flow. A completely free source of compressed air, once used to power pneumatic industry and transport, now largely forgotten. It’s a brilliant system.

Ted

22nd June 2015, 02:18

Ted

22nd June 2015, 02:27

All this reminded me of a very simple REAL energy machine, that is indeed free, that is based on bodies of compressed air moving in a fluid (literally, a bubbly stream). This apparatus is called a Trompe. It works by entraining air bubbles into the flowing river or stream. The flowing water with entrained air bubbles is diverted down a pipe. Towards the bottom, where pressures are high, the bubbles compress to smaller and smaller sizes due to the pressure. These bubbles are then collected in a reservoir. This reservoir then is simply tapped to provide the compressed air to wherever the energy is needed. The whole thing operates continuously so long as the stream continues to flow. A completely free source of compressed air, once used to power pneumatic industry and transport, now largely forgotten. It’s a brilliant system.That is a cool device, I've read about those! Some of the early inventions are the most clever. Those guys had very limited tools and materials yet got the job done through ingenuity. Some of the old patents are mind blowing.

Lefty Dave

22nd June 2015, 14:55

Greetings fellow searchers...
I've never understood why I can't use the same principles used for a wristwatch that you wind every week...to create power on a larger scale...say...a bike hooked up to a large coil spring that you wind up by peddling and that runs your generator...can anyone tell me why this won't work ? I'm no physicist but it seems do-able to me...
Blessings.
end of line.

Ted

22nd June 2015, 16:49

:idea:
Greetings fellow searchers...
I've never understood why I can't use the same principles used for a wristwatch that you wind every week...to create power on a larger scale...say...a bike hooked up to a large coil spring that you wind up by peddling and that runs your generator...can anyone tell me why this won't work ? I'm no physicist but it seems do-able to me...
Blessings.
end of line.There is no reason you couldn't do it, but I don't see any free lunch in the system. It takes energy to wind the spring, which would then run the generator. The mechanical losses alone guarantee a net loss. You may as well leave the spring out and just peddle straight to the generator. Springs, while being very useful, are net energy loss devices.
Keep thinking though :idea:

Cheers,

Ted

sigma6

23rd June 2015, 02:34

Science begins with observation. Given the observations stand, the ability to find an explanation for any observation is also the job of science. Not being able to come up with an explanation is a lack on the part of the scientist, not the observation itself. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge and has no place in science, or at least antithetical to it.

There are many observations "science" can't explain... I think they made up a word for this concept... It evades me at this moment ':-O

sigma6

23rd June 2015, 02:41

Most discoveries were made by observing an effect then working out an explanation for that effect afterwards. I don't think in this case the source of the energy is exactly known. It may be a combination of things all adding up to more output than input.The fact that it works is enough to attempt to understand the mechanisms involved.
If even one of these OU devices (and there are several) get into the mainstream, it's curtains for oil. That's why I have my doubts about it's eventual release. The PTB have been suppressing these devices since Tesla, why would they stop now?
Maybe with enough publicity this one has a shot. Hell, I could build one of these things in my garage. If enough guys replicate it there's no way to stop it.
Ted

re: why they should stop now... because we are all going to die if they don't...
More proof that human beings are party to our own demise, but will we act?
http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1824768/more-proof-human-beings-are-party-our-own-demise-will-we-act?utm_source=edm&utm_medium=edm&utm_content=20150623&utm_campaign=scmp_today
http://cdn2.scmp.com/sites/default/files/styles/486x302/public/2015/06/22/tpbje20150524121_50396453.jpg?itok=tGorQR8o

There are examples of species all over the world that are "essentially the walking dead", said Stanford University professor Paul Ehrlich. "We are sawing off the limb that we are sitting on."

He was talking about the sixth mass extinction, the huge loss of species that is under way right now. It has been discussed in public before, of course, but what Ehrlich and other scientists have done is to document it statistically.

Animals and plants are always going extinct, usually to be replaced by rival species. But the normal turnover rate is quite slow, according to the fossil record. Ehrlich and his colleagues deliberately raised the bar, assuming that the normal rate is twice as high - and still got an alarming result.

In a study published this month in Science Advances, they report that vertebrates are going extinct at a rate 114 times faster than normal...

Ted

23rd June 2015, 03:26

There are many observations "science" can't explain... I think they made up a word for this concept... It evades me at this moment ':-OCognitive dissonance comes to mind...

Ted

24th June 2015, 18:19

Here's an update...

Rosch: "We Pulse the Air"

Stuart's observation that the air compressor doesn't cycle on and off leads to elaboration on how the Kinetic Power Plant (KPP) works, through a combination of several simultaneous effects, not just pumping air into floats.

For those who have not been following this saga, Rosch Innovations KPP (Kinetic Power Plant) is a buoyancy device involving floats that fill with air at the bottom of a water tank to cause them to rise, turning a generator in the process, such that the generator produces enough energy to self-loop while also producing excess energy for base load power production {e.g. utility company capability.)

by Sterling D. Allan
Pure Energy Systems News

Sunday morning, at breakfast near Spich, Germany, Stuart told me he had a thought come to him that had him puzzling regarding Rosch' KPP generator.

"Why doesn't the air compressor cycle on and off, like air compressors usually do?"

http://pesn.com/2015/06/23/9602636_Rosch--We-Pulse-the-Air/IMGA0039_600.jpg

In the Rosh KPP, the air compressor is always on.

As we approached some of the guys at Rosch about this, I found it quite interesting that they had not thought of this question before, either. "That's a good question," seemed to be their expression -- not in a doubting way, but in a puzzlement way.

One of them conjectured that it was to prevent a feedback loop. Each time the air compressor cycles on, it would require a surge of electricity, which would signal to the system to substantially increase the power output. Keeping it running and just regulating how much it is producing would prevent the surge that comes from starting such a significant motor from a stop.

I do know that the air compressor, rated at 7.5 kW, is oversized for the 15 kW set-up. If I understand correctly, it's actually intended for and will end up with the 100 kW demo system.

Later that morning, when Detlef Dohmen, the CEO, arrived, as we were in a conference room together, he chuckled at the question and what we had surmised was the reason for it staying on.

Then, like a loving father, he said something that to me turned on a very big light bulb of awareness: "We pulse the air."

"That's not just a tank of air. We have some special things in there."

To appreciate the significance of this, be aware that in the last year of conference calls with the New Energy Systems Trust, nearly every week, Mike Waters would give us a tutorial on the role that pulsing plays in evoking overunity effects. I wish I could articulate what he said, but I can say that it made sense, and I could tell that Mike knew what he was talking about.

It wasn't just one type of modality of exotic free energy that this applied to, either. The principle applied in several modalities, and for the same reasons.

To put it very simply, it has to do with resonance. Picture soldiers walking across a bridge, and how they have to stop marching in step when they do so, because in times past, if they didn't, the resonance of their marching could bring down a bridge.

Think of Tesla's tapping on a beam in a high-rise, causing it to start to shake. Resonance.

You all know what I'm talking about. This isn't fairy tails, it is documented history with a lot of data to support it.

As I was driving to the airport with Mr. Dohmen this morning, I asked more about this, saying, "From what I can tell, the generator also has a significant role in the effect. It's not just a regular generator." He confirmed that this is the case.

"There are a lot of things going on at the same time," he said. "It's not just air being blown into a float."

That's probably why they guard the circuitry so closely. The programming is where their intellectual property and advances are found.

He did tell me the other day that this is why the system shut off when I tried to plug in my power cord with the ground only protruding on one side, not both, as is typical in German sockets. They have an algorithm in their software that shuts the system off if they detect something unusual in the load. There are clever people who can program loads to reverse engineer the circuitry. That is why Rosch programmed their circuit such that if it detects something unusual in the load, then it shuts off -- kind of like the shoplifting gate and beeper at the entrance / exit of some stores.

A couple of days earlier, Frank had said that there are three primary components contributing to the unusual properties of the generator (working): the buoyancy tower, the generator, and the circuitry. Apparently he wasn't aware of the significance the compressor plays, or he forgot to mention it.

Rosch manufactures the generator and the air compressor (and the circuitry, of course, as well as the buoyancy tower).

Also, elaborating on buoyancy, another thing Mr. Dohmen said was to think of submarines. He put it something to the effect: "If buoyancy couldn't be overunity, then how would they get what goes down to come back up?" That was a puzzling statement to me, because there are plenty of power sources on a submarine. But he was referring to something that has to do with the function of air and buoyancy in enabling the sub to descend and ascend in the water. I'm not that familiar with that mechanism, so his analogy was a bit lost on me.

He said that one of the Engineers on their development team was involved with Russian submarine technology, and a variation of that is used in their air compressor.

You'll notice that there is an unencumbered, smaller air hose that bypasses the control section of the hoses. This is to allow the air from the mains to get into the float system when they are starting it up and don't have power to the air compressor yet.

The following is my conjecture. After the system is running, the air flow controls from the air compressor, ride on top of what is able to get through the bottom hose unencumbered. Alternatively, there is some kind of valve that blocks that bypass, but the build of the three-way doesn't seem unusual.

Another thing we learned that ties in somewhat to this discussion, is the primary reason why they stopped having the air compressor powered by mains power, and only powered by the generator from the floats.

They described a few situations in the past in which the system went into run-away mode. One time, one of their 100 kW systems self-destructed, because it got going so fast. In some prototypes, they used brakes on the mechanism to apply in such situations. One time, as the system was going so fast, the brakes disintegrated in a few seconds. By having the air compressor tied to the output of the generator, if something happens to the float system, and it stops, then the air compressor stops as well.

One of the philosophies of Rosch is to over-engineer their systems, to overbuild them so that they will be as "idiot-proof" as possible; so that as they go out into third world situations (their primary first target), the operators won't have to have special degrees just to run the plants. (Not to say people in the third world are "idiots." They just usually don't have as much education/training as is usually found in the first world.)

This is illustrated by the "15 kW" demo we saw. That tower, they say, could run an 80 kW generator. And the generator they are using for the demo could produce up to 22 kW, but they are running it quite a bit lower than that (by limiting the number of things they put on the load). Of course, the 7.5 kW air compressor is part of its "load," but is not pulling it's full the 7.5 capacity since it is much larger than it needs to be for this scenario, so it's only running at a much lower capacity.

