Skip to main content

Free Energy Schemes

The link is "Eric's History of Perpetual Motion and Free Energy Machines" which gives a list of the various scams that have been tried over the decades as mechanisms to get energy out of thin air.

The OM Energy scheme as far as I can tell talks about separating hydrogen from oxygen in water by generating a magnetic field by spinning the water. This is "powered" by the exhaust gases from a petrol engine. The "hydrogen" is mixed with petrol and used as part of the combustion system.

Superficially it would be possible to inject some hydrogen into an internal combustion engine and add to the fuel that way. Whether this would work that well or not is not the big issue.

The big issue is that when hydrogen is burnt it turns into water. So there is a defined amount of energy needed to separate oxygen and hydrogen and a defined amount of energy released when they are united. Even if no energy was wasted either way those amounts are exactly the same.

If we define the energy of Oxidation as Eo and the energy of Hydrolysis as Eh then the argument OM Energy have is that Eo>Eh. This is a complete non starter as it breaks the laws of conservation of Energy. In other words it is a "Free Energy" or "Perpetual Motion" machine.

In any event splitting the water atoms by spinning the water presses my scepticism button, the idea that it generates a magnetic field by spinning the water does the same. It is true that swirls could be created through viscosity.

Even if the splitting idea worked there would be energy losses as the water is generally heated up whilst being spun. There would be energy losses (see Carnot a couple of days ago) through the use of exhaust gases to generate torque. There are also energy losses on the oxidation of the hydrogen (also Carnot and Second Law of Thermodynamics)

What does not surprise me is the government wasting taxpayers money. What does surprise me is that this proposal has actually been press released by the government as a sensible way forwards.

Generally Patent offices won't register free energy machines (because they break the laws of conservation of energy).

Still it is nice to have a laugh from time to time.


Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.

I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…