The problem with Lutec

February 12th, 2011
submit to reddit Share

Recently someone wrote me an email asking me what I thought of Lutec and the claims made by this group. For those who don’t know, Lutec is an Australian company that several years ago claimed to have created a device capable of generating more power than it consumed, using circuitry connected to a kind of motor-generator. While they never demonstrated the machine running on its own, without external power, they claimed that the input power was considerably less than what was output.

If this were actually true, the machine should be able to power itself and still have power to spare. Even if it needed some kind of external “priming” power, or a power source or some kind of power source to buffer a non-constant power output, this could be easily accomplished with a simple system of capacitors or batteries. Thus, an “energy amplifier” could also be an “energy producer,” if such a device existed.

Based on what their website states, they seem to not understand this:

This remarkable patented technology has many possible applications. It can amplify all existing or new electricity stations production. This is done by simply adding the technology to the existing or new power stations distribution sub stations. It can therefore be applied to and amplify any size power station regardless of the type of fuel being used. It will be equally effective with coal, oil, gas, and solar, wind, and diesel, nuclear or hydro power stations.

The LEA technology can be just as effective in other applications. The input power can be supplied to a LEA system from a normal wall plug outlet, or from other types of generator or battery supply. The input causes synergistic internal events in the patented LEA motor/generator/amplifier system to increase the amount of electricity it receives at no further cost. (See the How It Works page)

The LEA technology is proven to Amplify electricity. Please note the LEA is not the same as the Lutec 1000 generator and although the patents that cover the LEA are applicable to both, the electricity amplifier is quite different from the generator.

Having made some big claims and gotten a fair amount of press, the company and system seem to have gone into a kind of stagnation, probably because the system doesn’t actually work. Still, there are those who cling to the idea and claim that it’s just a matter of putting the Lultec machine into production to end humanity’s energy problems forever.

Unfortunately there’s a big problem: The inventors of this machine made some mistakes and miscalculations. The demonstrations shown on Youtube and elsewhere are probably genuine films of the output of the Lultec machine powering light bulbs or other devices. The problem is that the machine is actually consuming significantly more power to do so than it is outputting.

This video does a pretty good job of showing their mistake…

Now here’s the problem: Determining electrical power in watts by simply multiplying volts times amps works when you’re dealing with a simple purely resistive load and where there’s no inductive or capacitive reactance involved. For example, if you have a light bulb hooked up to a battery, then multiplying amperage by voltage should give you the total wattage.

Unfortunately this will not work with circuits that involve alternating current motors, which have their own internal reactance. What this means is that the actual measure of the current and voltage using simple meters is not a true reflection power. Part of this comes from the fact that reactive loads on an AC circuit can cause the voltage and amperage to cycle at different phases. If this is not complicated enough, it also is worth noting that AC volt meters are generally designed to provide what is known as RMS voltage, but this value may not be completely accurate depending on the circumstances and how much reactive power is present on the line.

Further complicating the calculations is the fact that their input power is AC which goes through a transformer and then a rectifier. This results in what is known as a Non-linear load. Most AC voltage and current meters are designed to provide accurate readings of sinusoidal current and voltage, but non-linear loads will produce a non-sinusoidal voltage curve. When connected to non-linear loads they will not provide accurate readings.

I have to admit that some of the equations and measurements needed to get a truly accurate reflection of true power consumption and production in an a combined AC and DC system go a bit over my hear. However, I can say with certainty that it is more complex than simply multiplying the readings on a simple volt and amp meter.

The fact that the Lutec inventors made a basic mistake in their calculations of power output might well be forgivable if they had admitted to it when it was pointed out. It would be a little embarrassing to face up to having made such a blunder, but it would still be the best way out of it. Instead, those behind Lutec refuse to let go of their claim, even having been debunked by a number of experts who actually do know how to measure the power of complex ac/dc systems.

On the bright side, they did win the 2001 Australian Skeptics’ Bent Spoon Award.

Sorry, but the laws of physics still stand.