Speaking of durability, there were many so-called engineering experts who said that the gearbox on the 5 kW system was inadequate to handle the torque that would be produced by a 5 kW input from a slow-moving chain to a fast-moving generator. Mr. Dohmen had me be sure to take a photo of that gearbox, explaining that the gearbox was engineered by one of the leading firms in Germany who do nothing but that kind of engineering. "It can handle 5000 Newton-meters of force," he said.

http://pesn.com/2015/06/23/9602636_Rosch--We-Pulse-the-Air/IMGA0136_600.jpg

I can tell you from hanging out with these guys that they are not afraid to spend money when it needs to be spent on things that require proper engineering. They take great pride in their work. Mr. Dohmen dotes over the KPP like a father would a newborn child. He has obviously put a lot into this birthing, and he doesn't appreciate people jumping to "fraud" conclusions. Skepticism is one thing, to point out possible points of trickery, but to jump to the conclusion of "fraud" is libel when you don't have adequate evidence. Just keep that in mind when you go blabbing your mouth without adequate information. Overunity could be shut down because of libel.

http://pesn.com/2015/06/23/9602636_Rosch--We-Pulse-the-Air/

Nick Matkin

24th June 2015, 20:06

If any of this 'free energy' malarkey was easy, it couldn't be suppressed. Any decent university or even school physics lab could reproduce it.

Students are keen to disprove what they've been taught, and there are thousands of gifted physics students all over the world (just think of China!) who'd love to prove that our gaps in the understanding of physics would make such a device possible.

If the technology was suppressed, how come Hope Girl and the Quantum Energy Generator group were allowed to publish the construction details of their machine (for free) on-line last year? It was widely discussed on PA. (I guess TPTB let that one through because it was just bollox and only served to discredit the FE crowd.)

Nick

Ted

24th June 2015, 22:04

It can, and has been suppressed for over 100 years now. Many devices have been built and proven, but nobody has, of yet, been able to take anything to market. The PTB don't care if you build a device and don't market it.
I'll put it another way: Do you think energy companies are going to just step aside from a multi trillion dollar a year business, or do you think that they will try and protect their investment? These people have enough money and influence to squish anybody, and make sure it stays quiet.
Another aspect to consider is this; Producing usable energy is the same as acquiring wealth. You're taking money right out of the big boy's pocket. It's a commodity which has been monopolized and jealously guarded for a long time. Governments don't want you to have it either, because they derive a huge amount of money from energy taxes. Nobody wants free energy in the marketplace except you and me, who have to pay through the nose to get it.
Universities are likewise encouraged to avoid these devices, lest their future be in jeopardy.

Nick Matkin

25th June 2015, 08:36

In the late 1980s I remember the media frenzy covering the cold fusion results from Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann. For a few weeks it looked like they really were onto something. University labs all over the world were excitedly scrambling to reproduce the results - it looked as if the cat was out of the bag.

No doubt this gave the heads of some energy companies a few sleepless nights, but the point is the work was not 'suppressed'; quite the opposite as there were attempts to reproduce the results all over the world. Research continues, but unfortunately it seems the whole thing was a red herring.

Then there's the continuing research into hot fusion that may eventually give huge amounts of electricity, although not quite the same as what we consider 'free energy'. Again, thiis not being suppressed.

Many free-energy inventors say they just can't get anyone to take them seriously in order to develop their prototype. Well all they have to do is use one to light an African village for Oxfam or some other charity. OK, it's using the developing world as a publicity stunt, but hey, they will have done two things: proved the technology is real so other villages/communities will want one, and also generated media interest.

I know someone who suggested this very thing to the QEG group late last year after they kept reporting 'resonance' of their devices in various videos. They didn't even bother to acknowledge the suggestion...

It's possible, I guess, that deep within the bowels of a government or military lab somewhere in the world such a technology exists, but to get it to work requires huge amounts of sophisticated technology. And as you say, releasing it on the world would be very disruptive in the short to medium term.

I also think the you-can't-meter-free-energy mantra is another red herring. If it's generated centrally (probably the most efficient way of distribution for the foreseeable future) you'd still have a meter, or pay a set amount each year regardless of how much you use - just like we used to pay for domestic water use in the UK.

In the UK now, if you live in a very isolated community there is nothing to stop you from buying a combination of solar and wind-powered equipment and generating your own electricity. As far as I know no government minister is going to demand any type of payment. But if everyone started doing it then it would be taxed, just like simply owing a car! It would surely be the same if we all had a free-energy device in a cupboard under the stairs - we'd have to pay some sort of tax on it.

It's inevitable that our present ever-expanding use of fossil fuels cannot go on indefinitely, so if the energy companies are sensible, they will be looking into developing alternative sources. That will include all forms of 'free energy' because they'll know that if they don't, someone else will!

Nick

Lost N Found

9th August 2015, 18:35

Well this seems to be maybe the only place I can post "Generators" I came across this last year and have been keeping an eye on it, So if there is anyone that has seen this and I think they are selling them by now, I would really like to discuss this and get more info on what is happening. I am going to post a youtube vid first to see who may be already into this. Here it is,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEqSuTOKUEg

Tom Booth

30th July 2025, 09:49

meat suit

30th July 2025, 12:17

This is interesting.
there are a lot of moving parts in water which would need a lot of maintainance.

I guess simplified this is reverse water wheel, where buoyancy does the lifting rather than water doing the pushing.
Maybe air pushing up through water has more force than the weight of water..

meat suit

30th July 2025, 14:22

Spent a bit of time reading that thread at https://www.allmystery.de/themen/gw113123 that you linked.
I speak german but crikey, what a rabbit hole..

I guess what you are wondering about is wether the heat in the compressed air is adding anything.
Are you familiar with the thunder storm generator?

There seem to be things at work in some systems that are outside of the current paradigm.
Stanley Myers water car was another one, Griggs hydrosonic pump...

Ernie Nemeth

30th July 2025, 15:32

Tom Booth

30th July 2025, 16:10

This is interesting....

I guess simplified this is reverse water wheel, where buoyancy does the lifting rather than water doing the pushing.
Maybe air pushing up through water has more force than the weight of water..

There have been some examinations and evaluations of the machines by various investigators or examiners. The general conclusion is that no fraud or "hidden power source" could be detected, however, by the general known laws of science, there is no explanation for how it could work, so accusations of some kind of trickery. hidden wires, and so forth continue. There are some rather disturbing circumstances surrounding this.

The link in the introductory post for this thread is broken. The site Peswiki(dot)com no longer exists. It's maintainer is apparently now in prison.

It can still be accessed through the internet archive though:

https://web.archive.org/web/20150722042912/http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Thrust_Kinetic_Generator_by_Rosch_Innovations_AG

As the story goes, not long after he (Stirling Allen) published the story about this company and their machine on his website he decided to confess to authorities that he cannot control his pedophile tendencies and asked to please be arrested. Supposedly, he was operating a vast international pedophile network and his computers and all his contacts were seized.

Compromising images of Detlef Dohmen (now dead) , the CEO of the company that manufactures (or manufactured?) the machines have also been circulated online.

The campaign(s) to "expose the fraud" and smear the company as a "scam" have continued unabated.

Sooo.... was Sterling D. Allan operating a "Free Energy Network" or was he the ringleader and webmaster/maintainer of a vast international pedophile network? My intention here is not to dive any deeper into that question but to take a sober and objective look at what I believe is one plausible explanation for how this "buoyancy" generator may have operated, and perhaps, may be operating.

The company Rosch Innovations has announced, or has claimed numerous megawatt installations all over the world. Meanwhile the debunkers of the "SCAM" continue to counter that none of these installations actually exist and that it is all a fraud.

Anyway, as for my "theory" of how this device might operate. Here is the first clue:

2hYQtB4QkEY

When air is compressed, even using an ordinary shop compressor such as many people have in their own garage or workshop, the air initially gets hot, but if cooled, or allowed to cool over time naturally, when the compressed cooled air is released its temperature can fall well below freezing.

Keep in mind also that all heat pumps, refrigerators, freezers and air conditioners utilize a compressor in basically the same way, to produce refrigeration. Air itself is a recognized refrigerant: R-729

R-729 (Ordinary atmospheric Air) is not utilized much for domestic or commercial refrigeration. It is most suitable for cryogenic freezing and preservation due to the potential for achieving extremely low temperatures.

My first introduction to this phenomenon was when I was quite young, newly married and looking for employment with a temporary placement agency in Arizona.

I gat an assignment to temporarily fill in for a worker in a mechanic shop repairing engines. I had taken a two year trades course in Engine and Appliance Repair during my final two years in High School.

When I showed up for the job and the employer told me the story about who I was there to replace and why, my jaw dropped.

One of the workers in the shop was removing a series of long head bolts from a large engine. He was using an air powered impact wrench. The bolts were very big, long and somewhat stubborn and difficult to remove. The worker had not been aware that his finger was over the exhaust outlet of the air tool as he was working removing one large bolt after the other. The extreme cold from the exhaust port of the air wrench, without him even noticing, had cryogenically frozen his finger and when he went to put down the air wrench his finger was stuck to the wrench and snapped off like an icicle. I was told not to worry though because I would not be using that particular air wrench, they were having me sharpening chain saw blades, but just as a forewarning he said if I ever did need to use such an air tool to keep my fingers away from the exhaust port.

I think the reason the air got so extremely cold was that in the desert (Arizona) the temperatures can be very hot during the day but often plumet at night, down to near freezing, so the big tank of compressed air had sat overnight in the shop and so had become unusually cold. So when the shop opened early in the morning the air in the tank was still quite chilled, enough so that then it expanded to drive the air wrench and dropped much further in temperature it was cold enough to cryogenically freeze a finger. This is not usually a problem when using an air wrench normally for short durations. Nevertheless, even under NORMAL circumstances the refrigerating effect of expanding compressed air is considerable as demonstrated in the above video.

It is such compressed and cooled air that is injected into the Buoyancy canisters at the bottom of the tank of water in these Buoyancy generators. This thermal aspect or component is very easily overlooked or disregarded but it is, I believe, key to understanding how the device may operate.

meat suit

30th July 2025, 16:26

If the air is cooled upon injection, I cant seehow that would help with the buoancy..

Tom Booth

30th July 2025, 18:24

If the air is cooled upon injection, I cant seehow that would help with the buoancy..

The air is cooled down after compression and before injection.

The idea, or principle was laid out by Tesla.

Heat is everywhere in abundance. The Sun has warmed up our atmosphere, otherwise earth would be a cold rock floating in outer space at near absolute zero.

The problem is how to tap into all this heat we are surrounded by, which represents an inexhaustible supply of "Free Energy".

