|Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Non-Conventional Energy Technology (PACE, 1984)|
By GOTTFRIED HlLSCHER
My request to have the original title of my paper - "Overview of Advanced Energy and Propulsion Technology in Europe" - changed into "Observations from Germany Concerning Advanced Energy and Propulsion Technology" was based on the fact that I only wish to speak here about things 1 really can justify and which I have understood. I am neither an unorthodox scientist nor the inventor of a free-energy apparatus, but a free-lance science and technology writer who edits two very different trade journals: one for construction and operation of airports and the other on the use of solar energy. My freedom of action, therefore, is not that great. However, my freedom of thought has increased and has made me sceptical on the one hand of many statements made by the technical and scientific establishment while, on the other hand, eliminating most of my prejudice towards unconventional findings which are proposed outside the scientific community. On no account would I turn down opinions with the remark that these are contrary to the "established teachings". This receptive attitude has brought me in contact with a great number of inspired people which have turned their minds not least towards non-conventional energy technologies. I would like to summarize here some of the findings and conclusions which I have derived from these lasting contacts.
Even if I look at the developments which have brought us together here, from a great distance, I must admit that it can be no mere coincidence that many individuals in many industrialized countries have been working on completely novel energy converters for many years. I am not surprised either that very different constructive paths are taken and that these are based on very different theoretical ideas. And it is not surprising at all that there is no coherent theory under which all those different developments could fall. The only common denominator for all those efforts seems to be in my opinion that none of these theories can be understood with textbook knowledge alone.
I have the impression that conversion of energy into useful energy has generated a situation which is similar to that often found in the history of science and technology: at many places, individuals with comparable objectives work on machines and apparatus which have the potential for radical changes. In the past, we suddenly had the telephone, the aircraft, or radio communications. The personal and economical fights that had to be fought to bring a new idea to fruition are known. The span of a life has often been insufficient to bring forth something new, which mostly was also something better.
One could be inclined to think that new ideas should be implemented much faster today, since the better has always been the enemy of the good. "Research", "development" and "innovation" have never been so much in evidence as today; we never had no many students; we have invented brainstorming and are forced by various economical conditions to use all ways and means of safeguarding our future. More can almost not be done, more funds can really not be spent on research and development is what we are told. Or else that at the given high standard of technical development only small development steps are possible which can only be implemented at high cost and in teamwork. We know so much that it will not occur to those in political, economical and scientific power that, for example, an entirely different energy technology can be possible and that we should sidetrack our old-fashioned luxury train as soon as possible perhaps, in order to survive. And if some within the Establishment do have the power of imagining it, they will do nothing, for they live on best when existing conditions continue as long as possible. This attitude would be acceptable among industry managers, but unfortunately it is also true for our research environment. There is the obligation, for example, to continue using the large particle accelerators, to build even larger ones, and to fill more libraries with papers on high-energy physics. The electricity utilities would, of course, have tremendous difficulties in taking the step from continuous centralization of its facilities to decentralized energy supply. Hence they are fighting decentralization.
I will not follow this further. I just wanted to show that our modern structures of science and economy are much more hostile to innovation than we think. It is much more difficult today than in the past for an inspired genius to be heard, let alone be taken seriously and sponsored, and even more so, when he moves outside the established circles. Let me illustrate this by a picture which the Norwegian physicist and peace researcher, Prof. Johan Galtung, has drawn for the energy sector: there is something like an uncanny triangle, with the Government at one end, big business at the other end, and the intelligensia at the third end. All three depend on each other and stick together. The Government wants to remain in power and uses the energy reserves at its disposal to stay there. The big business wants to accumulate further capital, and this is done best by having a monopoly. This monopoly is best guaranteed by the Government, which has a certain interest in doing so. What remains is the intelligensia, which has understood to make itself indispensable to both, thereby safeguarding its existence. You can figure out yourselves the consequences which such a superstructure has on the development of non-conventional energy technologies.