This entry was posted on Saturday, February 12th, 2011 at 11:35 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Culture, media, Misc, Not Even Wrong, Obfuscation. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions



44 Responses to “The problem with Lutec”

  1. 1
    DV82XL Says:

    You have to play the game; you can’t win; you can’t break even and you can’t quit the game.

    It’s not that the laws of thermodynamics are that complex, or hard to grasp, I could almost understand if people were continually butting their heads against special relativity, or some quantum laws, but thermodynamics is rather intuitive.


    Quote Comment
  2. 2
    Engineering Edgar Says:

    Agreed 100% that they are not using good measurements. A REALLY REALLY big one could be the input power, because if you measure AC going into a rectifier with a conventional meter it will give a much lower reading than it really is. (most meters use a simple RMS average based on maximum voltage observed over a certain time period, but rectifier load pulses and is not a sin wave, so you need a special meter.) Actually, in this circumstance they should dispense with the volt and amp meter and instead use a compensating AC wattmeter – someting like what you have on your house, it is designed to show true power consumption even if it is on a strange curve.

    I don’t know what the best way to determine the whole system energy input/output is, because they don’t give enough details, but it should be straight forward enough. One thing is that you can’t necessarily calculate the reactive power purely by mathematics if you don’t know the numbers on the motor to begin with. You can still measure it with the proper setup though.

    It should be a simple enough thing to test, if you have the right kind of equipment. Measure input with a true wattmeter and then the output into a known load or to a calibrated dummy load with known characteristics and a proper meter. There are load banks that are designed to be used for true power readings. Or you could try to rectify it and buffer it down to true direct current, but that introduces some other issues, possibly overcome by loading with capacitors.

    There are a number of ways to do it. They are doing it completely (wrongly?) wrong though.

    Also, anyone else notice that the lights shown toward the end are not on steadily? They are flickering. However, their volt and amp meters are steady. Yet another problem I think! Their meters may be too slow response to register the fact that the voltage keeps dropping out. Either that or the frequency of their AC current is really low. Most AC meters are designed to give a reasonably accurate reading for 50-60 hz.

    Yep. A lot of bad electricity-101 level errors.


    Quote Comment
  3. 3
    Gordon Says:

    The moral of this story: If you think you built something in your garage that has unseated the established laws of physics, you should probably get someone who knows more about it to examine it before going public. This will help protect you against looking like an idiot.


    Quote Comment
  4. 4
    Chris Says:

    But they REALLY want it to work. Doesn’t that count?


    Quote Comment
  5. 5
    MikeC Says:

    No – you have the REALLY REALLY REALLY want it to work :/

    BTW the link to the Aussi skeptics site doesn’t work – try this one http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/bent-spoon/


    Quote Comment
  6. 6
    Brian-M Says:

    All they’ve done is reinvent the motor-generator set. I’m pretty sure these things have been around for well over a century, normally used for converting DC to AC when variable-frequency AC is needed (adjusting the DC current to change the speed of the rotor, and thereby the frequency of the AC output). They’re not used much anymore because solid-state electronics have made them obsolete. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor-generator

    They also make a huge blunder in the awkwardly worded “How the LUTEC Engine Works” section of their website:

    Events One and Two happen independently of each other in the same machine. The only similarity shared in the Events is that they share the same coil to enable each to perform their independent functions.

    The pulsed DC input to the coil has no effect on the AC being produced because there is no return path for it through the AC load of the coil. The AC is being generated continuously, and has no direct electrical contribution to the input because it too has no return path to enable it to do so.

    No effect when they share the same coil? They’re forgetting about inductance. Current through any part of the coil induces a magnetic field in the core that affects voltage (and thereby current) in the entire coil.

    Also, drawing current from the AC side will slow down the rotor, resulting in more current being drawn from the DC side,


    Quote Comment
  7. 7
    Kevin Brennan Says:

    I guessed what the problem was going to be the second he started to “explain” DC power in the video. Classic. A introductory course in electrical engineering will clear this one up immediately!


