Real science or rotten scams?

The first person to invent a genuine perpetual motion or free energy machine will become a billionaire overnight. One small problem though - it would have to break all the rules of physics as we know them.

Despite the fact that he gets more than his fair share of abuse from his punters, Art Grimley maintains a patient, almost kindly outlook on life. He has to - he's a US patent examiner. He says of the hapless inventors who come to him in forlorn hope of becoming rich beyond the dreams of avarice: "They're interesting people. In fact some of them are very interesting, but also very wacky - they just don't know the laws of physics."

His UK counterpart George Hamlyn elaborates: "Our problem is that we can't award a patent for a device that appears to be contrary to the accepted natural laws of thermodynamics." Bit of a drawback then, if you want to patent a perpetual motion or 'free energy' machine.

Mention the words perpetual motion and your average scientist will simply sneer at you. And who can blame them? Perpetual motion machines offer something for nothing, energy for free, and the laws of physics simply won't allow it. And it's not some obscure law lurking away in the vaults of some laboratory in Cambridge. It's the one law of physics we all know - the one about conservation of energy. This states that energy can not be created or destroyed and is called the First Law of Thermodynamics. Einstein refined and immortalized it in his famous equation E=mc2, which shows matter and energy are interchangeable, give or take a few multiples of the speed of light. So popular and trendy is this law that Mick Jones of the Clash wrote a song about it and called it, er, E=mc2. The fact that Einstein confirmed that you can't have a perpetual motion machine doesn't stop people even today trying to invent one. The reason? Well, if you've got your name at the top of the patent you'll become so rich that you'll be able to employ Bill Gates as your butler.

For centuries the quest to build a perpetual motion machine was the Holy Grail of physics. Drawings of PM machines date back to the 13th Century. Even that old scientific genius, Leonardo da Vinci had a go at building one 300 years before the term energy had been coined in 1801. But at least you can forgive Leonardo - he didn't have Einstein around to tell him to stop wasting his time. And it's even tougher on today's energy mavericks as they now have several immovable laws of thermodynamics to contend with (yes, there’s more than one). Oh, and a scientific establishment which thinks that perpetual motion is a load of old bollocks. Perpetual motion is today more usually called free energy, a double-edged description as it seems to include alternative energy means such as solar, wind and wave power generating systems, which all operate well within the energy conservation law. But this twiddling around with the terminology is little more than a smokescreen to bamboozle perpetual motion critics into thinking that it's all a lot more scientific than they think. But it's not really fooling any one who’s clued up on thermodynamics. It doesn't come as much of a surprise that most of the available information about free energy is on the Net, and you can't help feeling that the Net is just about the only places where such theories can flourish - after all any old minority group can set up a home page and waffle on about their obsessions until the cows come home.. And you
don't have to be Richard Feynman to realize the myriad of web pages discussing free energy systems and over-unity devices are little more
than promotional material for PM machines. If the amount of stuff that's available on the web is anything to go by, free energy supporters are a small, but highly vocal and perhaps slightly mad, group of lovable eccentrics. But don't let that fool you into thinking that they're all harmless.
You can basically divide the free energy guys into two groups: the con men and the pseudo-scientists. Over the years gullible investors have been conned out of millions thanks to free energy scams. Charismatic 'inventors' have been known to fill entire stadiums with the promise of
huge returns for investing in a device which may look convincing to Joe Public, but doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny. Meanwhile the free energy pseudo-scientist tends to be a better sort of bloke altogether - and they do appear to be mainly men. Most of them are self-taught 'engineers', which is why you can only really class them as pseudo-scientists. It's a bit of a shame really, because if patents were granted on the basis of the amount of time and enthusiasm they put into their inventions they'd have enough to wallpaper their laboratories.