A heat engine requires a temperature difference to operate, but that temperature difference does not need to be the given temperature of our atmosphere and some temperature raised ABOVE the temperature of the atmosphere.

A heat engine can also run on a temperature difference of our ambient atmosphere kept forever warm by the Sun and a COLDER temperature.

https://youtu.be/L6Jmdve1JK8?si=IP40DLA-rrZbO_nm

By doing this the engine is tapping into the heat/energy residing in the atmosphere.

Tesla's reasoning was that heat is not (as was then generally believed), a FLUID that flows through a heat engine, but rather a form of energy itself. Conservation of energy then dictates that the heat entering into the engine is CONVERTED into mechanical WORK and so the heat does not actually flow through the engine.

The heat goes into the engine, and then it is converted into the mechanical motion of the engine itself.

So taking the above video as an example. If the ice cube were protected from all the surrounding heat in the air causing it to melt regardless, there is actually very little heat getting into the ice THROUGH THE ENGINE.

In theory then, if perfectly insulated, the heat engine could run on top of the ice indefinitely. Of course that's easier said than done, but the basic principle is that by generating COLD, the abundant, virtually unlimited heat/energy in the general surroundings, the AIR and atmosphere becomes available to the engine.

Tom Booth

30th July 2025, 19:22

BTW, this is discussed in rather technical terms in the paper posted by Ted in his second post to the thread. His post consists of a long quotation from this page:

Wayback Archive copy: https://web.archive.org/web/20150516010433/http://pesn.com/2015/05/13/9602617_scientific-explanation-for-Rosch-KPP-buoyancy-system/

The significant passage:

If we found a way to fully use this non-equilibrium, we would obtain an 820-fold gain in energy. Non-equilibrium states are observed starting from the moment of feeding air under a column of water. They accumulate when the air rises because...

the air volume increases, taking away heat from the water. Air is fed under the water column at a temperature less than the temperature of the water,

...since if during the process of reaching atmospheric pressure the air pressure equals 4 Atm (0.4 MPa) and the temperature is +20°C (293 K). the air will cool down to 75°C (198 K), i.e. by 95°C. Heat extraction will take place in conditions close to adiabatic

There was a great deal of additional discussion about this around that time when this energy extraction device was first introduced but just continuing with that paper:

The proposed installation may extract heat from the water and transform it into mechanical energy. Taking into consideration the temperature difference between the water and the air when the water temperature equals 80°C (the thermal source, water, heated up in a solar collector or in a system of turbine cooling or compressor cooling, em), and the air temperature is 20°C, the coefﬁcient of the air volume increase, according to the

Gay-Lussac Law, will total:
1+ (s0°c - 20°C)/273 = 1.2
The capacity will amount to:

N =14.7 kW x 1.2 = 17.6 kW
Our expectations about a gain in energy were
borne out:
17.6 kW/ 5 = 3.5 kW
3.5 kW / 1.13 kW = a 3,1-fold energy gain per wheel

There are a number of additional "hidden" or not readily apparent HEAT transfers going on in this machine that involve little known principles related to compressing air. One of those principles is the so-called "Proell Effext".

From the companies literature:

55503

What exactly the "Proell Effect" is and how it might play a role in the workings of this machine is a pretty big subject in itself. The "Proell Effect" is actually a very obscure topic in the field of Stirling Heat engines and Heat Pumps.

Johnnycomelately

31st July 2025, 08:09

I originally found this forum while searching for a forum discussing the topic of this buoyancy generator.

I have been intrigued by Stirling heat engines for several decades, studying how they work and doing experiments. My YouTube channel is largely devoted to posting videos of my experiments with small model Stirling engines over the years.

Some time back, someone on the Stirling engine forum brought my attention to this rather controversial Buoyancy generator which has been described as a kind of Stirling heat engines by its manufacturers and distributors or by its inventors.

The CEO of the company that has been manufacturing and promoting these generators recently passed away.

There has been an ongoing debate about this machine that has continued for over a decade on a German forum. https://www.allmystery.de/themen/gw113123 there were other forums prior to this also that no longer are active but can be accessed through the Wayback internet archive.

On the German forum, I was interested in discussing this machine in light of its claimed mode of operation as a "Stirling" heat engine or thermal engine, as originally stated, rather than a "buoyancy" engine.

The German forum, however, was/is apparently controlled and operated by individuals who ONLY have one goal and purpose: to debunk the machine and the company and it's distributors as a "scam".

I think that the fact that the controversy has continued for so long rather remarkable in itself.

Some of the companies promotional videos:

Y4Qt92a6sgg

3IdNow8vZdg

As seems usual for this kind of thing, it appears to violate the known laws of physics and some simply dismiss it as a physical impossibility and an " obvious scam, plain and simple"

There are a number of forums and websites dedicated only to "exposing the scam".

Anyway, I joined the German forum to discuss the feasibility of such a device from a thermodynamics standpoint as a kind of combined heat pump and heat engine, as I have already run into such anomalies in connection with "ordinary" off-the-shelf model Stirling engines that seem to operate in ways that defy "established science".

This "anomalous" apparent "overunity" or apparent "perpetual motion" behavior of certain thermally powered engines has been an area of research for me for about 15 years.

Here is one such heat engine that without doubt operates as a kind of "apparent" perpetual motion machine:

rOrltkTpFm8

Purportedly, the buoyancy generator works on the same basic principle as the drinking bird toy. But if this were assumed to actually be true, what principle is that exactly?

This was actually explained and elaborated upon by Nikola Tesla and others. Similar inventions have appeared over and over again but are almost invariably dismissed as "impossible" and the inventors themselves scorned as crackpots or scam artists.

Hi Tom, and welcome to the show.

On the nodding bird vid, he says it relies on incident light heating the dark body/butt more than the silver hat and the light coloured head. I guess that the fluid creeping up the neck is forced by thermal expansion, and when it tips forward enough gets cooled by the cooler upper glass that it resets. Strange project, probably tight tolerances on various constraints. Might be a candidate for an Ignobel Prize lol.

I attended a conference on future technology in Berlin in the late 80’s, and watched two different presentations about rotating electrical over-unity concepts. One had equipment and ran a demo (I don’t recall being impressed with the stated results), and they were both intruiging to undergrad-physics degree me.

Cooler than that though, I later met a man who told me of a simpler over unity device he had built. He said it was a ~table top train setup, where iirc the engine /car had a magnet, which attracted to iron or magnetic pieces recurring in the track. Said he used another material as a shield to the same magnetics, blanking the mag fields from slowing the carriage as it passed each. Wouldn’t tell me what that material was.

Another off-topic, I once heard it said that the over-unity devices’ harvesting of energy from somewhere else, is akin to stealing. Dunno if, if that is true, most of our ET visitors are still miscreants, in the grand scheme of things.

Cheers from Edmonton AB.

Tom Booth

31st July 2025, 13:50

This is interesting.
there are a lot of moving parts in water which would need a lot of maintenance.
...

This is true. Lots and lots of chain links etc. Perhaps not the best implementation but what I think is important is getting to the bottom of the principle involved. How it actually works (if it does, and isn't some kind of hoax as many assume).

Tom Booth

31st July 2025, 15:01

Spent a bit of time reading that thread at https://www.allmystery.de/themen/gw113123 that you linked.
I speak german but crikey, what a rabbit hole...

I started posting on that forum at the bottom of this page: https://www.allmystery.de/themen/gw113123-2836 I was constantly bombarded with moderator warnings from the get-go. It seemed nearly everyone in there was flagging my posts for various trivial or completely made up reasons. One being that it is a German language forum and I was posting in English. All the browsers on my computer do translation pretty seamlessly, so I hardly even notice and never see people posting on any forum in any language to be any big issue these days, but to avoid getting banned for speaking English, there was a small "English" section, so I started a "spinoff" thread there: https://www.allmystery.de/themen/en172828 <--- that might be worth reading if anyone wants a head start on where I'm going with this.

I guess what you are wondering about is wether the heat in the compressed air is adding anything.

Not so much wondering at this point, but hoping to be able to explain in what way "Heat" plays a big role, though this is not readily apparent. The process by which a household freezer gets cold is not "visible". We can hear when the compressor is running, but what makes the refrigerator get cold? We know the compressor is pumping "refrigerant" around, but a "refrigerant" is not really anything particularly special. Virtually anything that can be compressed and expanded can be used as a refrigerant, including ordinary atmospheric air, or even rubber bands:

lfmrvxB154w

The demonstration is cool, but the talk about "entropy" toward the end is not a very good or legitimate explanation IMO. Personally, I don't think there is really any such thing as "entropy". It seems to just be a word people insert when they don't actually understand what's going on. I think molecular attraction and repulsion makes more sense. A gas, or gas molecules, like AIR or refrigerant "like to be" a certain distance apart from one another so the electron clouds around them don't collide, so if compressed, the gas wants to expand, the molecules repel one another when forced too close together. On the other hand, when far apart, the molecules tend to want to come closer together and attract one another.

Yqj5jHUE3wI

To me, this is a much more satisfying explanation of what's actually going on than just caulking it up to "entropy".

Are you familiar with the thunder storm generator?

No, I don't think so, though it sounds vaguely familiar. What about it?

There seem to be things at work in some systems that are outside of the current paradigm.
Stanley Myers water car was another one, Griggs hydrosonic pump...

Yes, I think it is important to keep an open mind about these things. Direct testing and experiment where there are different theories or different possible explanations is also important. For me I'm mostly a "free energy" agnostic. I don't believe it without demonstrating it for myself on the workbench or with a prototype I built myself, but I wouldn't dismiss something offhand until I built and tested it myself either.

I think there also seems to be evidence that "experimenter bias" may cross over into a kind of "mind over matter" where experiments ACTUALLY work around the influence of certain people but don't work around the influence of certain other people.

Scientific "objectivity" seems akin to some mystical states of suspended thinking, so perhaps a scientific "discovery" is more an act of creativity.

Tom Booth

31st July 2025, 15:09

Water is a very special compound. It's properties are unique. There almost certainly are things we don't understand yet about it.
For instance, the fact that breaking just one of the hydrogen bonds gives you Brown's gas, which then can be harnessed to break the second bond. If this process were used broadly it could be the next power source.
Imagine burning water! Who knew?

I'm very interested in Hydrogen as a fuel, especially burning hydrogen gas as a heat source for powering a Stirling engine. I've often wondered about the bonding of H2O - two hydrogens bonded to one oxygen and if that might be taken advantage of in some way. How would that work exactly?