    Quote Comment
  8. 8
    Q Says:

    Assuming that you do not actually know any of the variables to begin with, because this motor is custom built, and that therefore you would need to determine it all experimentally, what would be the best way to measure the true power input and output?


    Quote Comment
  9. 9
    DV82XL Says:

            Q said:

    Assuming that you do not actually know any of the variables to begin with, because this motor is custom built, and that therefore you would need to determine it all experimentally, what would be the best way to measure the true power input and output?

    It isn’t all that easy, but I would think that a truer reading of power could be taken from the shafts with a de Prony brake dynamometer.


    Quote Comment
  10. 10
    drbuzz0 Says:

    I know there are ways of doing it by measuring the electrical factors alone. There are ways of taking very good measurements of voltage and amperage on a scope and then calculating the phase and true rms power and such. There are also power meters designed for this.

    But like I said, not my area of expertise.

    I was going to suggest that if worst came to worst, one way of telling the actual energy on the output side would be to have a load bank with a calorimeter on it. A dynometer would be another way that i had not thought of.


    Quote Comment
  11. 11
    LcNessie Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    I know there are ways of doing it by measuring the electrical factors alone.

    There are ways of taking very good measurements of voltage and amperage on a scope and then calculating the phase and true rms power and such.

    Well.. If nothing else, you could start with an oscilloscope to take an actual picture of the wave and start from there. Overlay the tension and the current graphs of a cycle in full operational mode, and you could do some basic estimates…

    I guess that alone would probably show that this whole contraption “falls through the basket”, as we Dutchielanders tend to say…


    Quote Comment
  12. 12
    ddp Says:

    If after it starts the output is greater than the input, then why not use the output to feedback and supply the input power. Then disconnect the outside power source and it should just keep running shouldn’t it?

    I mean powering some little light bulbs is impressive and all, but showing it working with no external power input would be really impressive. And continued operation with no outside power would be pretty close to irrefutable proof that it works like they claim.

    In fact it seems like such a simple proof of their concept that I don’t know why they didn’t think of it themselves. Unless they have thought of it and they know it won’t work.


    Quote Comment
  13. 13
    0ggers Says:

    What is it with our colonial friends? This is suspiciously like the claims for the Magniwork device:

    http://www.magniwork.com/?hop=koconcrete


    Quote Comment
  14. 14
    Brian-M Says:

    It’s just a crude motor-generator set, nothing special.


    Quote Comment
  15. 15
    CtrlAltDel Says:

            Q said:

    Assuming that you do not actually know any of the variables to begin with, because this motor is custom built, and that therefore you would need to determine it all experimentally, what would be the best way to measure the true power input and output?

    IMHO, instruments and test equipment are all good, but never a substitute for having someone there who knows WTF they’re talking about!


    Quote Comment
  16. 16
    Matte Says:

    “A Perpetual motion device refers to a machine that runs perpetually i.e. indefinitely, and produces a larger amount of energy than it consumes. Thus, it produces free energy indefinitely, runs by itself, without having to need a third-party device or resource to power it.”

    Eeeh, second law of thermodynamics can’t be broken. This is a scam…hang on, I want to be part of it as I want some free money from idiots, where do I sign up for that?


    Quote Comment
  17. 17
    drbuzz0 Says:

            ddp said:

    If after it starts the output is greater than the input, then why not use the output to feedback and supply the input power. Then disconnect the outside power source and it should just keep running shouldn’t it?

    I mean powering some little light bulbs is impressive and all, but showing it working with no external power input would be really impressive. And continued operation with no outside power would be pretty close to irrefutable proof that it works like they claim.

    In fact it seems like such a simple proof of their concept that I don’t know why they didn’t think of it themselves. Unless they have thought of it and they know it won’t work.

    The argument made by some of the pushers of various “Energy amplifier” systems is that the system needs external power for initial excitement or because the system is not self-governing. Aside from the fact that an energy amplifier is complete hogwash, this argument is not entirely without some basis. There are some generators that work like this. For example, an inductive generator is needs an external power source to maintain phase and also to initially excite the coils, since it does not have a magnetic field to begin with. You can use an inductive generator to add power to the grid, but it can’t operate alone. It has no way of maintaining phase without the external excitement and phasing.