I am not surprised at all that a symposium such as ours is being seen as a "collection of crackpots" by many. There is certainly much tactical ill will behind this differentiation, but not only that: the brains of many scientists and engineers seem to be obstructed by knowledge frozen into dogmas which are defended like a precious property at all costs. This seems to be particularly true for the energy engineering field. The laws of thermodynamics, derived from practical experience with the steam engine and fixed theoretically and mathematically roughly one hundred years later, are considered the unshakable basis for every kind of energy conversion. In the form of Lenz's law, they even apply to the theory of electric machines, although no experiment is known so far to have proven beyond doubt that the conversion of heat into force has resulted in the same equivalence relation as the conversion of force into heat. Nevertheless, the first and second law of thermodynamics have become incontestable Laws of Nature which apply, of course, to all energy conversions in Nature.
They don't follow suit, fortunately, although Mr. Rifkin and others claim to have spotted a universal law in entropy, salt to determine our own behaviour as well. To "read" Nature was, and is, for many particularly instructive. On the other hand, our role as master of Nature, our materialistic, mathematical and brain-oriented view of the world have contributed considerably to these deplorable developments. It is good that creative people are not overly impressed by so much wisdom and do never stop asking questions. In doing so, the many contradictions in our physical world view could not and cannot remain concealed. When the theoretical physicist Prof. Herbert Pietschmann, of Vienna, considers the history of the sciences, and in particular of physics, as one of suppression, unfair elimination of contradicting opinions, he certainly is right. I would only recall the fact that the contradictory interpretation of the nature of light - corpuscular theory or wave theory - does not cause concern any more. We wish to know what holds the world together. To this effect, we build ever more powerful atom smashers and particle accelerators, I will never understand why the atom has to be smashed completely in order to find out from the reaction traces which particle conveys one of the four known interactions. Apparently, research cannot be stopped from going into this direction.
As a journalist, I receive success reports on expensive technical and scientific progress with the mail every day. However, much literature has accumulated in the course of years which I like to call "samisdat [underground] literature". There is no publisher for it, at least in Germany, who would spare the high-gloss paper for it. Yet I feel that it is of no less value than the mountains of printed high-gloss paper. This samisdat literature proves that there are apparently many people who are not content with our contradictory physical view of the world and who have ideas, knowledge and technical designs, many of which would be worthwhile to consider. These people do not completely refuse the knowledge accumulated so far; they only have liberated themselves from it in certain areas in order to go their own way. This is not uncommon at all. The history of Science and Technology does reveal that this was always the case when progress was born. Even if many repeatable test results are in the way of new ideas, this will not prove at all that a new idea is rubbish. It is not at all logical that something new has to be wrong, because the old-established ways and means have been confirmed again and again. Einstein put it this way: "Theory determines the experiment."
Ladies ant Gentlemen, I felt that I should tell you this much to explain my background somewhat. I would like to repeat again that I am neither an inspired researcher or inventor totally imbued with my own ideas. I therefore have to face the question radically, why a non-conventional energy technology, for example, should develop alongside a fully exploited and well-functioning technology. It can be developed, because our physical view of the world is highly contradictory and incomplete, and because the unknown is also unlimited in principle, and because the creative human spirit can show new ways even today. We can, and must, put our hope in it unless we want to founder on the consequences of our previous actions. In particular the vital energy sector warrants our hopes, for l feel that it is only a matter of time until non-conventional energy technologies achieve a breakthrough. What makes me so confident?
In studying of the samisdat literature mentioned and the personal contact with many inventors, I have realized that we have to differentiate in principle between closed and open systems and that the rules to which we have built our machines in the past only apply to closed systems, strictly speaking, Therefore, I am not deterred by the verdict of the impossibility of the perpetuum mobile, since if something operates like a perpetuum mobile, then it is most likely to be an open system to which this verdict does not apply. For me, gravitation and magnetism are open systems, as is Nature in its totality and in detail - Nature, which has taught us so much and from which we still can learn. It is hard for me not to believe that the space around us is filled by an endless energy field which we can tap and of which we have taken notice so far only through the as yet ill understood gravity. You may imagine my excitement when one inventor gave me this demonstration: he held in his hand a Plexiglass cube of approximately four inch edge length, in which something like a turbine could be seen, the shaft of which protruded from the cube. He spun the shaft with his fingers, fumed the cube into a certain position in space and - you wouldn't believe it - the turbine accelerated audibly and kept running for hours without reducing its speed, sitting on a table. The inventor keeps his secret to himself for the time being and pretends to know how to develop an engine from it.