Now that you mention it, here is another interesting twist to this Buoyancy engine I came across:

1CuX-BYHjpw

Tom Booth

31st July 2025, 15:43

...
Cooler than that though, I later met a man who told me of a simpler over unity device he had built. He said it was a ~table top train setup, where iirc the engine /car had a magnet, which attracted to iron or magnetic pieces recurring in the track. Said he used another material as a shield to the same magnetics, blanking the mag fields from slowing the carriage as it passed each. Wouldn’t tell me what that material was.
...
Cheers from Edmonton AB.

I saw several videos of some such thing somewhere posted on this forum: https://www.mooker.com/index.php

The guy was pushing little magnetic cars under a kind of magnetic arch with magnetic shielding under the arch, so the car was attracted and accelerated through the arch. Then this would be repeated.

It seemed to kind of work, but kind of not work. It seemed the car always needed a PUSH at some point but would not continue around in a loop on a track indefinitely, at least at that stage, but that was a few years ago. I haven't been on that forum for a while and couldn't find the thread, but I found that effort at magnetic shielding interesting.

Ernie Nemeth

31st July 2025, 16:36

They used to call it mu metal and it was used in tape recorders to shield the tape from magnetic effects of the transport system.
As it turned out it was metal folded over and over forming a sandwich of layers that mitigated magnetically induced counter currents.

meat suit

31st July 2025, 16:54

Tom Booth

31st July 2025, 18:59

...
Here is a random link to the thunderstorm generator,
https://www.laloadrianmorales.com/blog/the-thunderstorm-generator-design-operation-and-key-contributors/
We have looked at it in passing on Avalon as it was accidentally disclosed on Joe Rogan by Randall Carlson.
I have high hopes for the technology..

Kind of looks a lot like Paul Pantone's GEET generator. That may be why it sounds familiar, though I can't recall where, or if there might actually be a connection. I had a fleeting interest in GEET a few years ago and posted my general theory of how I thought it might work on the Stirling Engine Forum:

https://stirlingengineforum.boydhouse.com/viewtopic.php?p=19998

So many interesting things to explore and so little time, I never got around to building a GEET engine to test out the theory, but maybe someday.

Tom Booth

2nd August 2025, 18:20

Well, getting back to the Buoyancy generator, there is an old German "OverUnity" forum where this engine was introduced and discussed back in 2014.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170615131654/http://www.overunity.de/1797/rosch-auftriebskraftwerk-gaia-auftriebs-kraftwerk-wie-es-funktioniert/#.WUKI0nbP32c

At that time, there was quite a bit of discussion about this being a thermal engine, heat engine or "Stirling Engine" ("Stirlingmotors" in German).

The reason I think this is kind of a big deal and not "just another theory" is that it fits a pattern I've seen over and over again.

Peter A. Lindemann wrote a summary of Nicola Tesla's AMBIENT HEAT ENGINE in 1995 http://free-energy.ws/pdf/self_acting_engine.pdf

IT included this conceptual diagram to illustrate his general understanding of Tesla's invention:

55517

To the left is an air compressor that takes in ambient air from the atmosphere.

The process of compressing air generates heat in two rather remarkable ways;

1st the air molecules all contain a given amount of energy that causes the molecules to maintain a certain distance from one another (Lennard Jones Potential). When the air molecules are forced closer together by a compressor the molecules adapt to this by giving up energy in the form of heat.

2nd the energy that is used in the process of compressing air (mechanical, electrical or chemical, i.e. whatever it is that powers the compressor, combustion engine, electric motor or manual labor, etc. ) is taken in by the air or transferred to the air molecules. This must also be thrown off as HEAT.

So moving up on the diagram, we next encounter a "heat exchanger".

The heat exchanger is really just the confined space, usually tubes or pipes that contain the compressed air or gas where the above mentioned two sources of heat are being thrown off by the compressed air.

All of the energy, so far, the energy that was in the air molecules themselves which they no longer want due to having to adapt to the COMPRESSED condition PLUS all the energy used in the compression process itself emanate from the "heat exchanger" in the form of HEAT.

Unfortunately Peter displays a rather poor understanding of heat pumps and refrigeration systems. In the text, he describes this (his own diagram) as follows:

The next element of the system... is really a heat exchanger that allows the working fluid to absorb heat from the environment... this element gets cold and produces refrigeration effects. On the inside, the working fluid is gaining in its stored heat potential. The next element of the system is the throttle or control valve...

This is actually wrong. After the compressor the heat exchanger, (Or the COMPRESSED AIR within the heat exchanger) is NOT "absorbing heat" but quite the opposite. As previously explained, the compressed air throws off heat, it does not get "COLD" (that comes later) it does just the opposite; it gets VERY HOT.

Anyone who has ever run an air compressor knows this, compressing air generates or throws off an enormous amount of heat.

A household refrigerator has a heat exchanger, usually on the back of the refrigerator, that gets very hot, throwing off a lot of heat. The compressor forces the refrigerant into this tight space; pipes or tubes. The heat exchanger simply provides the air with a lot of surface area to throw the heat off as quickly as possible. That is why these coils loop back and forth around and around and are often covered with aluminum fins and maybe have a small cooling fan to circulate air to GET RID OF THE HEAT.

55518

Next in the circuit is the "throttle".

The "Throttle" may also be called an "orifice" a "capillary tube" or an "expansion valve". All this really does is act as a restriction in the line to hold back the air or refrigerant so that it stays compressed, but at the same time, it provides a very small passageway for the compressed air to escape and get free to expand again.

These really tiny passageways in a refrigeration system can sometimes become clogged:

DipaQnHyVw8

When the air moves through this "throttle" what happens is the opposite of what took place when the air was compressed. When COMPRESSED the air had to throw off excess energy as heat in order to adapt, once past the restriction and free to take up more room, to expand and the air molecules get further apart, they become greedy for more energy.

Once through the capillary restriction or other "Valve" the air will adapt to the new condition of freedom and quickly begin absorbing heat. This is why a refrigerator gets cold: first the refrigerant is compressed to force it to throw off heat, then once past the restriction, the refrigerant is partially released from confinement (only partially because it is still inside tubes) and allowed to expand and wants to reabsorb energy. If someone were to touch it they would say it gets "COLD". It will FEEL cold because it is absorbing or taking away energy/heat from your hand.

As far as the heat that is thrown off by compression; it is good to keep in mind where the majority of this heat is actually coming from.

Ultimately, what heated the air in our atmosphere causing the air to EXPAND so the molecules of air maintain a certain distance from one another was the Sun.

The sun warmed up Earths atmosphere, the air molecules absorbed this "SOLAR ENERGY" that is then solar energy "STORED" in the air.

Compressing the air, then, reverses the process, forcing the air molecules back into close proximity with one another; a condition they were in before being heated up by the Sun. When forced close together the air gives up this STORED SOLAR ENERGY.

So, basically, the heat given off by compressed air IS SOLAR ENERGY.

After the "throttle" we encounter (back to Peter's diagram) the "turbine".

This is not actually separate from the "throttle".

In Heat Pump or Air conditioning systems that use AIR as the refrigerant, the "throttle" and the "turbine" are, in a sense, one and the same. That is, the turbine acts as a very special kind of "valve" or "restriction" where the air transitions between the state of being "COMPRESSED" to a state of being free to EXPAND.

These special turbines are often referred to as "expansion turbines".

This guy kind of sorta has an idea what he's doing but an interesting video anyway:

https://youtu.be/f1FQjfyOifI?si=V3aD0UDzkpeEl01s

People often get confused about this and they think that the turbine is forcing the air or refrigerant to expand, but actually the air is expanding and DRIVING the turbine, or POWERING the turbine.

In these "AIR-CYCLE" refrigeration systems the compressed air is allowed to escape but only by turning a turbine. Older systems used a reciprocating engine instead of a turbine.

https://www.grimsby.ac.uk/documents/frperc/research/aircycle_research.pdf

http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/POWER/airfrig/airfrig.htm

These engines were also often referred to as "EXPANSION ENGINES", not because the engine forced the air to expand, but rather because the expanding air is what drives the engine.

What an expansion engine or expansion turbine does is the opposite of what happens when energy is used to run a compressor and the energy goes into the air.

In an expansion turbine the energy to drive the turbine COMES OUT OF THE AIR.

That is, in a refrigeration system, or cryogenic freezer, as the air expands through an insulated turbine it is doing "WORK" to turn the turbine. That work the air does to turn the turbine, is energy that the air is taking from its own internal store of energy (because the turbine is insulated so heat cannot be absorbed from the environment.) As a result of this expansion and the work the air does, the air is releasing "INTERNAL ENERGY" to push the blades of the turbine out of the way so it can get free to expand.

In such an air cycle cryocooler, the air is really REALLY extra "GREEDY" for heat. It needs heat to expand so as it expands and even does some "WORK" in the process of trying to expand, it wants to absorb a lot of heat. The effect then, of rapidly absorbing heat is that the air becomes extremely COLD under these circumstances.

Peter in his text description again displays some misunderstanding or confusion saying:

Since no heat source is available here, the heat of vaporization must
come from the stored heat in the working fluid itself. This rapidly
expanding vapor/liquid combination is then harnessed by the next
element of the system, the turbine.

What Peter describes: "the heat of vaporization must
come from the stored heat in the working fluid itself" is true, or can be true in an air cycle refrigeration system where the INTENTION is to produce COLD for refrigeration. however, if your intention is to PRODUCE ENERGY, then what should be done, and what is done in such systems is to allow the air that powers the turbine to ABSORB AMBIENT HEAT FROM THE SUROUNDING ENVIRONMENT.

Some of the heat absorbed from the environment as the air expands is then transferred to the turbine to power the turbine as the air, if it can absorb heat from the environment, will expand more rapidly and with greater force, this more rapid, more forceful expansion is then transmitted to the turbine to produce more power output.

The turbine, then, becomes an AMBIENT HEAT POWERED engine.

As the air expands through the turbine, it is so desperate to expand that IF NECESSARY, it will expand at the expense of its own internal energy and become EXTREELY COLD. This is the process used in cryogenic refrigeration. The air is allowed to expand through a turbine but the turbine is INSULATED and the air can only expand out into an INSULATED room or box containing the material to be cryogenically frozen. The air will suck the heat out of whatever is in the freezer, much in the same way that the refrigerant in a household refrigerator will draw all the heat out of the food placed in the refrigerator. It does this, because IT WANTS TO EXPAND.

