free energy claims of Entropy Systems Inc

free energy claims of Entropy Systems Inc. - Sanjay Amin

Sanjay Amin of of Youngstown Ohio has gotten 1.6 million $ of investment money for a device he claims breaks the second law of thermodynamics. He claims to have a motor powered by nothing more than latent heat from the air. This page has been up for months, Amin knows about it, but has not made a response. A closer look is merited since extraordinary claims should need extraordinary evidence:

related links:
history of most similar claims I've studied.
http://skepdic.com/essays/entropy.pdf - a mathematical closer look at Amin's theory
Miracle Engine's Tank is Empty -excellent update article from Wired magazine
Tom Napier's Free Energy FAQ page - looks at heat based free energy claims
Report on Dennis's heat-based-free-energy-money-raising operation from PILOT ONLINE
my open $10000 prize offer for proof of a free energy machine (ESI has ignored this so far)
http://onelist.com/members/free_energy- get on an email list for updates on information like this
see the Entropy Systems page -it's only fair to consider their point of view as well
Skeptic's Dictionary: review of Entropy Systems http://skepdic.com/essays/entropy.pdf
Entropy - The key To Unlimited Resources - pro Amin info
Electronic Design - takes a look at Amin's claims
News articles about Entropy Systems, the entropy engine makes no sense - a private review
-------------------------
Review by David Howe: dhowe17@hotmail.com - provided at: http://www.phact.org/e/amin.htm

The Entropy Engine is a good one as perpetual motion machines go. The blunder
is hard to find, but it's obvious once you see it.

The secret is the effect of the cylinder mean pressure and temperature on the
radial mass distribution of the gas. As heat is added/extracted (with the
piston fixed), the polar moment of inertia of the gas (about the axis of
rotation) changes. As you heat the gas, the mass shifts inward and the
machine speeds up (like an ice skater pulling in her arms). As you cool the
gas, the mass shifts outward and the machine slows down. There is absolutely
no coupling between the heat and work flows in this process. In this process,
heat energy and shaft energy are conserved independently -- there is no
interchange. It's the restrictions they place on the Amin cycle that the
compression and expansion processes are carried out at constant rotational
speed that appear to couple the heat and work and appear to convert heat
directly to shaft power. Bury this effect within some other processes, and
it's awfully easy to miss.

Like all good perpetual motion machines, they can't demonstrate any net
energy production. All they can do is "demonstrate" a "reduction" in the
input power through a contorted test procedure. A working model that produces
net power will "just take a little more time". And money.

BTW, I know one of the people quoted in one of the newspaper articles the
Entropy Systems people use to promote their machine. When I emailed him for
a comment, his response was:

      All I know about the engine is what I saw on my brief excursion to
      their web site. All I told the press is the operating principles of
      a heat engine, using a Carnot engine as an example. I have not heard
      of the Amin cycle, and with the diversion and distraction brought on
      by my recent attempt to educate those who have contacted me, I am
      going close off all communication with the outside world.

So, one of the experts they quote as verifying the operation of the engine
hasn't ever seen one, nor has he ever heard of the "Amin cycle". Beyond
the blatant violation of thermodynamic laws and their inability to demonstrate
net output power, this fact doesn't bode well for the credibility of Entropy
Systems.

Another point - it looks very suspicious when he only runs it for 20 minutes
and then stops it - "to prevent stress on his prototype's parts."

Watch your wallets, folks. If these Entropy Systems guys aren't frauds,
they're merely misguided fools. Either way, they seem to be raking in the
bucks. Sad. Move over Lee, Newman, Keeley, there's a new kid in town.
Even with perfectly frictionless operation, Amin's machine wouldn't
work. The key is how the radial mass distribution of the gas (and
therefore its polar moment of inertia about the shaft) changes when
heat is added and extracted.

Amin correctly mentions that every bit of energy used to speed up the
piston and cylinder is recovered when slowing it down. However, this
simple conservation does not apply to the gas in the cylinder, so it
can't be neglected quite as simply.

Take the heat addition process: As heat is added to the air in the
cylinder, the radial mass distribution shifts inward, wanting to speed
the shaft up (conservation of angular momentum). To maintain constant
speed, shaft power must be removed. The same goes for the heat rejection
process at the other end of the cycle. As heat is rejected, power must
be supplied to the shaft to keep it from slowing down. I believe the
shaft energy/heat energy ratio at the two ends of the cycle are
different (but the First Law still holds if you count all the terms).
So, neglecting the shaft terms altogether while considering
the same amount of heat rejected as added, gives the appearance of a
magical direct conversion of heat into work in direct violation of the
Second Law.