When I feel that, of the multitude of highly different unconventional energy converters, those operating electromagnetically have the highest chance to come on the market first, then my assurance is based mainly on my observation of development progress made by several inventors. Their constructions differ greatly, but in nearly all designs they use new magnetic materials such as cobalt samarium, and all expect an energy output which exceeds the energy input. If you ask me how, whether I have seen a single convincingly operating prototype, then I cannot answer "yes" wholeheartedly. However, not an developments are accessible to me, nor can I keep myself informed on the development progress made. Therefore, I have to restrict myself to my personal evaluation of the overall situation, which can be summarized as follows: everybody working on novel electric machines is still in the tough period of implementing a convincing prototype. Since they only have very restricted financial means and no outside help, one can hardly predict when each will have its great day. One can hardly imagine what could have been achieved if these people had received only a fraction of the assistance and goodwill which are readily conveyed to nuclear or even military research. But to quote Brecht: the conditions, they are not so.
In order not to spare you a bit of science altogether, I wish to present a few basic ideas recently formulated anew by Prof. Kromrey, of Geneva - that's not in Germany, but in Switzerland, for those who are not so familiar with small Europe. His ideas form the theory for the generator developed by Prof. Kromrey, who has expressly authorized me to expose these here. I have seen myself that he has built generators to his principle to confirm the soundness of his considerations. But here again, there is no prototype which gives off more power than is put into it and consequently would keep going. As Prof. Kromrey told me several weeks ago, he decided finally to build a large unit himself. The "himself" refers to the fact that Prof. Kromrey is an old man. Now let me quote Kromrey:
OPERATING PRINCIPLES OF THE FERROMAGNETIC GRAVITY GENERATOR
The energy relationships valid for the Earth's system of reference are as follows:
1 kgm/sec = 9.81 Watt = 2.3 cal/sec
In a very wide sense, these figures are considered valid throughout the entire universe although gravity and, at the same time, acceleration can differ considerably from system to system.
It is well known that the notion of gravity is of primordial importance because it is from gravity alone that the entire science of dynamics is derived.
Having said that, the principal difference between a conventional generator and the ferromagnetic (gravity) generator is that the former converts the Earth's acceleration into electrical energy (using Lorentz's force as an intermediary) whereas the ferromagnetic generator transforms or converts ferromagnetic attraction directly into electrical energy.
It is not entirely fortuitous that the universal formula for gravity and the Coulomb-Poisson formula have a similar structure:
the only essential difference being the presence of the coefficient "K". Apart from this, it is useful to note that the fundamental principle of the conservation of energy lies within the quantitative conservation of motion; anything beyond this remains purely speculative.
What then are the principal characteristics of the ferromagnetical generator?
We are speaking here of a type of monophase transformer with the particularity that the cores, respectively paralleled, two-by-two, make up the stators and rotors. Preferably, the stators should be powerful permanent (or electric) magnets and the rotor cores should be of soft iron.
When the armature turns, it successively enters and leaves the Earth's gravitational field and the ferromagnetic gravitational field, and this vice-versa, in such a way that the soft iron cores are subjected successively to magnetic attraction and to the Earth's gravitational attraction.
Since, on the other hand, each action has an equal and opposite
reaction and as W = m ´ g
(weight = force = mass ´ acceleration),
the production of electricity can be explained quite easily through classical dynamics.
In effect, we know that the electron possesses a mass. For an electric motor, the magnetic field (or inductor) only has a secondary role, that of deflection, in such a way that the electronic kinetic energy:
(for example the output from a battery), remains conserved if the motor runs without a load.