OK, so Peter got a few things mixed up and backwards. His illustration is still quite valuable in that it pulls together the various elements Tesla mentioned for his "FREE ENERGY" AMBIENT HEAT POWERED ENGINE.

Now what has all this got to do with the topic of this thread: the Buoyancy generator?

An examination of this machine, this Buoyancy generator reveals that it consists of or contains ALL THE SAME BASIC ELEMENTS AS TESLA'S AMBIENT HEAT ENGINE.

This post is already growing quite long so I'll break here.

Tom Booth

3rd August 2025, 05:55

The compressor is easy. A prominent element of the "buoyancy" engine.

55523

This is a thermal infrared image taken during an evaluation of the system:

55524

The turbine may not be readily recognizable, but I would argue that the chain of flotation canisters going round and round driven by expanding air is a type of turbine.

ftp49tEQ0-o

The "throttle" or valve that injects air into the turbine; well, there apparently are multiple valves. Watching the above video closely, it can be seen that there are valves being turned open and closed for each canister:

55525

On the forums and in the literature, these are described as "pressure reduction valves". Pressure reduction, is, of course, the purpose of an expansion valve in a refrigeration system, to maintain the compressed air or refrigerant gas or fluid under pressure until "expanded" or allowed to escape and expand. Once released through the valve, the compressed air truly takes on the role of a "refrigerant" in that as it expands it is "Greedy" to absorb back all the heat that it threw off when compressed.

The "heat exchanger" is also a little difficult to locate or identify. The compressor, as already seen above in the infrared image serves as a heat exchanger with fans and cooling fins on the compressor head "exchanging" heat with the surroundings, throwing the heat off.

The tank of water is another "heat exchanger".

A translation from the German forum (Reply #31):

The compressed air is pressed into the water column in countercurrent from top to bottom, so the resulting compression heat is extracted from the compressed air and transferred to the water.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170911044219/http://www.overunity.de/1797/rosch-auftriebskraftwerk-gaia-auftriebs-kraftwerk-wie-es-funktioniert/30/#.WbYUOHbP32c

Apparently, according to the "scientific explanation" provided to Stirling Allen, at least some iterations of the system used water cooling of the compressor to take heat directly from the compressor and transfer the hot water to the tank.

This is also where "The Proell Effect" plays a role. This has to do with a little known effect of compressing air. When a compressor compresses air into an air line, the air in the air line far away from the compressor itself also gets compressed and becomes hot. This is kind of like, if you were in a crowded room and were pressed against the wall by all the people in the room and then more people came through a door on the other side of the room and also entered into the room, you would be pressed harder against the wall even though the door where people are coming in is quite far away on the other side of the room. This may seem obvious, but to someone schooled in the "kinetic theory of gases", gas molecules do not interact with one another, so such "remote" heat transfer, it might be argued should be impossible.

The compressed air is delivered to the canisters at the bottom of the water tank. But the pipe with the hot compressed air is inside the tank going down through the water, so this "remote" heat of compression is continually being transferred to the water, especially near the top of the tank.

As the compressed air goes down through the delivery pipe and looses heat to the water, the water heats up taking heat from the hot air in the pipe.

So the tank of water with the pipe going down constitutes a "counter-current heat exchanger".

The compressed air then, is COOLED by the water and the water is HEATED by the compressed air.

When the air is released however, the role is reversed. The compressed air escaping through the valves into the canisters as mentioned previously is "Greedy" to recapture or take back the heat that it lost while compressed. So the air entering the canisters is actually Extremely COLD.

It has been explained in the literature about the device and on the forums that only a very small amount of air is injected into the canisters. Because the air is so cold and compressed when injected it is rather dense, you could say, almost a liquid. This near "Liquid Air" then rapidly expands inside the canisters as it takes heat back from the water. Heat that it lost while under compression.

An added effect of this is that the expanding air cools the water, especially down there near the bottom of the tank, so the colder water then further cools the air that is still inside the pipe on its way down. Because the expanding air cools the water and the water cools the air before it expands, things just keep getting colder and colder down there at the bottom of the tank.

This extreme cold at the bottom of the tank causes a kind of cascading effect, the compressed air just keeps getting colder and colder before it is released through the valves from under compression. An effect of this is the air "condenses" or shrinks from the extreme cold, which means, the cold is doing a lot of the work of "compressing" the air, the air is in effect expanding and refrigerating itself. This "self-cooling" of the expanding air cooling the air about to expand causes the air being compressed to simultaneously SHRINK, which takes a lot of the work load off the compressor!!! The air becomes easier and easier to compress as it is simultaneously cooling itself as it is being compressed. This is not an unknown process or effect:

Peter Lindemann wrote in his paper and quotes Tesla:

This illustrates what Tesla refers to as the "self-cooling" process that
allowed Dr. Carl Linde to liquefy air in 1895. Tesla immediately
understood the implications. He states that his invention could be
designed to run on liquid air, but that "its temperature is unnecessarily low."

Well, I think that pretty much covers everything, compressor, turbine, expansion valves, heat exchangers...

Is this all just accidental? A meaningless coincidence? Or maybe I'm reading more into it than is actually there? I don't really know but I'm just presenting it as a THEORY.

Fully understanding Tesla's theory behind his "Self Acting (HEAT) Engine" is probably best left for another thread. However Peter Lindemann put on a rather long presentation on the subject:

6lLXvOodPlo

As seen in this video, the principle has multiple possible applications not at all limited to this "Buoyancy" engine.

Tom Booth

3rd August 2025, 16:06

This post from earlier on is quite interesting:

So, none of us really purports to exactly know how this machine works to produce free energy. (..)
(...)
I do agree that if we don’t know how any particular machine works, then, in a sense, it doesn’t matter. However, if the inventor who claims inventorship of the machine also does not know how it works, something isn’t quite right. This is always the first thing I look for from free energy claimants. I don’t completely understand how a microwave works. It’s perhaps not super important that I don’t know, since I enjoy the benefits of low energy cooking regardless. However, the person who invented the microwave knew what principles they needed to manipulate, and they knew where the energy was coming from that, in modern times, ultimately is transferred to your food.

I said in my earlier post that there is something about the compressed air that might be interesting. When the compressed air is released into the cylinder, it cools down spontaneously. Heat from the environment then warms it back up to room temperature. One could arguably try and work off this principle to make a machine that converts ambient heat into mechanical energy (but I won’t go any deeper down that rabbit hole). Ted's last post describes ways of extracting the thermal energy of a fluid. The trouble is that the device in the OP purports to continuously provide 10s or 100s of KW of power. If ambient heat were the energy source, the water in the tank would turn to ice fairly quickly, and the surrounding air would never be able to dump heat into it fast enough to melt it or keep it liquid to begin....

It seems Tesseract has not been here on the forum for several years. Nevertheless, I'd like to respond to some of the comments.

Part of the problem with this, and quite a number of other "Free energy" related inventions I've looked into is that the inventor(s), somewhat understandably, I think, want compensation for what may be a lifetime of hard work, research, trial and error building prototypes etc. They worked hard, investing untold hours, sleepless nights, and in many cases their own personal capital, endured criticism and mockery, possibly also risking, if the stories about free energy suppression are true, having their invention confiscated or even assassination, putting their very lives on the line,...

So, they are more than a little reluctant to just give it away.

In this case however, the company itself put out the same explanation put forward in this post, from the very start. They did not disclose every detail, but they certainly provided the general theory and dropped a lot of hints.

I would say that Tesseract here expresses a lot of skepticism and is generally dismissive, yet provides what he apparently believes to be a potentially plausable explanation:

When the compressed air is released into the cylinder, it cools down spontaneously. Heat from the environment then warms it back up[/U][/B] to room temperature. One could arguably try and work off this principle to make a machine that converts ambient heat into mechanical energy (but I won’t go any deeper down that rabbit hole)

Well, why not go down that "Rabbit Hole"?

Yes, it is absolutely inevitable, the conclusion is inescapable: The compressed air when released into the canisters through a "pressure reducing valve" is going to be, potentially, insanely cold, down into the cryogenic range. I say "potentially" only because the air as it is released into relatively warm water surrounded by warm ambient air starts to absorb heat from the water immediately, so never actually observably reaches this potentially extremely cold temperature. But the colder it COULD GET, in potential, the greater the amount of "FREE" environmental heat that becomes available to absorb and immediately convert into buoyancy / lifting power.

The more slowly the "turbine" rotates the longer and more thoroughly and effectively this conversion of INDIRECT SOLAR ENERGY or ambient heat into useable torque to run a generator and produce a power output can be carried out.

What Tesla pointed out in his article in 1900 was that when heat is converted into "work" or power output, the heat, or what we perceive as "HEAT" disappears. The energy in the FORM or heat vanishes as it is transformed or converted into the mechanical motion of the energy conversion device or HEAT ENGINE.

So, in actuality (or theoretically), the conversion of heat into work takes place CONTINUALLY, all the way up as the canisters of air rise, because the heat being absorbed is immediately converted into turning power, which USES UP the heat being absorbed, so that MORE HEAT CAN BE ABSORBED.

This process of heat absorption and energy conversion by a heat engine is well known. It is called "ISOTHERMAL EXPANSION" and the theoretical conversion potential is 100%. See this discussion for example:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/776248/is-an-isothermal-process-really-possible-heat-cannot-convert-into-work-with-100

and here:

https://www.quora.com/How-is-isothermal-expansion-even-possible-when-heat-can-t-be-completely-converted-to-work

To quote one post:

It is indeed possible to convert heat completely to work in a non-cyclic process. Isothermal expansion can be completely converted to work. But what you cannot do is to get the fluid back to its original state without losing some heat, thus not being able to completely convert all heat into work.

In this Buoyancy system, there is no need to "get the fluid (AIR) back to its original state".

The air from the canisters, once it has reached the top of the tank, is simply released back to the atmosphere. So looking at this buoyancy tank, we see a machine that is (theoretically) 100% converting ALL of the heat being absorbed from the surrounding environment into useable power output.

True, some of that energy is used to run the compressor, but as previously described; the "self-cooling" of the air causes the air to contract, so the air is not being compressed with great difficulty as might normally be the case under ordinary circumstances.

This phenomenon is not new.

Take the case of Charles Tripler who wrote about his Liquid Air production method:

HOW it is done.

