If I remember correctly, about 10-15 years ago, there was a guy (Newman?) who claimed to have invented an electric motor that generated more energy than it used. I believe he managed to convince some otherwise intelligent people that the machine actually worked. Given that I haven't heard a peep about him since. The gist of the invention was the engine's windings were *VERY* long and by the time the EM wave reached the end of the coil, the rotor had flipped positions. This sounds almost identical.
The ultimate mistake in both cases can be summed up in a single sentence:
The are using quasi-static EM approximations when a fully dynamic model is required.
To explain:
Coming up with complete solutions to Maxwell's equations can be very complex for all but a few, relatively trivial geometries. However, many times, these equations (and their solutions) can be greatly simplified by making a quasi-static assumption. For example, if you can assume that the magnetic field is chaning sufficiently slowly that the dB/dt is negligible, the equations become much simpler to solve. The equations resulting from neglecting this term are referred to as the EQS (Electro-Quasistatic) model. Many basic circuit and, by extention, electric motor, equations are based on this model.
The problem is that in both of these cases, the changing magnetic field cannot be neglected and many (if not all) of the equations and assumptions they are running with aren't valid. Even people who understand the equations sometimes forget the key assumptions that led to them.
For example. Assume you have two identical perfect capacitors with capacitance C. You charge one of them up to voltage V. The other one has no charge. At this point the energy in the system is 1/2 CV^2. Now, connect these two capacitors (assuming there are no resistive losses). Half of the charge ends up in each capacitor. The total energy is
2 * new capacitor energy
2* (1/2 C * (V/2)^2).
1/4 C V^2.
Which is half of the original system energy. If there were no resistive losses, where did the energy go?
This ceases to be a mystery when you consider that acceleration of the charges in the capacitor is no longer negligible. An accelerated charge radiates energy. It is these radiative losses that explain where the missing energy went.
Yes, I know its not a perfect example but it illustrates the kinds of paradoxes you run into when the underlying assumptions of your model break down.
*All* of the experiments that 'observed' energy gain have also been shown to suffer from calorimetry mistakes. This is why they can't get results to consistently reproduce.
Ultimately, the problem is that palladium loves hydrogen atoms to the point that it is difficult to begin an experiment that doesn't already have hydrogen attached. Thus, the experiment doesn't properly account for the energy (usually in the form of heat) that was required to get the palladium in that state. This throws off their calorimetry and their results. These facts are nothing new: There was a professor at MIT [Bellanger/Berringer?] who was investigating the interactions between hydrogen and palladium long before Pons et al.
Yes, mistakes and misinterpreting results are very real. This is why peer review exists.
(Sorry about the poor formatting of the last reply)
My background includes communication theory, E&M and power lines (specifically magnetic fields and high frequency E&M). I put a more detailed summary at the end of the article in case someone's really interested. Because of my familiarity, I was both interested and skeptical.
I looked over the patent application and the website. There were no specifics to be found. I decided to take a look at the bibliography. I have read many of the titles. They are (loosely) consistent with academic exercise of simulating a microwave signal along a transmission line. (Having already built one as a product in a previous job.) Several of the other titles are, IMHO, present strictly to impress/intimidate someone looking at the list. What *is* missing are sources that would be consistent with trying to build a practical communication system.
Furthermore, one of the technical diagrams on the website talks about the "enormous information carrying capacity". There are a number of fundamental errors on the page. The most egregious is the assertion that an analog waveform contains "virtually infinite" information capacity.
At a high level, a communication system takes information (voice or data) and encodes it. This encoding can be either digital or analog. It then uses the encoded information to create a signal that can be transmitted from the sender to the receiver. During the course of transmission, noise creeps into the signal. The receiver takes the received signal, filters out the noise as best they can to get an image of the encoded information. Finally, the receiver decodes their image to reconstruct the original information.
The rate at which information can be transmitted is a function of the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). The larger the signal is (compared to the noise) the more information it can carry. Thus, any meaningful communication system design must have an estimate of the characteristics of the noise in the system. All communication systems try to maximize the SNR (subject to other constraints).
Many of the diagrams and bullet points imply that the environment is noiseless. Either they do not believe that there is noise or they don't understand that noise is a fundamental design consideration.
Noise can take many forms. It has already been mentioned that transmission lines act as good antennas. Thus, they will pick up noise from external sources. However, they produce noise all by themselves. Transmission lines (not your house or street lines) operate at sufficient voltages to cause ionization. The phenomenon is known as 'corona' and is a substantial source of RF noise/interference. Last, but certainly not least, is the noise created by the communication system itself. This includes different users interfering with one another. (By analogy, it is similar to trying to listen when two people are speaking at the same time.)