It is exactly the same if the machine works as a generator: the magnetic field has merely an intermediary role of transforming kinetic energy - in this case resulting from the Earth's gravitational system - into electrical energy.
For the ferromagnetic gravity generator, things are different. Here, the rotor is subjected alternatively to a non-terrestrial acceleration, enormously superior to that of the Earth's gravity, which produces an electronic current.
Since Newton's third law is fundamental, because it also includes the principle of energy conservation, the working of the ferromagnetic gravity generator is easily explained.
In effect, the two twin cores constituting the rotor fall from the Earth's gravitational field into the more intense magnetic gravity field and grow heavier because of this. If, simultaneously, an electric current is produced by short circuiting, for example, the winding of the armature, it can be seen that the magnetic acceleration first observed, purely with regard to the armature, is subsequently partially consumed in order to accelerate the electrons. Since the initial acceleration of the rotor diminishes to the advantage of an electronic acceleration, the rotors become lighter. In other words: the attraction between rotor and stator disappears so that the rotor continues to turn freely while producing electric current.
This is quite normal, since a soft-iron induction coil (or rotor), which has become heavier in a magnetic field, is essentially subjected to the expression:
mass ´ acceleration = weight
and which, on expending its acceleration in favour of a movement of electrons, must obviously lose its attraction for the stator.
Naturally, the foregoing is only understandable if one remembers that, before anything else, electricity obeys the laws of classical dynamics. Electricity is, after all, a branch of mechanics and not the reverse as the theory of general relativity postulates. People have always tried to complement Newton's concepts, whereas, in fact, everything was already contained in his work, even the unified-field theory.
It is quite remarkable that, in itself a pendulum is the differential of a fly-wheel.
What is the significance of this fact? It is quite understandable, as one can see from the following. If, for example, a flywheel of certain mass is placed on the moon at a speed of 1500 rpm, very little energy is expended because the lunar force of attraction is 163 cm/sec2, or minimal, compared with the Earth's force of attraction of 981 cm/sec2.
If the same fly-wheel could be transported immediately within the Earth's gravitational field, its rate of rotation would be in no way diminished. On the contrary, the speed of rotation would have a tendency to increase even more and also result in a considerable gain in kinetic energy - and this without coming into conflict with the principle of energy conservation. In other words, if the mass of a body drops in free fall towards the Earth's surface, it will travel 4.91 m during the first second. The same mass falling towards the Moon's surface will have travelled only 0.81 m after the first second. Masses possessing weight and masses that are inert are, therefore, quite different in the two systems of reference, and it is the same for the respective kinetic energies.
Schools, however, teach the following: the fact that a body has a mass means, in the first place, that a force is necessary in order to accelerate it; but this would also be the case, if the body was not attracted towards the Earth's surface - in other words, if it was weightless - and from this can be deduced the fact that motions of weight and of mass have absolutely nothing in common.
At the same time when defining the concept of ''mass" and the concept of "weight': gravity has been excluded, which is obviously an error.
Mach's law no longer holds true. According to Ernst Mach and also to Albert Einstein, inertia is a property of a mass, determined by the presence of all the other masses in the universe. In fact, inertia is in direct correlation with the finite and, therefore, the contrary of infinity. The system of reference can be determined. For this reason, unity should be defined as acceleration itself. The unity of mass will in future be the force exerted on a mass identical to a distance 1, acceleration 1.
It is impossible to agree with schools of thought that maintain the following: to put a ball of iron in motion on the Moon will require the same effort as that required to take the same ball of iron in motion on Earth.
The example cited corresponds exactly with the experiment of a fly-wheel set in motion on Earth at one time, then at another time on the Moon. In the end, it is not the kilogram-masses that have to be moved but the kilogram-weights. The amount of movement released by an action is essentially linked to the binary system of reference.
The invariability or stability of the oscillation path of the pendulum in Foucault's famous experiment at the Pantheon in Paris, designed to demonstrate the Earth's rotation, is not a result of the presence of all other stellar masses but a direct result of the mutual attraction of the terrestrial mass and the mass of the pendulum.