Unbridled creativity Perpetual motion or PM machines come in many shapes and sizes: motors that work on tap water; giant, eternally-spinning flywheels; weird contraptions made from magnets and wires; even little green pills which
convert water into gas. One of the more interesting free energy devices currently on the go is the Newman motor/generator, consisting of a number of magnets and a very long coiled wire. Sounds much like a conventional motor, but its American inventor Joseph Newman claims to have built prototypes with efficiencies ranging up to 1100 per cent. But as we know, current thermodynamics laws state that there's no such thing as a free lunch (not to be confused with Alan Guth's 'Free Lunch Theory'). So no machine can be more than 100 per cent efficient. In reality, heat loss due to friction, cooling and other real-world factors means that even 100 per cent is out of the question. In free energy circles, if a system has an energy efficiency greater than 100 per cent (ie creates energy) it is known as an 'over-unity' device. Yet another term invested with scientific gravitas in an attempt to legitimize perpetual motion machines. Although the Newman machine appears to fit the over-unity description, it's inventor denies that it does. Joseph Newman is an elusive character when it comes to dealing directly with the inquisitive public. But we managed to get an email through to Newman's director of information, Evan Soule, who was more than helpful in explaining his employer's invention and theories. Newman, he confirms, has never claimed that his technology is a free energy or over-unity device. "He considers these terms to be semantically imprecise and scientifically inaccurate," says Soule, who maintains the energy obtained from the Newman device is entirely in keeping with the law of conservation. "Joseph Newman has described his system as one which produces greater external energy output than external energy input," explains Soule. Hang on a minute, isn't that the same as saying the machine creates its own energy? Apparently not: "His technology does not 'break' laws of nature, but rather extends them into new domains, just like Einstein did
with Newton's gravitational theories." Oh well, that's all right, then. Newman has his own electromagnetic theory to support this, maintaining all matter in the universe is made up of a smaller than sub-atomic particle called a 'gyroscopic massergy'. It starts getting a bit complicated at this point, but basically Newman reckons the current laws of electromagnetism are a complete cock up and his new particle is the biz. That, apparently, is what causes his device to generate lots of energy. To be fair, it sounds, on paper, like a perfectly reasonable non-mathematical explanation. Another new particle. Why not? Quantum physicists predict them all the time. Would be nice to have a little bit of proof, but then Newman certainly seems to have an impressive number of scientific experts to support his claims.
"Over 30 experts - physicists, nuclear engineers, electrical engineers/technicians - have tested Joseph Newman's energy machine and have signed affidavits that it performs as indicated," Soule says. But that's not what independent engineering consultant and free energy skeptic, Eric Krieg says.
"My copy of the test performed by the National Bureau of Standards says that in a test, Newman's machine only returned one to two thirds of the energy put into it," Krieg states on his web page dedicated to refuting Newman's free energy claims. Well, at least it actually seems to work. So why doesn't Krieg thing it's the real thing? "You can't get ahead with magnets and wires, all physical reactions can only change energy from one form to another, not produce it". He maintains that Newman's device doesn't even function well as a traditional motor because the long wire conductors soak up
energy. Engineering technician Norm Biss isn't a Newman fan either. He claims he persuaded his boss to build a Newman motor, which Joseph Newman then stole two days before they were due to test it. Meanwhile Newman has attacked the establishment head on, suing the US patent office after his patent application was rejected. We did some checks and a patent application for the device was also rejected by the European patent office, although Soule denies this. Krieg says he has repeatedly offered to test the Newman motor, but has had no joy. Joseph Newman won't even talk to him directly, he says. In fact Krieg has given an open invitation to the free energy community that he will carry out technical tests, at his own expense, on any
device they care to bring him. No-one has yet taken him up on the offer. PM inventors are notoriously shy of having their devices tested by the
'establishment' experts, even when big buck incentives are offered for a free energy device that lives up to its claims. Paranoia rules, with
claims of government suppression and utility companies with murderous intentions. When free energy con men disappear with sack loads of money, duped investors prefer to scream abduction or murder rather than face the truth. American Rory Johnson claimed to have invented a cold fusion, laser-activated, magnetic motor that could keep a lorry or bus going for 100,000 miles on just 2lb of the hydrogen isotope, deuterium. He signed up a few dealers, packed up his labs, moved to California and died. His followers still say he was silenced by OPEC.