There are many other issues involving using the power grid as a communication system (although it is possible). However, ANY design must carefully consider the effects of noise first to determine what could be done. From then on it becomes a matter of making the design fit various other constraints (FCC regulations, not breaking the power-grid, etc.) Once the design addresses all of these issues, it can be evaluated for its business potential.
The conclusion that I end up with is that they have no understanding of the effects of noise in a communication system. Much less the effects of the noise environment that exists with a transmission line. This conclusion is reinforced through the bibliography, diagrams and bullet points so I don't think it's a simple mistake on the part of the web page designer.
PS. Someone asked what a MASER is. It is the microwave version of a laser. (Microwave Amplification through the Simulated Emission of Radiation.)
Editorial:
After reading this, (and related articles) it is clear the patent office is in desperate need of reform.
Before a VC invests in a start-up, they perform due-diligence. This includes having an industry expert review the underlying technology. Unfortunately, individual investors typically do not perform such in-depth analyses. Take a guess as to which is the source of the funding for the company.
Personal Background:
I've done a fair amount of graduate work in both E&M and communication theory. Once I got out of school, my first job was as a research engineer working under contract for EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). Two of my specialties were; magnetic fields from power lines and the simulation of lightning strikes to transmission lines. This included building a simulator of high frequency transients along transmission lines. I also worked on calculating the RF interference caused by transmission lines.
The opinions expressed here are my own, not my employer's (or EPRI's).
My background includes communication theory, E&M and power lines (specifically magnetic fields and high frequency E&M). I put a more detailed summary at the end of the article in case someone's really interested. Because of my familiarity, I was both interested and skeptical. I looked over the patent application and the website. There were no specifics to be found. I decided to take a look at the bibliography. I have read many of the titles. They are (loosely) consistent with academic exercise of simulating a microwave signal along a transmission line. (Having already built one as a product in a previous job.) Several of the other titles are, IMHO, present strictly to impress/intimidate someone looking at the list. What *is* missing are sources that would be consistent with trying to build a practical communication system. Furthermore, one of the technical diagrams on the website talks about the "enormous information carrying capacity". There are a number of fundamental errors on the page. The most egregious is the assertion that an analog waveform contains "virtually infinite" information capacity. At a high level, a communication system takes information (voice or data) and encodes it. This encoding can be either digital or analog. It then uses the encoded information to create a signal that can be transmitted from the sender to the receiver. During the course of transmission, noise creeps into the signal. The receiver takes the received signal, filters out the noise as best they can to get an image of the encoded information. Finally, the receiver decodes their image to reconstruct the original information. The rate at which information can be transmitted is a function of the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). The larger the signal is (compared to the noise) the more information it can carry. Thus, any meaningful communication system design must have an estimate of the characteristics of the noise in the system. All communication systems try to maximize the SNR (subject to other constraints). Many of the diagrams and bullet points imply that the environment is noiseless. Either they do not believe that there is noise or they don't understand that noise is a fundamental design consideration. Noise can take many forms. It has already been mentioned that transmission lines act as good antennas. Thus, they will pick up noise from external sources. However, they produce noise all by themselves. Transmission lines (not your house or street lines) operate at sufficient voltages to cause ionization. The phenomenon is known as 'corona' and is a substantial source of RF noise/interference. Last, but certainly not least, is the noise created by the communication system itself. This includes different users interfering with one another. (By analogy, it is similar to trying to listen when two people are speaking at the same time.) There are many other issues involving using the power grid as a communication system (although it is possible). However, ANY design must carefully consider the effects of noise first to determine what could be done. From then on it becomes a matter of making the design fit various other constraints (FCC regulations, not breaking the power-grid, etc.) Once the design addresses all of these issues, it can be evaluated for its business potential. The conclusion that I end up with is that they have no understanding of the effects of noise in a communication system. Much less the effects of the noise environment that exists with a transmission line. This conclusion is reinforced through the bibliography, diagrams and bullet points so I don't think it's a simple mistake on the part of the web page designer. PS. Someone asked what a MASER is. It is the microwave version of a laser. (Microwave Amplification through the Simulated Emission of Radiation.) Editorial: After reading this, (and related articles) it is clear the patent office is in desperate need of reform. Before a VC invests in a start-up, they perform due-diligence. This includes having an industry expert review the underlying technology. Unfortunately, individual investors typically do not perform such in-depth analyses. Take a guess as to which is the source of the funding for the company. Personal Background: I've done a fair amount of graduate work in both E&M and communication theory. Once I got out of school, my first job was as a research engineer working under contract for EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). Two of my specialties were; magnetic fields from power lines and the simulation of lightning strikes to transmission lines. This included building a simulator of high frequency transients along transmission lines. I also worked on calculating the RF interference caused by transmission lines. The opinions expressed here are my own, not my employer's (or EPRI's).