Newtonian gravitation is based on instantaneous action at a distance, an opinion which is not questioned. On raising the mass of a litre of water (1000 grams) to the top of the Eiffel Tower in Paris (300 metres), the water will lose one ten-thousandth of its weight At 10 kilometres, its weight will be 965 kg, and at 10,000 kilometres only 151 kg. It is the minute loss in weight by a body raised to considerable distance above the Earth's surface that is the real equivalent to the work performed. The expression "potential energy" is an unfortunate term used to imply that a certain tension exists between two masses that are trying to unite.
In the terrestrial system of reference, it is clear that if a body is raised to a certain height (even of several kilometres), it will only lose a minute part of its weight. This is because it is the enormous mass of the Earth - to all intents and purposes alone - which is responsible for the effect of gravity. It is, therefore, logical that a body raised to height "h" corresponds to an amount of work that is practically recuperated, if the body is released to make the return journey.
Ferromagnetic gravity uses a gravitational effect (ferro-magnetism) to accelerate the electrons. A soft-iron armature is caught by a magnetic field and becomes very heavy over a distance of several centimetres, as it leaves the superimposed acceleration of the locally very intense magnetic field.
The molecular generator can produce energy on two inverse paths; that is to say as the rotor approaches the stator and also as the rotor moves away from the stator. If the rotor enters the magnetic field, the current produced destroys the attraction. If the rotor leave the primary magnetic field, then the second field gratuitously formed by influence, disappears, causes cut-off, and then once more produces electricity. It is true that for each isolated system of reference the theoretical yield cannot be greater than 1. But the forces of various systems can, at the same time, be very different.
Also when two gravitational fields become partners, it is possible (and without contradicting the energy conservation principle) that the following expression is valid:
In other words, each time when two gravitational fields come into action, it is possible to produce energy cheaply.
Again, for example, machinery driven by tidal motion uses the flux and reflux of the sea. The action of the Moon's gravitational field associated with the terrestrial field (working at a distance of 384,000 kilometres) raises enormous masses of water to a height of metres, twice every 24 hours, equivalent to approximately 1016 kfm of kinetic energy. This is similar to what happens in the case of the ferro-magnetic gravity generator. On the one hand, the rotor is subjected to the Earth's gravity, and on the other hand, to magnetic gravity which gives another possibility of producing energy cheaply.
To conclude, Newton's Laws of Motion are confirmed, but with the suggestion that a fourth law should be added as follows:
"The energy in a given system can only be modified in a finite time particular to this system. This results in a variety of forces for different isolated systems".
In my book "Energie im Uberfluss" which could be translated by "Energy Galore" or "Energy in Abundance", I have given details of Kromrey's life and of the fate of his invention. Because his machine apparently contradicts the first law of thermodynamics, the French patent was only granted after two years and after approval by the "Higher Commission for Inventions"; he had to wait ten years for the German patent award. Kromrey, a past professor for electrical engineering of Paris University, did not even get permission by a high technical school in Paris to donate a machine to this school. This is only one example on what has come of the Old World; but it is probably not much different in the New World.
In my book, of which a second edition has already been published and for which we still try to find an English-language publishing house to print the text which is already translated, I not only describe a selection of unconventional electric machines. Unorthodox energy conversions, which will result in efficiencies considerably higher than I can also be imagined in other fields and are being developed. They could be subdivided into thermal, mechanical and hydraulic apparatus, but such a division does not mean much really when one considers the possibilities which could be derived from the findings of Viktor and Walter Schauberger, on which my fellow countryman Norbert Harthun will lecture.