    HOWEVER, an inductive generator can work on its own without external power by building a simple system of capacitors and batteries into the system. The battery (or a temporary grid connection) is used to generate the initial magnetic field on the coils and then the capacitors provide the reactance to keep the system phased and running properly. It may still need an external regulator.

    As a crude analogy: A car engine can’t be started by just sending gas into the cylenders. It needs and external power source (a battery and starter motor) to get it going. After it starts the battery still plays an important role, because while the car does generate its own electricity, the output of the alternator can be unstable and the car could stall out if a suden load, like turning on the headlights, causes the altrnator to monmentarly fall behind in keeping up the voltage.

    So yeah, even if it needs some kind of buffer or excitement power, it should be able to supply this and then some. That’s just basic logic.

    Some makers of these things try to claim that they are not “perpetual motion” or “free energy,” because those terms have now become so associated with scams. They say their product simply helps “achieve very high effeciency” like an effeciency over 100% and often call it “renewable” or say “It improves the effeciency of renewable sources, allowing a ten watt solar panel to power a 1000 watt load” or some bull**** like that.

    Sadly the media often falls for this, especially as soon as you throw around the word “renewable.”


    Quote Comment
  18. 18
    DV82XL Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    HOWEVER, an inductive generator can work on its own without external power by building a simple system of capacitors and batteries into the system.

    In some cases you can self-excite the machine just by hooking up the field coils with the rotor and let the bit of residual magnetic field in the core take it up. Had a DC welding set-up with a generator that worked that way, there were no other components needed.


    Quote Comment
  19. 19
    Brian-M Says:

            Engineering Edgar said:

    A REALLY REALLY big one could be the input power, because if you measure AC going into a rectifier with a conventional meter it will give a much lower reading than it really is. (most meters use a simple RMS average based on maximum voltage observed over a certain time period, but rectifier load pulses and is not a sin wave, so you need a special meter.)

    That’s not actually true. Assuming you’re using a standard bridge rectifier, all it does is reverse voltages to get everything on the same side of zero volts. (Not the best description, but the simplest way I could think to explain it.) The RMS voltage doesn’t change, so if you put the rectified AC into a standard AC voltmeter, it should get exactly the same reading.

    The problem here is that they’re using a DC voltmeter to test it, but DC voltmeters only measure average voltage, not RMS voltage. If the DC voltage was steady, or a simple square-wave pulse, the reading would be correct. However, to correctly measure a rectified sinewave, only an AC voltmeter would do the trick.

    If they really wanted to get an accurate reading, they’d need to throw away their DC meters and hook up AC meters before the rectifier and, as you suggest, use wattmeters instead of voltmeter/ammeter pairs, so that power factor is accounted for to get True Power instead of Apparent Power.

    Apparent Power = Voltage * Current
    True Power = Voltage * Current * PowerFactor

    For DC with a constant voltage, or phase-corrected AC with resistive loads, power factor is 1. Because of this, it’s usually ignored. But this is a highly reactive setup, so power factor would be significantly below 1. Not taking it into account will give highly exaggerated results.


    Quote Comment
  20. 20
    Brian-M Says:

    Given that the device runs off DC, why not power it from a battery?
    Then you could use the output of the device to power a battery charger.
    The battery charger could be hooked up to the battery powering the device.
    If more power comes out of the device than is going in…
    … it should run forever without the battery ever going flat.

    (I know I’m not the first to suggest it, I just thought I’d put it more concisely.)


    Quote Comment
  21. 21
    drbuzz0 Says:

            ddp said:

    If after it starts the output is greater than the input, then why not use the output to feedback and supply the input power. Then disconnect the outside power source and it should just keep running shouldn’t it?