Slashdot Mirror
If I remember correctly, about 10-15 years ago, there was a guy (Newman?) who claimed to have invented an electric motor that generated more energy than it used. I believe he managed to convince some otherwise intelligent people that the machine actually worked. Given that I haven't heard a peep about him since. The gist of the invention was the engine's windings were *VERY* long and by the time the EM wave reached the end of the coil, the rotor had flipped positions. This sounds almost identical.
The ultimate mistake in both cases can be summed up in a single sentence:
The are using quasi-static EM approximations when a fully dynamic model is required.
To explain:
Coming up with complete solutions to Maxwell's equations can be very complex for all but a few, relatively trivial geometries. However, many times, these equations (and their solutions) can be greatly simplified by making a quasi-static assumption. For example, if you can assume that the magnetic field is chaning sufficiently slowly that the dB/dt is negligible, the equations become much simpler to solve. The equations resulting from neglecting this term are referred to as the EQS (Electro-Quasistatic) model. Many basic circuit and, by extention, electric motor, equations are based on this model.
The problem is that in both of these cases, the changing magnetic field cannot be neglected and many (if not all) of the equations and assumptions they are running with aren't valid. Even people who understand the equations sometimes forget the key assumptions that led to them.
For example. Assume you have two identical perfect capacitors with capacitance C. You charge one of them up to voltage V. The other one has no charge. At this point the energy in the system is 1/2 CV^2. Now, connect these two capacitors (assuming there are no resistive losses). Half of the charge ends up in each capacitor. The total energy is
2 * new capacitor energy
2* (1/2 C * (V/2)^2).
1/4 C V^2.
Which is half of the original system energy. If there were no resistive losses, where did the energy go?
This ceases to be a mystery when you consider that acceleration of the charges in the capacitor is no longer negligible. An accelerated charge radiates energy. It is these radiative losses that explain where the missing energy went.
Yes, I know its not a perfect example but it illustrates the kinds of paradoxes you run into when the underlying assumptions of your model break down.
*All* of the experiments that 'observed' energy gain have also been shown to suffer from calorimetry mistakes. This is why they can't get results to consistently reproduce.
Ultimately, the problem is that palladium loves hydrogen atoms to the point that it is difficult to begin an experiment that doesn't already have hydrogen attached. Thus, the experiment doesn't properly account for the energy (usually in the form of heat) that was required to get the palladium in that state. This throws off their calorimetry and their results. These facts are nothing new: There was a professor at MIT [Bellanger/Berringer?] who was investigating the interactions between hydrogen and palladium long before Pons et al.
Yes, mistakes and misinterpreting results are very real. This is why peer review exists.
I think that he *has* discovered a new particle, the "put-on".
He has clearly already demonstrated the puton's
enormous potential of raising money. Since
everyone knows time=money, he might be onto something here.
(Sorry about the poor formatting of the last reply)
My background includes communication theory, E&M and power lines (specifically magnetic fields and high frequency E&M). I put a more detailed summary at the end of the article in case someone's really interested. Because of my familiarity, I was both interested and skeptical.
I looked over the patent application and the website. There were no specifics to be found. I decided to take a look at the bibliography. I have read many of the titles. They are (loosely) consistent with academic exercise of simulating a microwave signal along a transmission line. (Having already built one as a product in a previous job.) Several of the other titles are, IMHO, present strictly to impress/intimidate someone looking at the list. What *is* missing are sources that would be consistent with trying to build a practical communication system.
Furthermore, one of the technical diagrams on the website talks about the "enormous information carrying capacity". There are a number of fundamental errors on the page. The most egregious is the assertion that an analog waveform contains "virtually infinite" information capacity.
At a high level, a communication system takes information (voice or data) and encodes it. This encoding can be either digital or analog. It then uses the encoded information to create a signal that can be transmitted from the sender to the receiver. During the course of transmission, noise creeps into the signal. The receiver takes the received signal, filters out the noise as best they can to get an image of the encoded information. Finally, the receiver decodes their image to reconstruct the original information.
The rate at which information can be transmitted is a function of the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). The larger the signal is (compared to the noise) the more information it can carry. Thus, any meaningful communication system design must have an estimate of the characteristics of the noise in the system. All communication systems try to maximize the SNR (subject to other constraints).
Many of the diagrams and bullet points imply that the environment is noiseless. Either they do not believe that there is noise or they don't understand that noise is a fundamental design consideration.
Noise can take many forms. It has already been mentioned that transmission lines act as good antennas. Thus, they will pick up noise from external sources. However, they produce noise all by themselves. Transmission lines (not your house or street lines) operate at sufficient voltages to cause ionization. The phenomenon is known as 'corona' and is a substantial source of RF noise/interference. Last, but certainly not least, is the noise created by the communication system itself. This includes different users interfering with one another. (By analogy, it is similar to trying to listen when two people are speaking at the same time.)
