[Oeva-list] New Invention - "Hybrid" Power Generation.

[Theoldcars at aol.com]

Myles
 
Great post I totally agree with you. Nothing is going to be gained here and 
it is a total waste of our time. 
 
Anyone have an opinion about the OEVA being listed here? 
 
_http://www.evergreenelectricvehicles.com/contact_us_-_resources_ 
(http://www.evergreenelectricvehicles.com/contact_us_-_resources)    
 
Don
 
 
 
In a message dated 1/25/2010 2:39:15 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
oeva-list-request at oeva.org writes:

> Message: 8
> Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:47:47 -0800
> From: "Myles Twete" <matwete at comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [Oeva-list] New Invention - "Hybrid" Power Generation.
> To: <oeva-list at oeva.org>
> Message-ID: <005601ca9df7$4e8df6d0$eba9e470$@net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> 
> >I love reading emails like this because I always wonder how people get
> around the laws of physics. You can't get something for nothing!
> 
> Yeah, but we all have better things to do with our lives than to listen to
> Free Energy drivel on this and other practical propulsion lists.
> When you read everything on his website, you realize that all he has
> discovered is that you can embed a separately wound generator into the 
same
> housing (and plane) as the drive motor.  So what?  And so ignoring the
> claims of self-sufficiency and generating more power than was put in, he
> repeatedly mentions the more realistic expectation that this 3d motor
> generates power "when not in propulsion mode".  Not mentioned is that the
> motor/generator will quickly spin down as power is drawn from it.  Any
> permanent magnet DC motor will do this.  It's not clear to me that the
> 'inventor' of this gizmo really understands electromagnetic theory or
> realizes the dualities between magnetic and electric interactions.  It's 
not
> clear to me that he's ever used motor/generator equations such as these: 
Vm
> = Kb*wm + Rm*Im ; Tm=Kt*Im - Tf ; Kb=Kt.
> 
> I hear lots of ambition and read unsubstantiated claims on his website, 
but
> basically, this is someone trolling for investment money.  His "Star of
> David" motor invention description uses the classic hypnotic free-energy
> inventor mantra---I've seen this for over 25 years now, from Joseph 
Newman's
> free energy motors (including his 300+ page tome on its theory of 
operations
> and how his motor converted electron mass to energy directly with E=mc^2) 
to
> Bruce DePalma's "N-Machine" (which was nothing more than a permanent 
magnet
> homopolar motor/generator---highly efficient (94%+ possible), but claims 
of
> 300pct efficiency were never publicly demonstrated).
> 
> Common to all of these invention claims are:
> (1) they claim something new and give a catchy new name to it (N-machine,
> Star Of David motor, etc.);
> (2) they give you just enough description or hyperbole to capture your
> imagination, but often smartly not enough to set off your smell alarm;
> (3) they make free-energy claims or use ambiguous claims that sound like
> free-energy claims, but then do not provide any theory to allow
> understanding, let alone verification of the claims;
> (4) they almost always try to personalize the machine and convince the
> audience that they are a genius and that this came out of some divine
> inspiration (an aha! Moment) that came out of years of exploration or try 
to
> establish a history of being a genius; 
> (5) they usually have built only a couple of prototypes and make wild 
claims
> as to performance and applicability before having tested anything, let 
alone
> provided results that are verifiable;
> (6) they often claim patents were applied for or are pending (or were
> rejected because the Patent Office isn't "open minded"), but when someone
> else attempts to verify the claim, nothing comes up (as in this case---try
> googling his "Patent Pending" No.12/504,309.;
> (7) they never have products available to test, let alone sell, but are
> always looking for investors; finally, 
> (8) when criticized, they claim you are either an agent, a spy or just 
don't
> have the training, experience or vision to understand what their device
> does.  Or more often they claim that they are tapping into an energy field
> that the current laws of physics cannot explain at this time---eg. Joseph
> Newman's claimed that his motor's armature had such a long length that 
when
> switching current fast enough into the winding, electrons didn't have a
> enough time to get to the other end of the coil before the current was
> switched again.  He postulated that the electrons were being annihilated 
in
> the coils and their energy (E=mc^2) was being liberated----of course, he
> never provided any verifiable proof of this.  In over 20 years, I have nev
er
> heard of Newman's switched motor technology being put to use.
> 
> I am open minded on free energy in general, but based on 2 decades of
> reviewing such claims (some actually interesting---like the N-machine), I
> have a very low tolerance for free energy claims that are thinly veiled
> attempts at getting funding.  It doesn't take too many guys like this who
> talk a good story and suck venture capitalist dollars to sour the entire
> venture capital pool of funders from investing money into well founded 
novel
> motor/generator designs.  For that reason alone, we should deny a forum 
for
> these guys.  The sad truth is that it doesn't take much to get something
> patented.  And even patented motor technology doesn't equate to good
> technology.  I worked for a firm with motor patents and indeed the 
patented
> motor design and technology was both interesting and motor/generators made
> from their technology would fit some niches well.  Yet in my opinion the
> motor designer didn't really understand the theory of motor/generators and
> made baseless comments that his design was better than all the other 
similar
> motors for every application.  Patents only give a designer the right to 
sue
> others who violate the claims made.  They do not ensure at all that
> something built to those claims would be any better than anything else out
> there.
> 
> So for me, the smell test isn't passed when a designer focuses on 
themselves
> (as a genius savant), uses a catchy name for their device, provides no 
means
> to evaluate the efficacy of the device, has only built 1 or 2 prototypes, 
is
> attempting to look legitimate with catchy company and product names and is
> clearly trolling for money without establishing any way for skeptics to
> verify the claims.  Let's not provide forums for these guys, no matter how
> local or legitimate sounding they are unless they pass the smell test.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Myles Twete, P.E. - EE and Control Systems
> Portland

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20100125/c5f918e2/attachment.html