Connect with us

330% efficiency?

Discussion in 'Electronic Design' started by Dan Charette, Apr 23, 2004.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. Dan Charette

    Dan Charette Guest

    Hey Folks,

    Here's an interesting article about a fellow in Japan who is claiming
    to have built some electric motors and fans that boast some incredible

    Although, the ideas seem somewhat plausible, I thought I'd post this
    and see what everyone else thinks. I know it may seem like another
    crackpot trying to get some attention, but then again, as magnetics
    continue to evolve, why couldn't these fundementals work?

    Dan Charette {}
    Remove the "FUZZ"
    from my e-mail address
    to contact me.

    "I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong."
  2. Don Pearce

    Don Pearce Guest

    Right now you must be feeling like the man who thought to himself
    "actually, Crimplene leisure suits are really comfortable" and then
    realised he had said it out loud.

  3. j.b. miller

    j.b. miller Guest

    probably go the way of the pogue(sp) carb......
  4. Evidently in Japan it is April Fools' Day.

    As you read the article, watch for certain errors - like a confusion between
    "force" and "energy", and a failure to understand power factor.
  5. nospam

    nospam Guest

    Wow, well that is the world's energy supply problem solved, the man better
    start working on world peace and AIDS.
  6. Garrett Mace

    Garrett Mace Guest


    "With the help of magnetic propulsion, it is feasible to attach a generator
    to the motor and produce more electric power than was put into the device.
    Minato says that average efficiency on his motors is about 330 percent.

    Mention of Over Unity devices in many scientific circles will draw icy
    skepticism. But if you can accept the idea that Minato's device is able to
    create motion and torque through its unique, sustainable permanent magnet
    propulsion system, then it makes sense that he is able to get more out of
    the unit than he puts in in terms of elctrical power. Indeed, if the device
    can produce a surplus of power for longer periods, every household in the
    land will want one."

    That "if you can accept" argument I have heard before: looks like Sundance
    has moved on to a different pack of gullible investors.

    1. No education or experience
    2. His sole invention
    3. Career in PR
    4. Investors present
    5. More power out than in, or
    6. Extreme efficiency claims

    It is the exact pattern of every other free-power scam out there. If you see
    anything claiming more power out than in, walk away.

    Also, this article tries to lay a thin veil of skepticism, but it is
    actually hand-in-hand with the scam artist.
  7. It's even better than that - it actually invokes permanent magnets, right
    out loud! Google "permanent magnet free energy" for a series of revelations
    into how the Illuminati-controlled media conspiracy has quashed all mention
    of society's one true hope in order to cling desperately to their domination
    of the military industrial complex. (What, you didn't know the Illuminati
    are behind the world's energy markets? Think, man, think! Why else would
    they call it the Illuminati? It's all there, for those who know how to
  8. Dan Charette

    Dan Charette Guest

    You know... I watched a few of his films and he has some digital
    meters for current and voltage and he's calculating average power
    through the product on the two. And of course, who knows exactly what
    he has for a load and just exactly what the contraints are. Who
    knows, maybe he's got his leads all mixed up and he's measuring
    something from an adjacent project. Whatever... but, what I was more
    intrigued by was the notion of perhaps creating a permanent magnent
    motor structure with permanent magnets on the shell and another set on
    the armature combined with a small portion of the armature that would
    have a small set of coils. Then, by timing the contraption right and
    just providing a brief pulse to the coils during the field transistion
    as the rotor is turning, couldn't it be possible to get a sort of
    motor that's only power input would be the small "helper" pulses and
    would mainly be turning on torque generated by the opposing fields on
    the permanent magnets? It seems to me that this is what the bulk of
    his claim is. But yes, the 330% efficiency is ludicrous at least on
    this planet in our physical universe so far. But, how about say
    something approaching say 98% or so? I'm not too hip on current
    trends in high effciendy electric motor design, what is the most
    effcient to date?
    I remember seeing some films of some fellows actually levitating frogs
    inside a huge powerful magnetic field and I wouldn't have believed it
    if I didn't see it, so I'm not necessarily calling these motor ideas
    absurd. Everyone called Tesla nuts... but look what is today because
    of that research and pursuit.
    Dan Charette {}
    Remove the "FUZZ"
    from my e-mail address
    to contact me.

    "I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong."
  9. Exactly. It's easy to get the product of average current and average
    voltage going out of a device to be higher than that coming in. This does
    not mean that average power is higher.

    If the permanent magnets are strong enough to provide useful repulsion, what
    force is it that overcomes the repulsion in the first place?

    If it helps your intuition, think of springs, instead of permanent magnets.
    They work just the same.

    The great thing about physical laws is that they do not depend on what you
    are willing to believe. What you are willing to believe is a notoriously
    bad constraint. The laws of thermodynamics, on the other hand, are quite
    excellent at predicting what is actually possible.

