Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 15, 2016 at 1:26 am.
Discussion page for Directory:James D. Hardy's Self-Looped Water Pump and Electricity Generator
On July 15, 2008, New Energy Congress member Congress:Member:Leslie R. Pastor wrote:
This device appears to be a principle of the N-Machine by DePalma: (albeit the force of water is a significant twist)
And the use of a flywheel approach is definitely an excellent coupling device to maintain momentum. It has shades of Tesla (within it) which I like very much. Rotation, magnetic fields, and yes, Newton's First Law of Motion, which is the clincher for me.
This is an excellent demonstration of 'perpetual motion' (Newton's Fist Law). We all need to 'see' this invention ASAP. It is tantamount to the 'rosetta stone' of 'free energy.' God, I
hope this is true blue.
Do not let this invention or the inventor get away.........(it needs detailed examination, immediately).
Reseach: N-Machine (Bruce DePalma)
On July 15, 2008, New Energy Congress member Congress:Member:Leslie R. Pastor wrote:
If true........this would be phenomenal......... "fantastic." We definitely
need substantiated verification on this invention.
A good writeup and linked 'detailed' video demonstration would significantly
substantiate this invention. Let's remember that the steam engine was 'in
use' and 'operational' and fully functioning as a technology for over fifty
(50) years before the physics and theory were (clearly) inderstood. There
was no peer review system to hamper its immediate application into
mainstream society. It worked, it was needed, and it was put to effective
On July 16, 2008, New Energy Cognress member, Congress:Member:Francis Giroux wrote:
Come on. You guys can’t possibly believe this crude contraption runs itself. The pump making the jet of water must take at least one half horsepower (372 watts) and the light bulb at least 40 watts. That shaft driven from his very crude paddle turbine must run a generator to produce at least 400-500 watts to be able to self run. The shaft looks like it is turning at about 250 rpm (4 revs per second). With a 18? diameter or 9? radius paddle turbine, what amount of torque must be produced at 250 rpm to get 400 watts of power? Well 550 ft lb seconds = one horsepower = 748 watts. So he needs at least 300 ft lbs of steady torque produced. If his flywheel is 9? diameter that would have to be 400 pounds of constant pressure needed at the rim of that pulley. Since it only has six paddles on it, that pressure will not be steady and since he has very little mass on that flywheel, how can he get 400 pounds of steady torque on the rim of that pulley with only six paddles. I would be hard pressed to believe he could get 400 pound of pressure with the wheel held steady and the jet of water squirting directly onto one single paddle. Gee that would require about 400 psi water pressure since the cross sectional area of the hose is obviously less than one square inch. The hose looks like ½? ID hose which would be less than 0.2 square inches. So I guess the pressure would have to be 400 x 5 = 2000 psi. And we haven’t even talked about the flimsy paddles held onto a flimsy pulley with a single 3/16? stove bolt. That flimsy paddle holding 400 lbs of pressure is laughable, much less 2000 pounds. Come on guys, lets get some critical thinking into looking at these contraptions before we consider going to check them out.
On July 16, 2008, New Energy Congress member Congress:Member:Leslie R. Pastor wrote:
Hope springs eternal....... We should realize that any paradigm changing system, especially if it is a significant 'novelty of fact' device, must still incorporate, the law of conservation of energy. Nonetheless, this law does allow for the continuous usage of 'joules of energy' output. If you recall, there is a difference between general and special relativity. In theory, energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Depending on the type of energy system one incorporates (symmetrical or asymmetrical) one either has losses or greater sustained output.
If you recall, "novelty of fact' systems, such as the development of "atomic energy" during the early 1940s required a new school of thought, conception and development, necessitating the intervention of government and military applications, due to the substantial rigors and financial costs involved.. I suspect that 'novelty of fact devices such as 'energy from the vacuum' and your own 'SRG' device will require similiar protocols, with a competent research laboratory structured to develop 'novelty of fact' devices.
Examination of any 'device' claiming to be 'novelty of fact,' fundamentally, needs full disclosure and verifiably substantiated proof. Jean-Louis Naudin has verified the MEG, it has been replicated, if Tom Bearden and his Team should suddenly disappear, their patent, and their 'invention' is still available for development once they receive permission and a license from their heirs. That is precisely why Tom Bearden placed that 'invention' on his website.