    I mean powering some little light bulbs is impressive and all, but showing it working with no external power input would be really impressive. And continued operation with no outside power would be pretty close to irrefutable proof that it works like they claim.

    In fact it seems like such a simple proof of their concept that I don’t know why they didn’t think of it themselves. Unless they have thought of it and they know it won’t work.

    Actually, now that I think of it I do remember reading some of this scams where they were claiming that using it to self-power could be dangerous. The device triples the energy input so if you hook the output to the input it’ll form a feedback loop which will keep amplifying the energy until the device flies apart or melts.

    Yeah, I realize this is crap.


    Quote Comment
  22. 22
    Matte Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    Actually, now that I think of it I do remember reading some of this scams where they were claiming that using it to self-power could be dangerous.

    The device triples the energy input so if you hook the output to the input it’ll form a feedback loop which will keep amplifying the energy until the device flies apart or melts.

    Eeeh, why not put a current limiter on the output then? There is one in every light fitting using fluorescent lights, if there is not they don’t last very long (but they get very bright until they go “PING!”)…


    Quote Comment
  23. 23
    Engineering Edgar Says:

            Brian-M said:

    That’s not actually true. Assuming you’re using a standard bridge rectifier, all it does is reverse voltages to get everything on the same side of zero volts. (Not the best description, but the simplest way I could think to explain it.) The RMS voltage doesn’t change, so if you put the rectified AC into a standard AC voltmeter, it should get exactly the same reading.

    You’re right. Sorry, I got ahead of myself on that. For some reason I was thinking of a half-wave rectifier which is notorious for fubaring readings. However, just because they use a full wave rectifier does not mean that the reading is always going to be true, because like anything else it can depend on what it is powering and if it is drawing a true constant load. Some DC motors cause issues when running on rectified dc because the field is not constant so with each pulse it re-energizes and then goes down.

    The problem here is that we don’t actually know how this motor is built or running. A poorly made motor or one that is undervolted could have the rotor coming in and out of the stator fields and causing fluctuation.

    Hence, my recommendation would be to use a test setup expressly designed for such things – a watt meter with built in power factor and reactivity compensation. They exist, but good ones that work in a variety of circumstances are expensive. Of course, you also want someone who knows how to use the equipment properly!

            Matte said:

    Eeeh, why not put a current limiter on the output then? There is one in every light fitting using fluorescent lights, if there is not they don’t last very long (but they get very bright until they go “PING!”)…

    Two problems with that:

    1. We’re not necessarily dealing with the most sophisticated bunch here.
    2. That would prove the device does not work! If you claim that it can;t be self-powered for safety reasons that gives you a perfect out for not demonstrating it like that so you can keep feeding it grid power and getting deceptive readings.


    Quote Comment
  24. 24
    Matte Says:

            Engineering Edgar said:

    2. That would prove the device does not work!

    I thought that was the point…

    Sorry to point out the bleeding obvious.


    Quote Comment
  25. 25
    LcNessie Says:

            Matte said:

    I thought that was the point…

    Sorry to point out the bleeding obvious.

    Nooo, the point is to prove that it *does* work, regardless of all the data that proves… eh… suggests it doesnt, and regardless that it is actually imposs… eh… very hard to accomplish… :P :D


    Quote Comment
  26. 26
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Matte said:

    I thought that was the point…

    Sorry to point out the bleeding obvious.

    That depends on whose side your on. If you want the truth then yeah, but if you’re trying to milk the scam, then no no no!


    Quote Comment
  27. 27
    Jason Kobos Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    Actually, now that I think of it I do remember reading some of this scams where they were claiming that using it to self-power could be dangerous.

    The device triples the energy input so if you hook the output to the input it’ll form a feedback loop which will keep amplifying the energy until the device flies apart or melts.

    Yeah, I realize this is crap.

    That would be a very easy experiment to perform. If you put a battery on the front end and a charger on the back end. If the machine works the battery will eventually explode or catch fire due to being unable to cope with the incoming power. If it doesn’t work eventually the system will shut off after the battery power is drained. No sine waves needed.