The key is in restricting the heat addition and extraction processes
to occur at constant speed, without taking into account the shaft
input and output power to maintain the constant speed.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Amin's perpetual motion
machine is a good one. It actually takes some thought and pencil
pushing to find the "gotcha".

review by James Kuipers

James Kuipers
Following my earlier comments on the entropy engine and those of D.Howe,
here is my breakdown of Amin's contraption in terms of classical
dynamics, for those of you who haven't completely forgotten their
freshman physics. While Howe provide an excellent qualitative skeleton,
my aim is to add some quantitative meat to the bones.

The physicist's preferred tool for cracking a nut like this is the use
of small variations in the variables. The variables in this case are the
rotational speed of the gas, w, and the position of the piston, h. For
any particular combination of w and h, the air mass will have a uniquely
determined density distribution throughout the enclosure if we assume
adiabatic or isothermal conditions. (Amin conveniently includes both in
his closing remark.) For this distribution one can calculate the polar
moment of inertia I(w,h) and from that the angular momentum b(w,h) which
is simply the product of I and w: b=I.w. Therefore for each combination
of w and h there is one and only one value for b, described by the
function b(w,h). Mathematical rigor places a few other restrictions on
the behavior of b(w,h) but they are irrelevant here.

Starting with the well-known equation M=db/dt where M is the moment or
torque applied to the drive shaft of the vessel and db/dt is the
derivative of b with respect to time, we can step through the Amin cycle
and derive expressions for the amount of work dW put in during each
consecutive step. Adding up the expressions we end up with
dW=dw.dh.db/dh where dw=w2-w1, dh= h1-h2 and db/dh is the partial
derivative of b(w,h) with respect to h. Obviously the expression can be
integrated over large changes in the variables.

It is also possible to look at the work from the piston end and show
that the outcome is identical, but to to do this the force on the piston
must be mathematically linked to db/dh which - as far as I can see - is
only possible after the geometry has been defined. However the
derivation above is generally applicable and can easily be tested for a
simple mechanical analogue such as a swirling weight on the end of an
elastic string. Unfortunately it is impossible to reproduce the detailed
derivation in simple ASCII characters but I will make it available as a
.jpg or a .pdf file as soon as possible.

This elegantly simple equation puts it all in a nutshell. As pointed out
by Howe there is energy flowing in or out through the drive shaft at
every step. Conservation of angular momentum - the law that Amin
conveniently forgot to mention - requires that when the piston extracts
the gas and so reduces its moment of inertia, the vessel will want to
accelerate in order to maintain its angular momentum. Amin explicitly
chooses to maintain the angular speed so this accelerating torque is
transferred to the external system that stores the energy - whatever
that may be. During the compression stroke the converse takes place. The
net result is that for each cycle dW=dw.dh.db/dh is input through the
vessel drive shaft and (under ideal conditions) comes out at the piston
end.

In the next installment I propose to take a closer look at the mechanical
construction of this contraption.

Better start packing before it's too late, Sanjay! BTW, where's the
patent covering the entropy engine?

To be continued .........

================

Two weeks ago the dutch weekly "Technisch Weekblad" published a short article on
the entropy engine, quoting the respectable professional monthly
"Energietechniek". Both have swallowed ESI's bait - hook, line and sinker. This
is the first time I came across the entropy engine. I immediately sent out
e-mails to both telling them to wake up. The first one printed my message last
thursday and the other one told me they are working on a follow-up. However
during the phone conversation I found that they are still not fully convinced
it's a cunning fraud. Next I sent an e-mail to ESI accusing them of fraud and
demanding public rectification or else I would notify federal and state
authorities. The response was swift and dispelled any remaining doubts about
their intentions:

"Thank you for your email. Please expose us to the Federal and State
authorities. I believe they will come after you. We know what we have. Please go
back and study some thermodynamics and then before you make any comments."

This response and the contents of their website made me decide not to waste any
effort on a technical discussion with them. One of their references points to a
recent newspaper article in the "Tribune Chronicle". It mentions that Youngstown
State University Foundation is one of the 50 shareholders. My message to YSUF
asking them how they perceive the entropy engine has not been answered to date.

Extra Note by Eric: Youngstown State University Foundation has never invested in
Entropy Systems Inc. They were given stock as a result of a center who performed a
business plan for Entropy. This stock is currently on their books at zero value.

At this point I started scouring the web for persons or groups trying to expose
ESI and and found your site. I agree that ESI should be combated with their own
weapons, i.e. publicity on the internet and elsewhere. In my view the most
important ammunition would be a thorough analysis of this Amin Cycle, to be made
available on the web, that can be referred to by anyone looking for expert
backing in discussions with others.