Self-powering batteries and motors 'conceptualized' by Tesla and already reconfirmed by John C. Bedini essentially sustain the argument, of 'novelty of fact' devices. Energenx is already developing such devices which are using 'negative' energy previously 'coined' by Tesla as 'radiant' energy. The only real problem I foresee, is the 'control' paradigm. The real question (as always) remains the same: Can we overcome it, and thus change the 'energy' paradigm before it is too late?
On July 16, 2008, New Energy Congress member Congress:Founder:Sterling D. Allan wrote:
It's precisely these kinds of "heretical" approaches that we live for. If someone has a working device, we should go in and inspect it, not dismiss it because on the face it appears to be a gross violation of laws of physics.
My imagination is big enough to allow for the possibility that the influx of energy is probably taking place in the electromagnetic set-up. Tesla was creating a system that would transmit unlimited power unlimited distances. If someone may have come up with a receiver apparatus that somehow harnesses some kind of natural electromagnetic force, we should be standing at full attention to check it out and validate it.
We should not be too concerned about what the academic community might think of us, thereby shying away from association with something like this. This is what being part of a "two steps ahead" group is about. Yes, it narrows our audience and reach, but it also puts us in a position to birddog the true breakthrough, which more likely than not will come across as heretical.
If it turns out to have some kind of catch, then we reveal and publish that. If it is a hoax, then we reveal that. If it is legitimate, then we help it move forward.
On July 16, 2008, New Energy Congress advisor, Directory:James Dunn wrote:
The provisional filing mentions a battery and charger, in parallel to the pump.
Is this also present in the system in the video?
This could explain the apparent 'excess' energy.
Such simple designs have been tried generations ago and didn't work even with frictionless magnetic bearings. Its reasonable to look at truly new design but this ones a fossil and should be dismissed straight out. Maybe we need to link to a good list of perpetual motion machines that have already been checked and eliminated. These are, or should be, on everyone's "Not a hope in hell list". In fact I thought we already had such a list. Let's not make peswiki look silly by mixing up DePalmers complex magnetics with ZPE in-flow and basic fluid dynamics. Peswiki is becoming a good source of information on what's coming up and the challenge of democratising energy technology but a post like this makes the whole site unusable as a reliable reference.
It's a big maybe until independently validated/replicated, but considering the options we are currently utilizing to keep the cars running and food on the table from overseas (e.g., oil, flooding the Middle East with military/contractors to defend our national security interests), we must investigate all claims to the best of our abilities, rather than group a demo into the "'been there, done that' = thumbs down" category. We're running out of options to keep the global economy afloat. We must investigate all claims with an informed, unbiased approach. Concur with Jim on 'follow the energy' approach...it all comes from somewhere and goes somewhere else.
On July 18, 2008, Charles Kurtz wrote:
Its a little hard to take someone seriously who does everything they can to make themselves look like a fool. I grew up watching Red Skelton and still love his Klem Kadiddle Hopper routines, which perhaps explains my harsh judgement of this character's pathetic rendition. Watching him shuffle around in his boots and gloves while fiddling with electrical cords and water hoses just makes me roll my eyes.
Is it too much to ask for someone who is supposedly demonstrating a revolutionary electrical generation device, to be familiar with switched outlets? Or how about a hundred foot extention cord so the contraption can be taken out into the obviously well sized parking area, so the camera man can do a walk around? Instead the operation of the device is filmed in a cramped garage corner, and no attempt is made to demonstrate that there are no hidden pressure tanks or storage batteries lurking about. My take on this video is that it was done as a lark, by some folk who had some time on their hands and felt like goosing the perpetual energy nut crowd.
The only positive aspect in this whole charade is of course the supposedly redesigned and rebuilt generator. I'll admit I'm a firm believer in the potential for solid state generators that can tap into the environmental energy around us. For instance, for various reasons, I think the Testatika people actually have something - wrapped up in a camouflage of non essential bells and whistles to be sure, but real for all of that. For similar reasons, I'll give Ed Gray the benefit of the doubt, since the two systems share essential traits, which are directly linked back to Tesla's research. But even though I'll say the potential for such a generator exists, the question still exists, why in the world would someone who had such a device throw together such a contraption as shown here? No valid reason that I can think of, which means this is just a harmless prank.