"Repmag" Part III

Further work required for a physical prototype

The modelling done so far, especially the magnetostatic/dynamic modelling described in Part I, is encouraging, and confirms the basic concept of significantly less repulsive force between adjacent magnets within the shield than outside of it. However, I would want to do further modelling before building a physical prototype. This would include larger devices, and ferrite magnets as well as neodymium-iron-boron ones. One obvious variation should also be modelled: the case where adjacent magnets all had alternate polarities, instead of the same polarity, so that they would attract instead of repelling.

Further work should also be done on the energy delivered by a magnet entering the shield separated from its neighbours, compared with the energy consumed when it exits the shield with closely adjacent neighbours. This is an important issue that needs to be fully resolved.

Various airgaps between the magnet and shield faces should also be modelled. It seems likely that very small airgaps will be desirable in a prototype, thus requiring very small flexibility/deformation of components.

Eddy currents

One reason for looking at ferrite, and also bonded, rather than sintered NdFeB magnets, would be to combat a potentially serious problem that can already be foreseen:— eddy current losses. In a device like this, magnetic flux density will vary greatly as the device operates, in the magnets themselves, and also in the shield. That means that eddy currents, and the resistive I²R losses they cause, will occur in all these components when running.

The traditional methods of reducing eddy currents to tolerable levels are to laminate conducting components, or else to substitute them with non-conducting components (such as ferrite).

Drawing 1

Repmag drawing 1

The "multi-layer" 2D drawing above is a start for a possible physical prototype. It was drawn to this stage mainly to show that, as required for this approach, the spider and its components can have a smaller radius than the distance from its pivot to the nearest magnet. Not all components are shown, such as bearings, framework etc.

The magnets (red) are attached to shafts, all pivoted to a fixed point at the black solid circle. The shafts carry linear motion bearings (purple) which are carried in equally-spaced pivots on the spider (green), which has an offset fixed pivot at the green solid circle.


Drawing 2

Repmag drawing 2

Here is another "multi-layer" 2D drawing of a slightly different approach which would give better rigidity (less deformation of components), although it would require the magnets themselves to have radial holes.

The magnets (red) have internal ball spline bearings so they can slide without rotation along the splined arms of a spider (blue) centered at O. At their outer radii the magnets carry rollers which bear against an offset circular track (green) centered at P. The shield (grey) is also centered at P.

Shield lamination options

Shield lamination

Various lamination options for the shield are shown above.

The best simple option for minimum reluctance of the magnetic circuits, i.e. Alt. A, with wedge-shaped laminations, is almost certainly impractical. Neither Alt. B or Alt. C are desirable because of their greater reluctance over the complete magnetic circuit between magnet faces (across the many inevitable small gaps between laminations, for these alternatives). Something like Alt. D could be the best option — although somewhat difficult, it should be achievable.

"Repmag" Part II

As I said last time, I have done some initial mechanical design on my "Repmag" idea. The ultimate goal of course would be to prove and develop the design sufficiently to enable a successful physical prototype to be built. However, for now, I'll post a bit more about what I have done on it so far.

Magnetic forces replaced by spring forces

silux model with spring forces replacing magnetic forces

Here is an early silux model I made to verify the basic concept that stronger repelling forces between adjacent magnets outside of the shield, and weaker repelling forces inside the shield, would cause the rotor assembly to turn as a whole. It was assumed that the energy gained by each magnet entering the shield would be balanced by the energy lost by another magnet exiting the shield, so these entry and exit forces were not modelled. (I will have more to say about that later).

In this model compression springs, substituting for forces of magnetic repulsion, are added between adjacent objects representing the magnets. All springs have a natural length of 0.04m, and a minimum compressed length of 0.01m. Outside of the shield, the springs (black) can exert maximum force of 9N, giving spring constants of 300N/m. Inside the shield, the springs (pink) are weaker, at 6N and 200N/m.

The macro stops the model every 30º of clockwise spider rotation. Then the spring which has exited the shield is changed manually from a weaker to a stronger one, and vice versa for the spring which has entered the shield. The model is then re-started for the next 30º etc.

This model, with light magnets and rollers, but with an artificially heavy 10kg spider, is identical to the one shown in Part I previously, apart from the added springs. Starting with all components at rest, with no other torques or forces, it gave the following graph of spider rotational speed vs time:— 

Graph of Repmag spider rotational speed vs time

In this graph, the spider has undergone smooth acceleration from rest, completing just under seven revolutions, reaching 10.246 radians/sec (nearly 100 rpm) in 8.532 seconds.