At once the (question arises. How can the liquid air be produced ? Will not the pressure and the artificial cold requisite involve a most costly expenditure of the forces previously and still at our disposal ? The answer is that he uses liquid air to produce liquid air. In the words of the inventor : —

"The liquefaction of air is caused by intense cold, not by compression, although compression is a part of the process. After once having produced this cold, I do not need so much pressure on the air which I am forcing into the liquefying machine. . . . My liquefying machine will keep on producing as much liquid air as ever, while it takes very much less liquid air to keep the compressor engine going. This difference I save. . .

''I have actually made about ten gallons of liquid air in my liquefier by the use of about three gallons in my engine. There is, therefore, a surplusage of seven gallons tnat has cost me nothing and which I can use elsewhere as power

https://archive.org/details/reviewreviewsvo02steagoog/page/244/mode/2up

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015030656113&seq=425&q1=liquid+air

By using a similar process of compressing and "Self-Cooling" air, Tripler "discovered", he says, that he could run a steam engine to operate his liquid air machine compressors, by "boiling" liquid air in the steam engines boiler, needing only 3 gallons of liquid air to produce an additional ten gallons. In other words, an apparent "perpetual motion" or "free energy", again using compressed air along with environmental heat.

Another notable case:

The inventor of refrigeration John Gorrie:

After years of experimentation, Gorrie was awarded patent no. 8080 in 1851 for his Improved Process For The Artificial Production Of Ice. Unfortunately for Gorrie and the rest of the world, the northern ice syndicate, which controlled the ice trade, didn’t share his philanthropic enthusiasm. They saw his invention as a threat to their money-making cartel and set out to discredit Dr. Gorrie, attacking him in the press. It would take a Civil War and naval blockade preventing the delivery of northern ice to bring artificial ice production to the south. Once there, the frozen genie was out of the bottle.

Dr. John Gorrie died on June 29, 1855. He had just returned from New Orleans when he fell ill and the cause of his death is unknown. It is often stated that he died a broken and defeated man because he couldn’t get the world to take his ice-making machine seriously.

https://wfsu.org/local-routes/2023-06-28/john-gorrie-inventor-of-ice-machine/

What is remarkable about this is, again, the similarity of the process used, but also, Gorrie's original invention was not just a refrigerator or heat pump for making ice but also a heat engine. In his patent Gorrie makes the claim that his ice making machine, once started, could continue operating on the heat that he extracted from the ice with virtually no outside assistance from any external power source. The energy to run the ice making machine was the heat withdrawn from the water to make the ice.

Again, a report of a virtual "perpetual motion machine", using compression and expansion of air. From Gorrie's patent:

It will have been seen that a great object aimed at in the construction of the machine is as perfect a system of compensations as possible. Thus the heat evolved and carried off in the condensation of air is replaced in the expanding-engine by an abstraction of heat from the water to be frozen through the intervention of the liquid in the cistern. In the consumption and production of mechanical force these compensating equivalents are more general and more marked. It has already been intimated that the power consumed in compressing air is nearly all recovered in the force exerted by its subsequent dilatation, and it has been shown in what way the force required to inject the water for receiving the heat of the condensed air may be, in a great measure, derived from the pressure of the air in the reservoir. It is evident that a mechanical apparatus admitting of such a system of compensations must operate, in theory at least, without the consumption of any power other than that required to overcome its friction,...

https://patents.google.com/patent/US8080A/en

This suggestion of the possibility of "Free Energy" from compressed air, or compression and expansion of air or some other gas (refrigerant) in a heat pump or refrigerator coupled with a heat or "hot air" engine has appeared again and again, and such reports are not just the rants from some crackpot inventor, but often from inventors like Tripler and Gorrie whose inventions are still in use today.

Bill Ryan

3rd August 2025, 16:18

Tom Booth

3rd August 2025, 17:49

Tom, you have to read all the many posts by Wade Frazier on his thread here (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?10672-WADE-FRAZIER-A-Healed-Planet), all about Dennis Lee's Free Energy Heat Pump. in which Wade was directly involved.

Thanks, though that's 565 pages and still rolling. I likely won't have the time to more than skim through all that material. What is the current status?

I have come across some of Dennis Lee's videos before. Again, compressor, heat exchanger, heat pump, claimed "overunity" or "free energy".

The first thing I noticed is the relentless, never ending accusations of "Fraud" and naturally Jail time for the inventor.

I took a very cautious methodical approach to the whole thing.

What it amounted to, ultimately is conflicting theories about the nature of heat itself.

For a long time heat was considered an actual physical substance. Not a lot different from water that flows in a river, but that could somehow pass through physical objects. So getting energy from heat was conceived as similar to a water wheel. Heat turns the turbine and flows right along and out the other side just like water.

In powering a water wheel or turbine the WATER does not "disappear" or get CONVERTED.

Tesla said in 1900:

Heat, like water, can perform work in flowing down,... But can we produce cold in a given portion of the space and cause the heat to flow in continually? ...let us reflect a moment. Heat, though following certain general laws of mechanics, like a fluid, is not such; it is energy which may be converted into other forms of energy as it passes from a high to a low level. ... If the process of heat transformation (in a heat engine) were absolutely perfect, no heat at all would arrive at the low level, since all of it would be converted into other forms of energy.

Tesla theorized or recognized heat not as a "fluid" (which believe it or not IS STILL THE BASIS OF MUCH OF THERMODYNAMICS TODAY, the theory and the mathematics, handed down from Carnot and Kelvin etc.) but energy that does not pass through a heat engine but rather is converted and so in effect "disappears" inside the engine rather than "flowing through".

This idea that heat "FLOWS THROUGH" a heat engine or Stirling engine from the hot side over to the cold side and out again is still assumed to be true.

Watch a dozen videos about how a Stirling engine operates and they will all say the same thing. The heat "flows through the engine" from the hot side and out from the cold side.

Tesla said no, the heat is converted: "...no heat at all would arrive at the low level, since all of it would be converted into other forms of energy".

His reasoning can be read in full here:https://www.pbs.org/tesla/res/res_art09.html

I was just living on the land and had no power to run lights and my computer to get on the internet and such so I just thought it would be a good idea to get a Stirling engine that could run on the heat from my woodstove. I could care less about the conflicting scientific theories, but if I had to build a Stirling engine myself, I would need to know how it actually works, so I needed to sort this out. Does the heat "Flow through" the engine or is it CONVERTED so the heat doesn't ever come back out of the engine as heat.

Well, I did all kinds of experiments to test this and find out for myself who was right, Tesla or "The Second Law of Thermodynamics" crowd.

So far, invariably, all my experiments have confirmed that Tesla was correct and Carnot and Kelvin et al were wrong, and of course, that makes much of modern thermodynamics theory wrong.

That also makes all these scorned, harassed and jailed inventors RIGHT.

But what can we do about it?

Well, I keep doing my experiments and post the results to various science and physics forums for comment, until eventually I've been banned from all of them.

Here is one thread:

https://scienceforums.net/topic/128644-is-carnot-efficiency-valid/

Anyone can buy a model Stirling engine for under $50 and do such simple common sense experiments themselves. But I've been posting these videos for about a decade and nobody ever does. Rather than do a simple experiment they would rather just dismiss the whole topic offhand and ban me from the forum.

I've even made the offer several times to send anyone an engine at my own expense if they would please just replicate the experiment(s), then they are really quick to ban me. LOL.

Tom Booth

20th August 2025, 20:22

I've been reading up about Dennis Lee for the past week or so. It seems that he, and his various companies and/or organizations were a kind of clearinghouse/promotional/sales arm for all manner of "free energy" type devices and systems, as well as various health type products, jumping from one thing to another.

As far Wade Frazier, his writings are encyclopedic on virtually every topic imaginable, but states: "I kind of lost interest in heat engines and heat pumps. It is very primitive stuff compared to what the global elite possess"..

Be that as it may, IF "free energy" can really be derived from the ambient/solar heat in the atmosphere by simply using a heat pump as a kind of "FUEL PUMP" to concentrate and deliver heat/fuel to a heat engine, that could be the "low hanging fruit" that virtually any garage tinkerer could cobble together from pipes and valves and various other scrap.

I've taken a very cautious and methodical approach to the subject, starting with the basics.

Tesla wrote pretty extensively on the subject.

The prevailing theory in Tesla's day (Carnot / Kelvin / early formulations of the second law) remains virtually unchanged down to this day, stating emphatically that it is "impossible" for a heat engine to operate, or even complete a single revolution without "rejecting" the MAJORITY of the heat.

Tesla mounted a direct challenge to this prevailing theory, stating that heat is only a FORM of energy that is CONVERTED by a heat engine so that the heat is not "rejected", that is, the heat does NOT PASS THROUGH the heat engine to the "cold reservoir" but is instead converted into the mechanical motion of the engine itself, so that heat goes in and mechanical power or "work" comes out, and that is all.

To test which theory is correct, I sent away for several model Stirling engines:

This is one of them running on a cup of hot water:

HQT5JviF-qk

The heat, according to general heat engine theory for the past century, enters the engine through the bottom of the engine from the hot water and travels up through the engine and back out through the top, Tesla however said no, it is not necessary for the heat to leave the engine at all, rather the heat goes into the engine and is converted, the disorganized and "invisible" motion of the molecules of air inside the engine are transformed into the VISIBLE organized mechanical motion of the engine.

Conservation of energy would seem to dictate that the heat cannot do BOTH, that is, the energy cannot leave the engine in the form of mechanical work done by the engine, and then ALSO leave the engine still in the same form, as heat. Modern thermodynamic heat engine theory violates the law of conservation of energy by saying that the heat does BOTH, passing THROUGH the engine while simultaneously producing "work".

Anyway, theory aside, what happens experimentally if the presumed "heat flow" leaving the top of the engine is blocked by insulation?

Before I actually carried out this experiment, everyone on the Stirling engine forum familiar with the way a Stirling engine is supposed to operate were absolutely certain that the engine would overheat and be unable to run if the top of the engine were covered with insulation so that the heat going in the bottom of the engine could not escape.

Experimentally this turned out not to be the case at all. Here is the same engine as in the previous video running in the same way on top of a cup of hot water:

Iq6snxiXbGg

Not only did the engine fail to overheat and come to a stop, but it actually ran faster than it would normally under identical circumstances (except for the insulation) and it also ran for a longer period of time.

An advantage of combining a heat pump with a Stirling engine over something like the Fisher heat engine is that a Stirling engine can operate on a very modest heat source, such as warm water, only requiring a few degrees temperature difference, whereas the Fisher heat engine Dennis Lee was attempting to utilize required extremely high "super-heated" steam at about 700 degrees.