    Quote Comment
  28. 28
    Nick P. Says:

    Off topic, but just so you know Doc I read this site at work (and I don’t think I’m the only one) and it’s just a bit embarrassing to scroll all the way down to the bottom of the page only to find a big “BUSTY RUSSIAN BABES!” ad banner in the middle of my screen right as the boss walks by…


    Quote Comment
  29. 29
    Lu Brita Says:

    You should change your bad science to wankers welcome science since you cannot even keep a story straight.
    greetings to the inc donkeys
    lu brits


    Quote Comment
  30. 30
    Anon Says:

            Lu Brita said:

    You should change your bad science to wankers welcome science since you cannot even keep a story straight.
    greetings to the inc donkeys
    lu brits

    What exactly does that mean?

    Anyone?


    Quote Comment
  31. 31
    Matthew Says:

            Anon said:

    What exactly does that mean?

    Anyone?

    No idea, but has anyone noticed a bit of threadcromancy in the last few days? Stuff that hasn’t been commented on in months or even years is coming up again.


    Quote Comment
  32. 32
    Anon Says:

            Matthew said:

    No idea, but has anyone noticed a bit of threadcromancy in the last few days? Stuff that hasn’t been commented on in months or even years is coming up again.

    Now that you mention it, yeah, there have been a lot of old threads getting comments again.


    Quote Comment
  33. 33
    Leon Says:

    Hi

    Apparent power is always larger than the real power. That is, V * I for the input sets the maximum isntantaneous power of the input. So its a red herring to say they might measure it wrong.

    What they might be measuring wrong is the very brief pulse that is the input … this is very difficult to measure .. but how can it be so difficult, we need a working system, and so why not just measure the mains power input to the whole setup, and the power sent to the light bulbs… why measure the power of the pulse not the total power of the system ?

    The SGS report seems to verify the power meters are real, and the output is a resistive load,so again power factor cannot be to blame for giving an overly large output.

    What was missing from the SGS test was testing of the total energy of the input, and total energy of the output… how long was the device loaded for, and what about the RPM’s of the device during the test ?

    They also didnt verify the mains power inpu to thte systemt was suitably low given the low power of the pulse… Does the controller draw more power than output ??? that would be a very interesting thing to look at.

    Does attaching load to the device cause it to slow down ? It looks to me like it could work as a energy storage system, stores energy in the form of rotation ,, first they spin up the device to a high speed,
    and then they do a brief test… you’d need to measure RPM’s very accurately to see if it was being used as a mechanical energy storage system.


    Quote Comment
  34. 34
    Trevor MPherson Says:

    Most respondents on why the Lutec invention won’t work are close to or “on the money”. The reason the LUTEC device looks good is that voltage and current measurement of non sinusoidal voltages (and the Luten ones in particular) can be twice what the real value is – SO anything less than about an apparent 400% gain is no real gain at all. This is exactly as you would expect. Oh, and the patents they have are about speed control, or something, and so are valid, but are not worth anything technically.

    The simple absolute proof would be to hook the Lutec motor up to an efficient DC generator (about 80% should be achievable) so it is “self-exciting”. If the Luten claims are valid this set up will be self sustaining – or will very quickly coast to zero if (after spinning it up) it is not. I put this to them about 5 years ago and so far as I know they have still not done it. I wonder why ? !!!!


    Quote Comment
  35. 35
    N. Coesel Says:

    A few years ago I got a report from them with measurements. It was filled with loads of basic mistakes like calculating the power dissipation in a resistor. Ofcourse they didn’t want to believe neither me and Ohm’s law.


    Quote Comment
  36. 36
    Lu Brits Says:

    Dear skeptics,

    The nonsense of if over unity exist, why would it be able to run by itself.
    If it would, then it would be a perpetual motion device.
    If you do not know the difference, then you better start to learn about power transfer.
    Further more, in a pulsed system it would be necessary not only to have the input
    plus its output to be produces by the device at the same time.
    Just measure the input from a power source charging up a battery bank and measure
    the actual power input intake into the battery bank.
    If you do understand, then it is not very hard to figure out who is cheating who, but
    never to less you still pay for something you did not use.
    Have a good chat about and will catch next around.
    Happy squabbling.