I have started work on such a theoretical analysis and have nearly completed
calculations on a rigid body analogue that should demonstrate how part of the
work done on the flywheel is stored as potential energy of the mass in the
gravitational field of the rotation, to be passed straight on to the piston
without showing up as kinetic energy. This is the essential step that Amin
fluffs over when he blurbs "For all steps (the kinetic energy) is constant and
cancels out". I have also started the full analysis for a compressible
medium but the calculation looks like becoming a horrendous mass of exponents -
nevertheless I am sure it can be done.

Ideally such an analysis should (also) be published in a respected scientific
journal (preferably co-authored by a Nobel prizewinner - by sheer coincidence, as
I draft this letter, this year's laureate dutchman Gerard 't Hooft is actually
giving a lecture in the same building I am now in!). If you know of any other
person working along these lines please point him or her out to me.

I must confess grudgingly that the closer I examine Amin's work, the more I look
on it as an almost elegant work of criminal art, like a well-made forgery. He
even has the cheek to invent a new law (the Ideal gas law) and mention offhand
that "Test data give us enough evidence to expand the domain of the Second Law
of thermodynamics into the realm of acceleration (gravity).". Now this is a
challenge I for one cannot resist.
It is so much more instructive and fun than any game and victory is so much more
rewarding.

Feel free to post this on the email list; I haven't got round to delving into
that yet. And keep up the good work!

James Kuipers
______________________________________________

Following the theoretical discussions of the Amin cycle I will now take a
closer look at the Entropy Engine itself, the contraption that purports to
exploit this cycle, using the sparse information available on ESI's website
in the form of drawings and photographs. My goal is to demonstrate to those
who can't follow the theoretical analysis, that Amin's attempts to "prove"
that he is on the right track are just an elaborate smoke screen for the
unwary. In actual fact one simple measurement with easily obtainable
equipment can reveal exactly what is going on inside the engine and there is
every reason to suspect that the outcome would be very different from what
ESI would have us believe.

All that is required is a gas pressure sensor connected to the space above
the piston and a system for recording the pressure variations during normal
running conditions. Then at every instant t during the cycle, the pressure
P(t) is known. This is then plotted against the the gas volume V(t) at that
same instant in the PV diagram as explained by Amin. All the measurement
points are then connected to form one closed figure. The area enclosed by
this figure then equals the work (joules) done by the gas on the piston over
one cycle and multiplying this by the number of cycles per second gives us a
figure for the power in watts. Amin would have us believe that the outcome of
such a measurement would be 76 watts. I contend that the simple fact that he
has refrained from actually carrying out this straightforward and conclusive
measurement is in itself proof that he is trying to pull the wool over our
eyes.

>From a study of the drawings and photographs my guess is that the cycle is
repeated once for every revolution of the electric motor, i.e. 50 times per
second, and that the vane rotates at something like twice that speed. The
circumference of the vane enclosure is in the order of 1 meter so the vane
tip speed would be around 100 meters per second. My guess for the
displacement of the piston is 50 cc. Kinetic gas theory provides a simple
formula for calculating the ratio between the pressure at the perimeter of
the enclosure and that at the center. (Amin uses the same formula but
demonstrates his incompetence by adding a minus sign to the exponent!) At 100
m/s the ratio for air would be around 1.06. Examination of the drawings also
shows that there are no effective provisions for preventing the working
medium from leaking past the piston and out of the vessel. Therefore we must
assume that the average pressure in the vessel is atmospheric. (The flat
sidewall of the enclosure with its flimsy attachment wouldn't stand more than
a few times atmospheric pressure anyway.) At very low speed the pressure
gradient will be negligible so we would have 1 bar at the piston crown. At
top speed the air will shift towards the perimeter where there's plenty of
space so the pressure on the piston would drop to an estimated .95 bar.

That this is a reasonable figure can be deduced without formulas by comparing
the enclosed

vane to the impellers in an ordinary household vacuum
cleaner. This has similar dimensions and velocities so it creates a
comparable vacuum - and requires hundreds of watts of electrical power to
maintain it even when the air flow is blocked. (Actually it has two smaller
stages instead of one large one but the result is the same.) This simple yet
valid comparison should also provide the lay person with a feeling for the
amount of power necessary to merely keep the air mass spinning in the
stationary enclosure. All this power is of course irretrievably lost as heat.

We can now obtain an initial upper limit for the power passing through the
piston by taking the product of the pressure variation (.05 bar), the
displacement (50 cc) and the cycle frequency (50 c/s). The result is 12.5
watts. However this is not realistic because there is simply no way the
mechanism will survive being accelerated from (near) standstill to top speed
and back again fifty times per second.