Comparing the two videos, it can be readily seen that the engine when covered with the insulation runs much more vigorously than it did previously without insulation.

It also continued running in this way for several HOURS, much longer than without the insulation.

Anyone can do such simple experiments and demonstrate this for themselves.

Tom Booth

21st August 2025, 17:24

Now, according to "The Second Law of Thermodynamics" and more specifically the so called "Carnot Efficiency Limit" so called "mathematical formula":

engine efficiency = 1 minus the cold temperature divided by the hot temperature.

Or more concisely: η = 1 - Tc/Th

...what is demonstrated in the above video, (and dozens of other similar simple experiments I've video recorded and posted online) should be "impossible".

In the above experiment, the cold temperature, or ambient room temperature was about 68 degrees Fahrenheit and the hot temperature, the temperature of the hot water, after being poured out of the tea kettle into the cup was about 175 degrees Fahrenheit.

Now the reason I say "so-called" Carnot efficiency equation is that to use the formula it is necessary to convert the temperature values to the Absolute (or Kelvin) temperature scale. A temperature scale that did not exist while Carnot was alive, so this spurious relatively modern formula has been falsely attributed to Carnot.

Anyway: 68 F = 293 K and 175 F = 353 K

So plugging in the actual temperature valves:

η = 1 - Tc/Th
η = 1 - 293/353
η = 1 - 0.83
η = 17% efficiency

So, according to this reasoning, or this supposed mathematical "LAW", disregarding friction and other loses, a "perfect" Carnot engine would only be able to convert. AT BEST, 17 percent of the heat entering into the engine into mechanical power or "work" and the remaining 83% absolutely MUST pass straight through the engine to be "rejected" as "Waste heat".

Of course, the small model Stirling engine is not supposed to be as efficient as the "perfect" Carnot heat engine, so the model Stirling engine in the video, according to this "science" should be less than 17%

It is plain to see both logically and experimentally, that this so-called "Efficiency Limit" supposedly imposed by the so-called "2nd Law" is absolute rubbish.

Tom Booth

21st August 2025, 19:07

So why perpetuate this fairly obvious nonsense?

Well. take a look around the internet on the various forums and social platforms when this topic comes up. Here are some examples:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Question: Is it theoretically possible for a heat pump to power itself?

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers/comments/p7qlq6/is_it_theoretically_possible_for_a_heat_pump_to/

Answer: "Generally, no. Per the Carnot Theorem, the maximum efficiency of a heat engine is directly tied to the temperature differential between the hot/cold sides.

Say it's 72F inside and 100F outside. The maximum theoretical efficiency you could get moving heat between these reservoirs is 5%. Not enough to self-sustain any heat pump that currently exists."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Question: Is Combining a Heat Engine and Heat Pump a Perpetual Motion Machine?

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-combining-a-heat-engine-and-heat-pump-a-perpetual-motion-machine.249557/
Reference: (https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-combining-a-heat-engine-and-heat-pump-a-perpetual-motion-machine.249557/)

Answer: "So the bottom line is that a theoretically perfectly efficient heat pump combined with a perfectly efficient heat engine (both running at Carnot efficiency) would produce exactly as much energy as is put into it. But we all know thermodynamic cycles run nowhere close to 100% efficient...

"Perpetual motion machine speculation is a non-starter, always based on a conceptual error. Thread locked."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Question: How to build self-powered perpetual motion heat pump?

https://www.electronics-lab.com/forums/threads/how-to-build-self-powered-perpetual-motion-heat-pump.181441/

Answer: "since we are talking heat engines the carnot cycle applies" ... "With "perfect"conversion, this process will have an efficiency of 33.33..% . 1/3 of 3 is 1. The result is that a "perfect" heat pump will produce only enough energy to run itself- with nothing left over. From an useful output point of view it's a complicated and expensive way to do nothing. A "real" heat pump/engine won't even do this because of losses- making it an even more expensive way to do nothing. I suggest that you study the thermodynamics of a heat pump/engine- the reason the proposal doesn't work is quite apparent. This has been covered before on this newsgroup.

"Conservation of energy still wins -"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Question: Heat pumps to produce electricity?

https://www.reddit.com/r/heatpumps/comments/19bngl0/heat_pumps_to_produce_electricity/

Answer: "Here's why it doesn't work...

"All heat engines must lose heat in the conversion of heat to work. The maximum theoretical efficiency of any particular cycle is called the Carnot efficiency and is a function of the difference between source (discharge of the heat pump) and sink (ambient temperature) temperatures.

"The discharge temperature of a heat pump is relatively low meaning the maximum Carnot efficiency for a Rankine cycle using it as its source temperature is less than 10% with a relatively moderate ambient temperature.

"If we were to increase the discharge temperature of the heat pump, we would increase the efficiency of the Rankine cycle but also drop below a COP of 1.0 for the vapor compression cycle and therefore ultimately be a loss of energy."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Question: Can Self-Running Heat Pumps Revolutionize Home Efficiency?

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/can-self-running-heat-pumps-revolutionize-home-efficiency.1015350/

Answer: "The amount of electricity you can get from heat depends on the [absolute] temperature ratio between the heated reservoir and the environment.

"If the heat pump is 300 to 400 percent efficient that demands a temperature ratio close to 1:1. (e.g. 4:3 or 5:4). That in turn means that a heat engine using the temperature difference can be no more than 33% or 25% efficient. Real world losses mean that you cannot even do that well.

"If you could tack an ideal heat engine onto an ideal heat pump and thereby increase the net efficiency of your heat pumping efforts, you would have the makings for a PMM. So, this discussion is definitely treading on thin ice.

Rebuttal: "... I want to make it completely clear that I am not talking of the dread PM here! I want to know whether a heat pump can use some of its heat to generate the electricity needed to run itself!

Response: "That statement is a contradiction that indicates you are misunderstanding what a PMM is...because that's exactly what you are describing.

"A PMM is simply a device that violates one or more laws of thermodynamics. Yours would violate, at least, the 2nd one.

..."The engine-pump system you described, if it worked as you envision, would violate the second law of thermodynamics because the system would move heat from a cold reservoir to a hot reservoir without requiring any energy input. In other words, it would look like heat spontaneously moved from a cold object to a hot object."

... "I think we've adequately covered the issue here. Thread locked."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Question: Is there any chance that a heat pump and a heat engine could be used together to make a perpetual motion machine?

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers/comments/1aihv6l/is_there_any_chance_that_a_heat_pump_and_a_heat/

Answer: "People are rightfully saying this won't work. But for a bit of understanding for why it doesn't work:

"Heat engine up to 50% efficient" over what temperature differential? Lookup Carnot cycle.

"The maximum theoretical efficiency of a heat engine is n = 1-Tc/Th

"The maximum theoretical COP of a heat pump is COP = Th/(Th-Tc)

"That means that your energy out would be Wout/Win = n*(COP-1) = (1-Tc/Th)*(Th/(Th-Tc)-1) = Tc/Th < 1 for Tc<Th

"And this is for an ideal heat pump and heat engine. Real ones are less efficient. Sometimes a lot less efficient. Theoretical COPs can be >10 but in practice they are never more than 4-5."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Question: Work done by heat engine that uses exhaust from heat pump

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-by-heat-engine-that-uses-exhaust-from-heat-pump.1064072/

Answer: "In principle, if you had a Carnot engine and a Carnot refrigerator working between the same two temperature reservoirs, the output from the engine would be exactly the amount needed to run the refrigerator. There'd be no extra work left over to do anything with.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

This goes on and on, and has been going on and on for decades.

The completely bogus, made up out of whole cloth "Carnot Limit Formula" is the first line of defense. An APPARENTLY plausible, supposedly rock solid "LAW OF THE UNIVERSE" supposedly "well established, proven and verified many times" can be used 99.9% of the time to dissuade would-be "free energy" inventors from using or following up on their own common sense.

Of course, if calling a person with a little common sense reasoning ability a "perpetual motion crank" and hammering them over the head with the spurious "Carnot Efficiency Limit Formula" doesn't work...

This is a rather interesting account of what may follow: https://projectavalon.net/wade_frazier_brian_o_leary_27_march_2009.mp3

Tom Booth

22nd August 2025, 14:40

I think it is valuable in a way, to study the Carnot Efficiency Theory in depth, if for no other reason than to help immunize oneself against being taken in by arguments based on it.

I never had any "ax to grind" with the laws of thermodynamics, only a very sincere interest in Stirling heat engines and an insatiable desire and curiosity to understand how they operate. For me, that was at the time, a matter of survival living in a remote area off-grid, I needed a power source at my camp beyond the power lines. A Stirling engine seemed to be the way to go.

On the Stirling Engine forum, I joined to find out, the workings of the Stirling Engine were explained in terms of Thermodynamics and the Carnot theory.

So, in time, it boiled down to this "Carnot" equation: e(efficiency) = 1-Tc/Th.

I read Carnot's one and only book to get some historical context. The equation did not appear anywhere in Carnot's book.

All the literature on thermodynamics and heat engines referenced this book of Carnot's as the origin of this formula, but without any specific page reference:

"Carnot efficiency describes the maximum thermal efficiency that a heat engine can achieve as permitted by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The law was derived by Sadi Carnot in 1824"

But such references were always indirect, without a specific page reference.

1824 is the date Carnot's book was published.

"The maximum efficiency, known as the Carnot efficiency η-max is dependent only on the temperatures of the hot source and the cold sink TH and T, as shown in Figure 1, and is given by the equation below ..."

https://www.energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Carnot_efficiency

This was not, however, what Carnot actually said in his book!

Deciphering all of this became a project for me, similar to Biblical exegesis where it becomes necessary to return to the original text in the original language. Carnot wrote in French. Later thermodynamicists knew his work ONLY IN TRANSLATION, leaving quite a bit of room for misinterpretation.

What Carnot actually wrote (translated into English) was:

"The motive power of a waterfall depends on its height and on the
quantity of the liquid; the motive power of heat depends also on the
quantity of caloric used and on what may be termed the height of its fall,
that is to say, the difference of temperature of bodies between which the
exchange of caloric is made."

Notice that Carnot mentions "quantity" of caloric "and on what may be termed the height of its fall".

He was also talking about "motive power" not "efficiency". These are different concepts entirely. An engine might be very powerful, but at the same time very inefficient.

This is like Watts of electrical power depends on BOTH voltage AND amperes.