    Best regards

    Lu Brits


    Quote Comment
  37. 37
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Lu Brits said:

    Dear skeptics,

    The nonsense of if over unity exist, why would it be able to run by itself.
    If it would, then it would be a perpetual motion device.

    Well, yes. Any device that is a net energy producer and does not consume some type of fuel or draw energy from limited internal reserves is a perpetual motion device. They’re one in the same. It is an over-unity device. It does not matter if it takes a small amount of power to operate, if the output is greater than the input it is making energy and could use that energy to run itself.

            Lu Brits said:

    If you do not know the difference, then you better start to learn about power transfer.
    Further more, in a pulsed system it would be necessary not only to have the input
    plus its output to be produces by the device at the same time.
    Just measure the input from a power source charging up a battery bank and measure
    the actual power input intake into the battery bank.
    If you do understand, then it is not very hard to figure out who is cheating who, but
    never to less you still pay for something you did not use.
    Have a good chat about and will catch next around.
    Happy squabbling.

    Best regards

    Lu Brits

    Okay….

    Lets step back and answer the basic questions here, because I am pretty sure I’m not the one who does not understand power transfer here. I’m going to try to make this as simple and straight forward as possible.

    The device is powered by an external source of electricity, right? So it could be powered by batteries. It might need an inverter or a voltage converter or something to provide the right current, but ultimately could be powered by batteries, right?

    The device outputs electricity, correct? If it outputs electricity then the output can be used to charge batteries, correct? Perhaps the output is pulsed or variable or something, so it might have to go through a rectifier and be filtered and use a charge regulator, but it could ultimately charge up batteries, right? Because a battery charger is just an electrical load like any other, so if it makes electricity then it can charge batteries.

    Ok, with me so far?

    So now if output is greater than input then there is more energy coming out one end than goes in the other. If it does not produce more energy than it consumes, then the device is worthless. If it is an energy amplifier than for every joules of energy that goes in more than one joule of energy comes out, Make sense?

    Now if you answered yes to these questions (that it is electrical and outputs more than is input):
    Therefore, not accounting for the loss that is inherent to charging and discharging (which is very small) the device could take power from one battery pack and transfer it to the other with power to spare. We could take battery pack A (fully charged) and pack B (fully discharged) and hook them up to the machine and pack B would be fully charged without fully depleting pack A

    So here’s what you could do (in the simplest incarnation of this thought experiment):

    Just swap the battery packs. And you will be able to keep recharging them and still have extra power left over to run some other stuff.

    Therefore, it is a perpetual motion, “free energy,” over-unity device.


    Quote Comment
  38. 38
    LcNessie Says:

    Now, I will be the first one to admit that Wikipedia is not *the* most reliable source of information, but it is pretty good, nontheless.

            Lu Brits said:

    The nonsense of if over unity exist, why would it be able to run by itself.
    If it would, then it would be a perpetual motion device.
    If you do not know the difference, then you better start to learn about power transfer.

    This is the result you get when you search for overunity:

    Perpetual motion
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    (Redirected from Overunity)
    For other uses, see Perpetual motion (disambiguation).

    Hmmm…


    Quote Comment
  39. 39
    bobbo Says:

    the patents for this machine are ” controller for rotary device ” pretty vague ? patent application just repeats its self and is just a piece of confusing crap have look at us patents ?id=gdgNAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA11&dq=controller+for+rotary+device&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kN49T43OLOfImQWZtYiyBw&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=controller for rotary device&f=false if this was so good would have been produced by now has been 11 years since first revealed these two will not have this device tested by anyone who has the expertise to prove right or wrong that it works i think quite afew people have invested in this because these inventors did not have the money for patents which they claim has cost over $1 000 000.00
    time goes by and no result how many more years before this goes away


    Quote Comment
  40. 40
    Wrexx Says:

    1/ Any true Overunity engine, after allowing for heat generation & resistance & friction losses should / would be an electrical and mechcanically equivilent – Perpetual Motion Machine, able to run itself and generate an excess amount of energy to be utilised for other purposes.