A popular target for free energy venom is the US patent office. Free energy followers say the US patent office has more than 3,000 free energy patent applications filed under a secrecy order. If this is true then it is almost certainly for bureaucratic reasons, rather than any subversive hush-up on the part of the American government. "Every application filed is secret until it receives a patent, when it will be published. But an abandoned application remains secret forever," says senior US patent examiner, Art Grimley. This doesn't prevent the applicant of a refused patent from publishing it, however.

In Europe, all patent applications are published, even if they've been refused, which at least means applicants don't have any reason to become paranoid over suppressed information. All patent applications in the US and the UK undergo a security check, where the application is scanned for certain keywords which could result in a military secrecy order being placed on it, often only temporarily. The keywords are fairly obvious terms, such as weapon or missile. So free energy applicants would do well to give military terms a miss if they want to avoid becoming paranoid over secrecy orders.

"I'd be very surprised if any of these perpetual motion devices were taken up by the Ministry of Defence," laughs George Hamlyn of the UK patent office. A former patent examiner for rotary engines, he's used to dealing with applications for PM machines. And he's dismissive of the conspiracy theories.
"It's not a conspiracy, it's just that the scientific community doesn't believe in it and we take our cue from them". In other words, don't mention the words perpetual motion, free energy or over-unity anywhere in a patent application because it will be ejected from the system before the applicant has time to shout conspiracy. So have the free-energy inventors got a point? After all the patent laws appear to be set up deliberately to thwart them. But then again, perhaps a little bit of tact and diplomacy is all that's required in the wording of a free energy application? Hamlyn is actually quite sympathetic to the ‘alternative’ inventor and is happy to dish out advice on wording: "A machine hat's described as a low-energy consuming device might well be granted a patent providing it passes the novelty, usefulness and non-obviousness tests."

The fact remains though that the vast majority of these machines are doomed to fail on the usefulness aspect. But then the PM guys seem to be very creative. "One patent examiner I know had a patent application for a piece of furniture which doubled as a perpetual motion machine," says Hamlyn.

It's not just the like of Joe Newman who are at odds with the US patent office. There are some really big scientists out there who feel more than a bit pissed off with them. None bigger than Martin Fleischmann, Fellow of the Royal Society and father of cold fusion - he isn't exactly dishing out any compliments.

"The behavior of the US patent office is ludicrous," he explodes, maintaining that more than a third of the patent office objections to cold fusion were based purely on media reports. Cold fusion is the experiment which burst into a glare of publicity in 1989 when Fleischmann and his partner Stanley Pons declared to the world that they'd fused deuterium nuclei in a test tube, generating one hundred times more electricity than they'd put in. The discovery was an overnight sensation. Fleischmann and Pons became front page news. Cold fusion was hailed as the clean energy source for the future. Scientists went into overdrive. Cold fusion experiments leapt up in every respectable lab around the world. Until it all went horribly wrong. No-one was able to repeat the results, a cardinal sin in science terms. Pons and Fleischmann became the black sheep of the science community.

But the free energy gurus consider Fleishmann and his discovery to be one of them. Focus caught up with the former Southampton University Professor of Electrochemistry at his Wiltshire home. Now 71, the feisty Czech doesn't mince his words.

"Don’t lump me in with that free energy lot. I’m a very, very conventional scientist and I don’t believe in free energy devices," he growls. Although he’s not to keen on supporting the conspiracy theorists, he’s definitely convinced there’s something dodgy going on out there. "I always say you have to be very suspicious of conspiracy theories," he says, while admitting he’s had his telephone lines bugged. But if he knows who’s doing the dirty on him, he’s certainly not letting on. Fleischmann says he doesn't care because he’s got nothing to hide. Except he got cross when he felt the bugging was ruining his faxes. He wrote to his MP, Robert Key to complain. "But I never got a reply," he laughs.