By how much could the rotational speed actually vary? The drawings show a
long drive train linking the rotating vane to the crankshaft so the cyclical
variations in crankshaft speed present in any single piston engine will be
transmitted to the vane. These are however irrelevant because they occur at
twice the cycle frequency and are minimized by the flywheels. Could it be
that the large flywheel drives the vane through eccentric or elliptic
gearwheels? Perhaps ESI are guarding this secret until it is protected by a
patent! Whatever mechanism is employed the rapid acceleration and
deceleration of the vane puts enormous stresses on the vane and the drive
train. The biggest speed variation it can withstand 50 times per second
without wilting would be about 4% and the corresponding pressure variation is
8%. This lowers our estimate of the upper limit for the power to 1 watt. As
measured by ESI - and explained above - it takes a few hundred watts just to
crank this thing over. Even if you are prepared to give Amin the benefit of
the doubt concerning this measly 1 watt and accept that it is cunningly
extracted from the environment (which I definitely do not) it is still
patently clear that the power delivered to the piston is orders of magnitude
lower than the power lost through friction and turbulence.

What else can be deduced from the drawings? Well, the piston has no crown or
piston rings but these omissions could be attributed to artistic liberty.
After all Amin claims that "The control volume is sealed and no exchange of
working medium to and from the surroundings to the control volume can take
place.". How is this achieved? Your guess is as good as mine. There are known
working solutions for this problem such as the rolling membranes employed in
Stirling engines and pneumatic vehicle suspension systems but these are very
complicated and obviously not used here. So long as Amin refrains from
offering even a hint of his solution for this basic problem we must assume
that he has none. Equally conspicuous is the total absence of any indication
of a lubrication system for the heavily loaded bearing surfaces such as the
piston, the connecting rod and other bearings, as well as for the gear
wheels.

It should by now be obvious to any technically minded person that Amin's
contraption doesn't stand the ghost of a chance of ever running without its
"starter motor" even according to his own crooked theory. In order to make
this clear we have had to estimate the pressure on the piston crown and
several dimensions. This guesswork would not have been necessary had ESI
provided the figures like any bona fide scientist would do. Amin explains
that the area enclosed by the PV diagram equals the net power output, then by
some contorted indirect test procedure arrives at a figure of 76 watts and
subsequently refrains from carrying out the simplest, most direct and thus
most convincing measurement to prove that statement, namely the recording of
said PV diagram! The fact that no excuse is given for this glaring omission
can mean only one thing: Amin knows just as well as I do that the power
delivered to the piston is only a tiny fraction of the claimed 76 Watts.

Are you still considering investing in ESI? Then take my advice: borrow or
hire a calibrated high speed gas pressure recording setup, have ESI connect
it to the ESI22 and then run it at it's operational speed. Record the cyclic
pressure variations in the cylinder and find out how far I was off the mark.
Oh, and don't forget to videotape the whole event!

James Kuipers, Groningen, September 2000.

more thorough review of Amin's claims

From: Tim Nye <nyet@mcmaster.ca>
Hi,

I came across another page discussing the Amin Cycle,
http://skepdic.com/refuge/entropysystems.html, and this one has a complete
theoretical analysis of the Amin Cycle by Prof. Dr. Gerhard W. Bruhn, a
mathematics professor in Germany. The analysis, in
http://skepdic.com/essays/entropy.pdf, points out some fatal flaws in the
Amin Cycle, and shows why it can never work.

Bruhn's paper also lists a test data page,
http://www.entropysystems.com/Testing.htm, on Entropy System's site that
doesn't appear to be accessible from the homepage.

It's quite a creative interpretation of experimental results.
Interestingly, in the "Measurement of temperature" section, Amin claims
"ESI22 does not have a heat sink." However, if you look at the provided
drawings of the machine,
http://www.entropysystems.com/downloads/schema~1.pdf, it very obviously
does have cooling fins on the cylinder.

And, it looks like Amin has been more successful than the intro on your
page suggests -- he appears to have gotten $3.4 million over seven years, (See
http://www.entropysystems.com/downloads/TribuneChronicle91299.pdf )

The Amin Cycle also turns up at
http://www.oilcity.org/research/amin/amincyc.htm This page has links to
the patents that were mentioned in the Amin press releases, which,
incidentally, show a device that looks nothing like the entropy engine.

Keep up the good work,

Tim Nye

Note James Kuipers has a more thorough review of Amin's claims

Note: as of 5/1/00, I have not heard back from Amin's company after repeated efforts to get their point of view to post. I've also tried to ask them to take part in reviewing evidence from their claims.

I recommend the following group for examing paranormal claims:

back to Eric's main Dennis Lee page and information on Joe Newman's Free Energy Promises

Creator of this page- get on an email list which includes discussion of topics like this
How you too can get rich as the next free energy messiah ;)
pages exposing Joe Newman and Dennis Lee who some people suspect of leading a nationwide scam. Also, Mills (who may be legit?) Perendev and Tewari
Comments can be sent to eric@voicenet.com I'm happy to publish critical responses to my claims.
This page can be found at: http://www.phact.org/e/z/amin.htm