    2/ If it cannot achieve this and will not run in a freestanding assembly with no outside inputs then who the hell gives a ****, cause it aint gonna change jack about the situation the world is in re energy needs.

    I am a believer & not a sceptic that a type of overunity could be made in this world, simply because there are constant factors that logically should enable us to exceed input requirements and overcome counter productive inertial forces. They are based in Geometry, and using Magnetism, Gravity, and possibly Thermal difference ( Solar inputs ) It would not be true overunity as it would not work in an electromagnetic or gravitational void, but we dont live in a thermal, electromagnetic and / or gravitational void, so thats ok. And I wish you folk who slag so many of these efforts would put as much energy and consideration into the possible ways of actually achieving these things, instead of just trolling them all of the time.


    Quote Comment
  41. 41
    DV82XL Says:

            Wrexx said:

    I am a believer & not a sceptic that a type of overunity could be made in this world, simply because there are constant factors that logically should enable us to exceed input requirements and overcome counter productive inertial forces. They are based in Geometry, and using Magnetism, Gravity, and possibly Thermal difference ( Solar inputs ) It would not be true overunity as it would not work in an electromagnetic or gravitational void, but we dont live in a thermal, electromagnetic and / or gravitational void, so thats ok.

    Then it is apparent that you do not understand what the term ‘overunity’ implies. Any device that draws energy from exploiting a delta, from say thermal differences for example which is a heat engine and for sure these are possible, and many have been made.

    Overunity implies that the device would produce more power as output than it was drawing from inputs from any source. That would include any ambient inputs from the environment it is running in.

            Wrexx said:

    And I wish you folk who slag so many of these efforts would put as much energy and consideration into the possible ways of actually achieving these things, instead of just trolling them all of the time.

    The simple answer to that is that this is a skeptic’s web page: it’s what we do here. And we do support legitimate new technology, when it is proven to work.


    Quote Comment
  42. 42
    lu Brits Says:

    Dear Donkeys,
    As electrical engineers, they should know that the so called simple meters are in fact analogue meters.
    Which are quite capable to read the input and output correctly. That further, since there is no phase shift.
    What you see is what it is. If you wish compaire it to the SGS report you can cane yourself for being donkeys.

    Regards

    Lu Brits


    Quote Comment
  43. 43
    H. Pangratz Says:

    The Lutec-machine is rubbish! If you read the SGS report, it gives a detailed list of items which were checked by SGS. The only item missing in this list: the calculation of input and output-power! In the SGS report these figures appear under the heading “Lutecs calculations”. So SGS obviously does not want to be responsible for these figures. These calculations are hard to decipher completely. But for the input power a voltage is used, which is calculated by Vmax+ minus Vmax- . Regardless if this means the positive and negative peak value of an AC voltage form or the maximun and minimum voltage of a DC voltage form, it is of course utterly wrong and leads to a value for the input power which is much to small.

    In the forum
    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread601853/pg1
    user “derek”, posting 12-8-2010 took the trouble to write an email to SGS. Their answer is significant.


    Quote Comment
  44. 44
    gdad Says:

    Talk is cheap and so is the “problem” of proving the concept. Simple solution: If you have the Lutac 1000, (or any such device), that you claim works, simply build a couple units, put them in a couple homes and disconnect them from the grid. After a couple of months you have your proof of concept or not. If it works, no one could stop the spread after that, be they energy company or academic.

    Point is, Lou & John, (or whosoever), if your device works, stop begging for academic approval and put some units out there. After seeing them in use, the academics can either admit a modification to known science or go the way of the flat earthers.

    BTW, what has happened to Lutec’s website?


    Quote Comment

Leave a Reply

Current month ye@r day *

Please copy the string O2qays to the field below:

Protected by WP Anti Spam