There are many other issues involving using the power grid as a communication system (although it is possible). However, ANY design must carefully consider the effects of noise first to determine what could be done. From then on it becomes a matter of making the design fit various other constraints (FCC regulations, not breaking the power-grid, etc.) Once the design addresses all of these issues, it can be evaluated for its business potential.
The conclusion that I end up with is that they have no understanding of the effects of noise in a communication system. Much less the effects of the noise environment that exists with a transmission line. This conclusion is reinforced through the bibliography, diagrams and bullet points so I don't think it's a simple mistake on the part of the web page designer.
PS. Someone asked what a MASER is. It is the microwave version of a laser. (Microwave Amplification through the Simulated Emission of Radiation.)
Editorial:
After reading this, (and related articles) it is clear the patent office is in desperate need of reform.
Before a VC invests in a start-up, they perform due-diligence. This includes having an industry expert review the underlying technology. Unfortunately, individual investors typically do not perform such in-depth analyses. Take a guess as to which is the source of the funding for the company.
Personal Background:
I've done a fair amount of graduate work in both E&M and communication theory. Once I got out of school, my first job was as a research engineer working under contract for EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). Two of my specialties were; magnetic fields from power lines and the simulation of lightning strikes to transmission lines. This included building a simulator of high frequency transients along transmission lines. I also worked on calculating the RF interference caused by transmission lines.
The opinions expressed here are my own, not my employer's (or EPRI's).
My background includes communication theory, E&M and power lines (specifically magnetic fields and high frequency E&M). I put a more detailed summary at the end of the article in case someone's really interested. Because of my familiarity, I was both interested and skeptical. I looked over the patent application and the website. There were no specifics to be found. I decided to take a look at the bibliography. I have read many of the titles. They are (loosely) consistent with academic exercise of simulating a microwave signal along a transmission line. (Having already built one as a product in a previous job.) Several of the other titles are, IMHO, present strictly to impress/intimidate someone looking at the list. What *is* missing are sources that would be consistent with trying to build a practical communication system. Furthermore, one of the technical diagrams on the website talks about the "enormous information carrying capacity". There are a number of fundamental errors on the page. The most egregious is the assertion that an analog waveform contains "virtually infinite" information capacity. At a high level, a communication system takes information (voice or data) and encodes it. This encoding can be either digital or analog. It then uses the encoded information to create a signal that can be transmitted from the sender to the receiver. During the course of transmission, noise creeps into the signal. The receiver takes the received signal, filters out the noise as best they can to get an image of the encoded information. Finally, the receiver decodes their image to reconstruct the original information. The rate at which information can be transmitted is a function of the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). The larger the signal is (compared to the noise) the more information it can carry. Thus, any meaningful communication system design must have an estimate of the characteristics of the noise in the system. All communication systems try to maximize the SNR (subject to other constraints). Many of the diagrams and bullet points imply that the environment is noiseless. Either they do not believe that there is noise or they don't understand that noise is a fundamental design consideration. Noise can take many forms. It has already been mentioned that transmission lines act as good antennas. Thus, they will pick up noise from external sources. However, they produce noise all by themselves. Transmission lines (not your house or street lines) operate at sufficient voltages to cause ionization. The phenomenon is known as 'corona' and is a substantial source of RF noise/interference. Last, but certainly not least, is the noise created by the communication system itself. This includes different users interfering with one another. (By analogy, it is similar to trying to listen when two people are speaking at the same time.) There are many other issues involving using the power grid as a communication system (although it is possible). However, ANY design must carefully consider the effects of noise first to determine what could be done. From then on it becomes a matter of making the design fit various other constraints (FCC regulations, not breaking the power-grid, etc.) Once the design addresses all of these issues, it can be evaluated for its business potential. The conclusion that I end up with is that they have no understanding of the effects of noise in a communication system. Much less the effects of the noise environment that exists with a transmission line. This conclusion is reinforced through the bibliography, diagrams and bullet points so I don't think it's a simple mistake on the part of the web page designer. PS. Someone asked what a MASER is. It is the microwave version of a laser. (Microwave Amplification through the Simulated Emission of Radiation.) Editorial: After reading this, (and related articles) it is clear the patent office is in desperate need of reform. Before a VC invests in a start-up, they perform due-diligence. This includes having an industry expert review the underlying technology. Unfortunately, individual investors typically do not perform such in-depth analyses. Take a guess as to which is the source of the funding for the company. Personal Background: I've done a fair amount of graduate work in both E&M and communication theory. Once I got out of school, my first job was as a research engineer working under contract for EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). Two of my specialties were; magnetic fields from power lines and the simulation of lightning strikes to transmission lines. This included building a simulator of high frequency transients along transmission lines. I also worked on calculating the RF interference caused by transmission lines. The opinions expressed here are my own, not my employer's (or EPRI's).