Fleischmann is a breath of fresh air after the rantings and outpourings of the free energy crowd. He makes cold fusion sound feasible, although that’s probably due to the quantum jargon he uses, which trips off his tongue as easily as ordering a pint. No ordinary person stands a cat’s chance of understanding what the hell he’s talking about, but it certainly sounds impressive. So that’s one up on the free energy lot.

Unlike the PM people, Fleishmann approaches questions in a totally professional and scientific manner. He reveals, he’d loved to have had a chance to work on hot fusion - mainstream research into duplicating on earth, the chemical reactions which keep the sun glowing. And he doesn't find anything odd about the numerous failed efforts to repeat his and Pons’ original experiment.

"This is a system that appears pseudo-simple, but actually it’s extremely complicated," he explains. But he’s still working on it and believes in it as a possible energy source for the future, "if it can be made reproducible and reliable".

Cold fusion scientists have never claimed that their effect is free energy, or over unity, or even that it violates any known laws of physics. But Fleischmann, a chemist, is pretty pissed off with physicists in general.

"Cold fusion violates our concept of quantum mechanics, because it can only be explained by quantum field theory and most physicists don’t understand quantum field theory," says Flesichmann disparagingly.

Perhaps it’s unfair to include cold fusion with the PM crowd. Fleishmann isn't a pseudo scientist and he doesn't seem to be trying to con anyone, although there are those who have accused him and Pons of fiddling the original cold fusion results. But the fact is that cold fusion is a nine-day wonder which has been downgraded to crackpot science status by most of Fleischmann’s peer group.

In fact, cold fusion looks like more of a goer than any of the PM inventions currently bandied around the Net. Okay, so any perpetual motion machine, if it worked, would send Einstein spinning in his grave. But if no-one had ever challenged the trendy point of view we’d still be using flint axes. And look at the rewards to be reaped from inventing a machine which can create it’s own energy - it would solve the world energy crisis in one go, make its inventor an overnight billionaire and make electricity deregulation a redundant concept. It might piss off a few oil companies though, so watch your backs fellas.

Fantastic Free Energy Frauds
Many free energy con men are never brought to trial for the money they’ve duped out of gullible investors. And most are understandably reluctant to allow experts to put their claims to the test. But a few have been caught in the act.

The Keely perpetual motion scam was dubbed "the monumental fraud of the century" by the New York Journal in 1899. John Worrel Keely claimed to have invented a generator that turned tap water into high pressure ‘etheric vapor’ when ‘vibratory energy’ was applied. He fooled scientists and raised $5 million, a massive sum for the time. After his death, investigators found a network of pipes in his Philadelphia home, which had been used to supply air pressure to power his ‘perpetual motion’ machine.

In 1966 the Papf ‘alternative’ car engine killed someone during a demo. Papf blamed an investigating skeptic and promptly disappeared.

Bible-bashing farmers gave $800,000 to Arnold Burke in 1977 for his self-acting pump. Burke hid behind religion, calling his device Jeremiah 33:3. Two years later an open test found a hidden source of electricity. His loyal followers still raised $250,000 to get him off a fraud conviction.

American Dennis Lee has demonstrated a whole series of alleged free energy devices to stadiums of people over the last decade. He sells dealerships at $10,000 a time. Lee, who has been accused of fraud, claims to have a hot line to God and says he is being victimized by a huge, international conspiracy.

Norwegian artist, Reidar Finsrud claims to have built the world’s first perpetual motion sculpture. This piece of dynamic art apparently works using three sets of strong magnets to move a two-inch, two-pound, steel ball continuously around a circular steel track with no other outside influence. The whole thing is mounted in a glass case and on show to the public at his gallery.

There are a few rewards on offer for any free energy machine that lives up to its claims. But these prizes are peanuts compared to the billions any inventor will make who works out how to create energy out of thin air. There are a few rules, of course.