But this still has little relation to the "efficiency" of an electrical appliance.

And then, of course, on further analysis, I found out that the "Carnot" equation required that the temperature values be in Kelvin. A temperature scale that did not exist when Carnot wrote his book.

In practical terms, the QUANTITY of heat that enters into a Stirling engine can be greatly influenced by surface area.

A small pinpoint of heat at 600 degrees Fahrenheit might transfer less heat to the engine than a much larger surface area at a much lower temperature.

Temperature alone doesn't really tell us anything.

Consider for example the surface area of these Stirling engines and how is it possible that they can operate with so little actual heat input:

ARD3ctp80ac

Due to the very large diameter, these engines are able to run on a very small, nearly indetectable temperature difference.

Temperature difference ALONE is not a measure of the quantity of heat.

Just as a large diameter wire can transfer more Amps of electricity, a larger diameter Stirling engine can take in a larger quantity of heat because there is much more surface area for heat transfer.

So, that is a major flaw or oversight in this fictitious "Carnot" efficiency formula. It is like instead of Watts = Volts X Amps someone said Watts depends ONLY on voltage.

So, in a heat pump or heat engine, the surface area available for heat transfer is an essential determinant of "efficiency" and/or power. To imagine or make the assertion that the efficiency of a heat engine or heat pump can be determined by TEMPERATURE ALONE is utter foolishness.

Now we can apply this principle of efficiency being largely dependent upon SURFACE AREA for heat transfer to something like Dennis Lee's "most efficient heat pump in the world" which he says he discovered BY ACCIDENT or trial and error, simply because he didn't really know what he was doing.

55674

That's a whole lot of surface area!

https://youtu.be/l-gu_KCfnGY

There is also a whole lot of surface area in one of these Buoyancy tank heat engines:

IdcQsF0xgnU

There is a whole lot of SKIN on that water tank for heat transfer into the tank from the surrounding environment.

Tom Booth

22nd August 2025, 15:47

One thing I think we can be absolutely certain about is when compressed air is released from compression it gets VERY cold:

2hYQtB4QkEY

I was never there, and there is probably no way to be 100% certain about it, but to me, in the previous buoyancy engine video, the bottom of the buoyancy water tank appears to be covered with condensation, possibly even frost, indicating that the bottom section of the tank is quite cold, very similar in appearance to a glass of ice water on a hot summer day:

55675

I'm not there to rub my finger on the surface to see if that is actually frost or condensation or something else, unfortunately, but just logically, with compressed air being released into the bottom of the water tank continuously, as previously discussed earlier in the thread:

I said in my earlier post that there is something about the compressed air that might be interesting. When the compressed air is released into the cylinder, it cools down spontaneously. Heat from the environment then warms it back up to room temperature. One could arguably try and work off this principle to make a machine that converts ambient heat into mechanical energy (but I won’t go any deeper down that rabbit hole) ...

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?83102-Buoyancy-generator&p=971604&viewfull=1#post971604

Tom Booth

22nd August 2025, 17:25

The interesting thing about Tesla's proposal for a self-running environmental heat powered heat engine is that in principle, it was not necessarily a NEW invention.

What tesla proposed was based on a principle, and that principle, as he stated was that:

Heat, like water, flows from high to low level, ... Heat, like water, can perform work in flowing down, ... But can we produce cold in a given portion of the space and cause the heat to flow in continually? To create such a “sink,” or “cold hole,” as we might say, in the medium, would be equivalent to producing in the lake a space either empty or filled with something much lighter than water. This we could do by placing in the lake a tank, and pumping all the water out of the latter. We know, then, that the water, if allowed to flow back into the tank, would, theoretically, be able to perform exactly the same amount of work which was used in pumping it out, but not a bit more. Consequently nothing could be gained in this double operation of first raising the water and then letting it fall down. This would mean that it is impossible to create such a sink in the medium.

But let us reflect a moment. Heat, though following certain general laws of mechanics, like a fluid, is not such; it is energy which may be converted into other forms of energy as it passes from a high to a low level. To make our mechanical analogy complete and true, we must, therefore, assume that the water, in its passage into the tank, is converted into something else, which may be taken out of it without using any, or by using very little, power. For example, if heat be represented in this analogue by the water of the lake, the oxygen and hydrogen composing the water may illustrate other forms of energy into which the heat is transformed in passing from hot to cold. If the process of heat transformation were absolutely perfect, no heat at all would arrive at the low level, since all of it would be converted into other forms of energy.

The Carnot Efficiency formula is entirely predicated on this idea that heat is a "fluid" (caloric) flowing THROUGH the heat engine. Tesla said this was false.

We would thus produce, by expending initially a certain amount of work to create a sink for the heat ... to flow in, a condition enabling us to get any amount of energy without further effort. This would be an ideal way of obtaining motive power. We do not know of any such absolutely perfect process of heat-conversion, and consequently some heat will generally reach the low level, which means to say, in our mechanical analogue, that some water will arrive at the bottom of the tank, and a gradual and slow filling of the latter will take place, necessitating continuous pumping out. But evidently there will be less to pump out than flows in, or, in other words, less energy will be needed to maintain the initial condition than is developed by the fall, and this is to say that some energy will be gained from the medium. What is not converted in flowing down can just be raised up with its own energy, and what is converted is clear gain.

The PRINCIPLE Tesla described is not limited or even necessarily applicable to some NEW invention. It is, rather, based on a simple recognition of the nature of HEAT ITSELF as a FORM OF ENERGY that is CONVERTED by a heat engine rather than something that PASSES THROUGH the engine like water through a water wheel as Carnot imagined.

If the heat powering the engine does not PASS THROUGH, then theoretically,
"by expending initially a certain amount of work to create a sink for the heat ... to flow in" then it should be possible
"to get any amount of energy without further effort".

In other words, we can use initially, a certain amount of energy to run a refrigerator or heat pump to "create a sink for the heat ... to flow in" from the environment.

The Buoyancy tank of water is such a "sink". Dennis Lee's evaporator panels are such a "sink". A block of ice used to run a Stirling engine is such a "sink".

vM0YmlRIYBI

What Tesla states above:

What is not converted in flowing down can just be raised up with its own energy

is interesting.

What did he mean by that?: "What is not converted in flowing down can just be raised up with its own energy"

Well, think about it.

If you had a refrigeration unit to keep the ice cold, every once in a while, it may be necessary to run the refrigerator in order to maintain the ice at a cold temperature to keep the ambient heat flowing into the engine.

But a heat pump or refrigeration unit keeps things cold or keeps ice frozen BY REMOVING HEAT FROM THE ICE.

What to do with the heat that is periodically taken from the ice?

Well, it can be transferred over to the hot side of the Stirling engine, temporarily elevating the temperature ABOVE AMBIENT or ABOVE THE ENVIRONMENTAL TEMPERATURE. which will allow the engine to run with additional power, more heat/energy input whenever the heat pump is operating.

Since the heat is converted rather than flowing directly through the engine into the ice, very little heat is going to require removal in the first place, but whenever heat removal it is required (if ever), the heat that is taken out of the ice can be "recycled" and utilized.

So in this way, the ice can be maintained at a low temperature using the heat that is removed from the ice as a power source to accomplish the removal. so that literally; "What (heat) is not converted in flowing down can just be raised up with its own energy".

Tom Booth

23rd August 2025, 00:06

There is an article about the Carnot efficiency limit so-called formula that I think is rather amusing, from the University of Virginia which states:

This simplest heat engine is called the Carnot engine, for which one complete heating/cooling, expanding/contracting cycle back to the original gas volume and temperature is a Carnot cycle, named after Sadi Carnot who in 1820 derived the correct formula for the maximum possible efficiency of such a heat engine in terms of the maximum and minimum gas temperatures during the cycle.

Carnot's result was that if the maximum hot temperature reached by the gas is TH, and the coldest temperature during the cycle is TC, (degrees kelvin, or rather just kelvin, of course) the fraction of heat energy input that comes out as mechanical work , called the efficiency, is

Efficiency = TH−TC/TH.

This was an amazing result, because it was exactly correct, despite being based on a complete misunderstanding of the nature of heat!

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/152.mf1i.spring02/CarnotEngine.htm

First of all, obvious to anyone who has actually looked into the history, Carnot never derived any such "exact formula". Further, this so-called "formula" is hardly any formula at all. Rather, it is nothing more than a ratio of the "distance" between the high temperature and the low temperature on the Kelvin scale.

If the high temperature is 1000 K for example, and the low temperature is 750 K then the "distance" or "fall" in temperature is 1/4 of the way "down" the temperature scale or a difference of 250 K making the "Carnot Efficiency" 25%

This is nothing more than the obsolete caloric theory. Carnot's idea of heat "falling down" the temperature scale like a waterfall, or "falling down" through a heat engine from a high to a lower temperature like water being let down by a water wheel.

That such transparent foolishness has been accepted as "exactly correct" and continues to be taught in universities is excruciating.

By the way, I think a legitimate question to ask is when, where, by whom, and by using what scientific means was this "formula" proven to be, or demonstrated to be "exactly correct"????

Examining the history, there appears no record at all, no experiment, no test, no observations or empirical evidence of any kind whatsoever that ever established this formula as being an "exactly correct" means of determining heat engine efficiency.

As far as I've been able to determine this "formula" was inserted into thermodynamics textbooks approved by the US government for use in the educational system, sometimes in the 1970's. It has no real scientific origin or scientific validity, loosely based on the inoperable and entirely fictional "Carnot Engine" which cannot ever be examined or tested in reality because it never existed and never could exist, as it was based on the fictitious caloric theory.

This "formula" today, has been elevated to the level of some kind of sacred totem. or "LAW".

The only thing the "formula" seems to actually be any good for is to allow armchair academics with no aptitude for engineering to imagine themselves to be real engineers with some actual knowledge of mechanics.

Sure, a heat engine, ALL heat engines are just like a water wheel.

This is simply ludicrous nonsense at best, but generally very destructive. A fairy tale used to dumb people down and thwart real progress and innovation. A means of preserving the status quo and fostering ignorance.

Tom Booth

29th August 2025, 23:46

Just posted yesterday:

https://www.zilverstroom.com/the-rosch-kinetic-power-plant-has-been-discontinued/

The Rosch Kinetic Power Plant is no longer available for purchase.
This decision was made following the death of the company's owner and CEO.

This technology, which has been in existence for over 15 years, has been superseded by more efficient methods of generating CO2 free electrical energy.

August 28th 2025