    If you wish to prove that something is impossible, it suffices to prove that
    it violates physical law. This is quite different than intuiting that it
    violates physical law; or than proving that it violates intuition. Neither
    of those suffices. Therein lies the distinction between levitating frogs
    and making a 330% efficient motor. Levitating frogs seems counterintuitive,
    but it does not violate the laws of physics.
  10. Dan Charette

    Dan Charette Guest

    Very good points Walter... I especially like the last line. I seem to
    recall a simple math problem that seems oddly easy but our perception
    is easily fooled.
    What is one half divided by a half? One would quickly answer a
    fourth. But in fact, the math would work out to one. You could call
    it semantics, but it's just the simple percetion of how we as humans
    go about understanding the nature of laws in our environment around
    us. And I do understand that being a scientist and being a dreamer
    are important qualities to retain as an engineer, but one needs to
    always make the distinction between the two and adhere to the laws
    that lay out the framework of scientific method in the first place.
    Although, I'm still always open to new breakthroughs and obtuse
    thinking from time to time. The world is definately full of crackpots
    and people seeking attention and notarity. Makes for good
    entertainment at the very least. However, no one has seen an electron
    yet, so who knows if they actually do exist as so described. And so,
    I know that our pursuits of these amazing gadgets and devices will
    continue and once and a while, something new and odd will come about
    that will throw everyone off guard because it may just change a few
    laws here and there and we may have to augment our thinking because of
    it. I just hope that our engineering community will be malleable
    enough to handle it when it does come round.
    Thanks for the reply.
    Dan Charette {}
    Remove the "FUZZ"
    from my e-mail address
    to contact me.

    "I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong."
  11. Garrett Mace

    Garrett Mace Guest

    Sorry, but that's not our responsibility. Engineers apply the laws of
    physics as they are currently known. It is up to the scientists to decide
    when those laws need to be changed. We have a great deal of respect for the
    painstaking methods that scientists use to discover the concepts which
    engineers apply. Until we see that a concept has been peer reviewed,
    duplicated, and accepted by our scientist buddies, we are very likely to
    consider it a load of bunk. Trying to convince engineers to change the laws
    of physics is an utter waste of time.
  12. N. Thornton

    N. Thornton Guest

    This overunity game is played over and over. Only those unfamiliar
    with it will fall for it. Even if the thing did work as claimed, which
    it cant, no sane banker would commit 100 million dollars to it.

    There are many ways to get more power to the thing than the meters
    indicate. Its a classic game, with all the hallmarks thereof.

    Regards, NT
  13. As with most of these devices, as soon as things are measured properly
    they do not generate more energy than they take in:


    Report On The Minato Motor - Magnetic Rotation Apparatus

    On April 17-21 2000 the science research team tested and examined the
    Minato Motor for it’s purported over unity energy generation
    We tested this device and found that, according to our best scientific
    assesment, it did not generate any excess electricity over the input
    contrary to the claims of its inventor and reports by groups such as
    Toyoya, Hokaido Electric Power Co. We took a series of measurements
    primarily of input current and voltage and of output current and
    voltage. Using the standard and generally accepted method of
    calculating the total power output we computed the
    output and found it to be significantly less than the input.

    Upon inspecting the over unity figures Minato had given us for his
    motors such as 240% 283% etc., we determined that these figures were
    arrived at using exactly the same input values as we had used but
    plugged into a different equation and thereby giving different, and in
    our opinion incorrect, output values.
  14. Jim Thompson

    Jim Thompson Guest

    But look on the positive side... there's substantial enjoyment to be
    reaped if a banker gets taken ;-)

    ...Jim Thompson
  15. KR Williams

    KR Williams Guest

    Most? If you can find *one* exception, we could all be rich (as
    long as you don't blab to the illuminatti).
  16. James Meyer

    James Meyer Guest

    It would be really enjoyable if a lawyer or two could be taken along
    with the banker.

    Jim "The other one." Meyer
  17. The problem is, it takes a lawyer to take a lawyer. It's a negative-sum
    game: at least one lawyer always wins.
  18. Dan Charette

    Dan Charette Guest

    I seem to recall an article I read a few years ago with regards to the
    number of lawyers there are in the US. For every teacher there is,
    there are 10 engineers. For every engineer, there are 10 doctors.
    And for every doctor, there are 10 lawyers. This thought hits home
    everytime I stay in a different city. I have this habit of picking up
    the yellow pages in that respective city and measuring the thickness
    of pages dedicated to engineers, doctors and lawyers. The lawyer
    section is always at least twice as thick as any other in the book.
    And even in Las Vegas, that includes the lucrative entertainment
    section! The lawyer section in Vegas is easily double anything else.

    Dan Charette {}
    Remove the "FUZZ"
    from my e-mail address
    to contact me.

    "I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong."
  19. Jim Thompson

    Jim Thompson Guest

    Sounds like an urban legend to me. Very often the largest employer in
    a given town is the school district.

    Engineers (except for architects/architect-related and civil
    engineers) are not listed specifically in the phone book (DEX Yellow
    Pages), but here in Phoenix there are 87 pages of doctors and 153
    pages of lawyers; about a 2:1 ratio (not the 10:1 you quoted); and,
    unlike doctors, lawyers tend to advertise in multiple categories and
    take out full-page ads, so the true count might be 1:1 or less.

    ...Jim Thompson
  20. Jim Thompson wrote...
    And that's just the lawyers who're going after the doctors!

    - Win

    whill_at_picovolt-dot-com (use hill_at_rowland-dot-org for now)
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day