Wacky New Age firm Zenergy Corporation, in the US, is offering $100,000 to any individual or company who can demonstrate a working free energy machine. To qualify, the machine must operate at a 150% efficiency and produce a minimum of 100 W of power (just enough to keep a light bulb going). Conventional technology will not be considered - so no solar panels or wind turbines please.

Engineering consultant and free energy skeptic Eric Krieg is stumping up $5,000 of his own money (including travel expenses) for any device which can pass his rigorous test. Anyone interested (and there have been no takers so far) should check out Eric’s web page for full entry rules. Note that any machine submitted must weigh less than 2000 lbs and the center of gravity must be within two feet of one side. Eric’s forklift can’t handle anything bigger.

Recently I've seen correspondence grumbling about the stipulation made by skeptical engineers and physicists that any legitimate over-unity device should be able to supply its own input power. Inventors and supporters of such machines seem to regard this requirement as overly stringent or even as not playing fair. So what's the problem?

The definition of over-unity performance is that for some reasonable period of time the output power from a device should exceed its input power. Time enters into the statement since energy is power times time. It is trivially easy to build a device which will produce more output power than its input power; a storage battery and a flywheel both can. A net energy output must be measured over a long enough period to eliminate the possibility that the device is merely releasing previously stored energy.

One way to demonstrate an over unity performance is to measure both the input power and the output power with some degree of accuracy. These measurements may involve quite different methods and units. For example, a motor may have an input of electrical energy and an output of mechanical energy. The person making the measurements has to be familiar with the errors which can arise in two quite different areas of technology. Even measuring DC input power has its tricky points and when the current contains a pulsing component, as motor currents generally do, simple measurement instruments no longer give the correct answer. Mechanical power measurements also have difficulties and potential errors. An inventor who neglects possible measurement errors can convince himself that he has achieved over-unity.

Of course some claims are based on ignorance of the correct methods of computing power. Pulsing the supply voltage to a device achieves a mean drive power far greater than that calculated by simply multiplying the mean current by the mean voltage. That doesn't mean that the efficiency has risen. Dennis Lee's famous counter-rotating device is equivalent to a times-two gear-box. By better adapting the motor torque to the load it allows the motor to run faster and to consume less power for the same output. According to Lee's own figures its efficiency improves from 7% to 21%. Without the "counter-rotating device" the motor could have achieved some 80% efficiency.

Devices which show excess heat output are a special case. It all depends on what you count as excess. Joule heating is a notoriously inefficient process yet it is used as the standard. A device which produces, say, 15 watts of heat in a calorimeter from a 10 watt input may look as if it is producing more output than its input. It probably isn't when you take all power inputs into account. For example, a domestic heat pump generates three to four times as much heat as would be generated by a resistive heater using the same electrical input. Clever though that is, it isn't over-unity. The excess heat energy is coming from the ambient air.

Despite claims of 600% efficiency, this "excess" energy cannot be used for anything other than heating things up. No possible conversion of this energy back to mechanical or electrical power can supply more energy than was put in in the first place, a fact which even Dennis Lee must have realized by this time. That's why cold fusion and similar claims are now greeted with yawns. Low temperature heat output is probably not scientifically significant and it can't be used for anything useful anyway.

So why do skeptics want to close the loop? Simply because people can fool themselves, and others, but they can't fool nature. An over-unity claim may arise from a technical misunderstanding, a measurement error or incorrect computations. (Or, for that matter, from deceit.) However, if the output power is really greater than the input power, it should be trivially easy to convert the output back into a form suitable for driving the input. Conventional generators and motors convert between electrical and mechanical power with efficiencies in the region of 90%. DC and AC voltages can be altered with similar or better efficiencies. Gear boxes can adjust motor speeds up or down.

Any machine which really has an output greater than about 120% of its input must be able to operate in a closed loop with no input other than its own output. A machine which runs with no external input power is plainly over-unity; the inventor of an "over-unity" machine who scorns this simple test is hiding something, if only his own incompetence.