Thermodynamics play a role here, too. A Tornado, for example, increases in energy and cools its environment in doing so, although under the second law of thermodynamics, no machine can derive work from ambient heat. If the obstacles are discussed which are in the way of developing non-conventional energy devices because of the theory of thermodynamics, then the laws of thermodynamics are of the greatest importance in my opinion. However, they should not be considered as generally valid and dogmatic as is done by the established sciences. I have to restrict myself here to a few remarks:
My friend Joachim Kirchhoff, on whom you can read in my book, can prove to you clearly that the conditions covered by the laws of thermodynamics have originally been derived from the study of the steam engine and the knowledge gained thereof. They only apply to machines in which an expansion process takes place; they are also by no means independent of the characteristics of materials. And as I said earlier, the equivalence between work and heat and heat and work has never been proved beyond doubt in experiments. In addition, the theoretician Clausius made grave mistakes. He has continuously mixed up, for example, the geometric volume with the specific volume. Another friend of mine, Alois Urach in Vienna, has proved that Clausius and Thomson have based their findings on reports by Clapeyron who had taken over Carnot's reasoning on the impossibility of the perpetuum mobile without any criticism.
In this way, many scientists have copied others over the last two centuries without checking the truth of their findings, as is often done. If somebody, like my friend Bernhard Schaeffer in Berlin, applies for research funds to study carbonic acid as a fluid medium and to check simultaneously the tenability of the second law of thermodynamics his proposal is of course put before a professor for evaluation first. That professor's opinion expressed publicly can be considered symptomatic: Schaeffer's approach seems to be really important and deserved being studied, but he would not favor these studies because they would imperil the work of himself and his assistants.
I have talked about people like Kirchhoff, Urach and Schaeffer to show you that, in addition to much practical work in Europe, many researchers are analysing the theoretical bases of our energy engineering afresh. They all have tried to find at least a few competent partners for discussion among scientists. In vain.
In nearly all cases they hit upon narrow-minded smugness nourished by the fact that the government and the industry spend their research funds on other fields, in particular on nuclear research. Experts from among the intelligensia circles mentioned provide "escort" readily in order to prevent any we-conventional energy technology from becoming a new conventional energy technology soon.
But inventors are stubborn people, as is widely known, and he who pursues something of his own accord will be more successful in the long run than he who only deals with subjects for which he is employed and paid. Therefore, I feel that Wilhelm Haberle, for example, who experiments with materials which expand much in the low temperature range when the temperature is only slightly increased, will soon come up with a novel concept for engines. I expect a similar development from Josef Bertrams, who has proven long ago by experiment the soundness of his findings on a perpetually moving hydraulic machine. People like Prof. Pollermann, an elderly gentleman who evaluates proposals for non-conventional energy transformations on behalf of the Federal German Ministry of Research at the Julich Nuclear Research Centre, will not change much in the end. In the course of about four years, Pollermann has turned down some 500 proposals which surely not all were nonsense; not a single proposal was handed back to the Minister for further evaluation or even for sponsorship.
All those who are concerned with the development of non-conventional energy devices in my own country have to do this as private individuals, at great cost and without outside assistance worth mentioning. Those in Germany who have the say in energy matters should all have heard of the subjects covered here in Atlanta by now. They either keep their silence or only show ridicule and contempt. Privately however, they take some of it quite seriously. Now and then, one can read astonishing things, for example that Krupp has built a larger Bank's engine.
Let me conclude. With so much painful and uncoordinated initiative as can be found in Germany, at the official refusal of each type of non-conventional energy technology, and at the tacit watch of augurs, it is not surprising that some people fish in troubled waters. I know already of two groups who have no development record of their own but make believe to the outside world that they are in possession of the most revolutionary know-how. Their methods are comparable: they would like to be intermediaries and thereby earn a lot of money. They contact one inventor after the other and try to find out who will reach his target soonest. They promise the big money which one group says will come from government sources, while the other group claims to have the backing of oil sheikhs. One of these groups already offered a 12-kW "heating current generator operating to the tachyon principle" - as they called it - several months ago, at a price of DM 18,700. I am sceptical and wait.
As I have not only talked about observations I made in Germany, as you surely have noticed, I will not deny you a report from the People's Republic of China. The Chinese radio announced on 8 April 1983: "The Harbin electric motor plant produced a 46-kVA rare-earth permanent magnetic power generator, judged as meeting advanced standards." A friend of mine followed this report distributed in the English language and received a pile of brochures on ordinary electric generators and motors which he passed on to me. More was not on offer, they said. But that is not the whole truth either.