The spring parameters were chosen only as "reasonable" values, and could have been a bit stronger. This "changing-spring" driven model delivers energy (½Iω²) of 0.5 × 0.0375 × 10.246² = 1.9684J in 8.532 seconds. This gives a power output of 0.231 watts, only about half the 0.507 watts obtained last time from the magnet driven model.

Next time I'll look at more details for a possible physical prototype.

"Repmag" Part I — a Net Energy Output is Modelled

"Switching" permanent magnets

Although a permanent magnet cannot be switched on or off, its flux can be temporarily diverted as required, to the extent that it will no longer attract or repel another adjacent magnet.

In the next few posts I'll examine a particular case utilizing this principle.

"Repmag" permanent magnet motor

Here is an image of one of my own ideas for a permanent magnet motor, which does give some net energy output, according to the modelling I've done on it so far.

There are twelve identical 25mm IR × 62.5mm OR × 6mm × 20º arc shaped NdFeB35 permanent magnets, all magnetised in the same direction, through the z-axis (red). That means they will repel each other when placed close together, in the absence of any magnetic shielding. However, a steel magnetic shield is placed over half of the array as shown, with a small (0.25mm) airgap above and below the magnets.

The magnets rotate clockwise, when seen from above, about the z-axis. They close up against each other within the shield, and spread apart outside the shield. Although, as can be seen, the magnets' flux density is greatly increased when they have entered the shield, the flux lines will then be perpendicular to the magnet and shield surfaces. Very little flux should return around the straight sides of the magnets. (Recall that it is this flux that causes the mutual repulsion outside of the shield).

So, it would be reasonable to expect the magnets to separate outside the shield with more mutual repulsive force, and to close up within the shield with less mutual repulsive force. Also, because it is more separated from its neighbours, a magnet about to enter the shield should have a slightly higher overall flux density than one that has just left it, which would also help the desired movement.

Analysis in a silux model

I decided to analyse this idea by firstly finding all forces and torques on all the magnets at 2.5º intervals (of "spider" rotation — see below), and then assigning these quantities into the silux model shown below.

Repmag — silux model

This silux model has the magnets (black) and the steel shield (blue — only for illustration) as before. The magnets pivot around the left fixpoint. Each magnet has a roller attached to it, which slides in a spider (red), rotating around the right fixpoint, which is offset by 15mm. This ensures that the magnets remain correctly located at all times.

The model was started with a spider rotational speed of exactly 10 radians/second, with magnet forces and torques newly assigned from the magnetostatic modelling every 2.5º as discussed above.

Results from silux model for spider rotational speed and energy,
derived from the force and torque data from magnetostatic analysis

Results

The spider does at first accelerate, but then it decelerates, and accelerates again, finishing at 10.0705 radians/second after 30º, which is the end of one cycle of operation.

(Some further details: In the model the combined magnet and roller mass was an almost negligible 0.0482kg each, but the spider was made deliberately heavy, at m = 10kg and I = 0.0375kg-m², so that it would act as a flywheel. Therefore its energy (½Iω²) increased from 1.875 to 1.90153J in 0.05236 seconds, i.e. a power output of 0.507 watts.)

Conclusion

The analysis shows an increase in energy and power, which is more than the nominal 1% solution error used in the magnetostatic modelling.

If the magnets themselves, at 0.0258kg each, are considered to be the only "active" mass in the model, with everything else including the arbitrarily heavy spider excluded, this particular model indicates that 0.507/(12 × 0.0258) = 1.638 watts per kilogram of active mass could be achieved. This is better than the minimum figure of one watt per kilogram at which I'd consider building a physical prototype.

So, while no single model like this could be considered decisive, it does seem that further work on this idea would be worthwhile. 

Obviously further modelling is required. I have done some initial work on the mechanical design for a physical prototype for this idea, which I'll discuss next.

A Magnetic-Gravitational Motor

Introduction

This is another quite old idea, which could have been designed as a purely mechanical device. But it is probably easier to understand initially as a combined magnetic-gravitational device.

Fig 1. Weights suspended by springs in a wheel

Introductory design

Suppose a wheel is made as shown in Figure 1, where a number of weights (red) are suspended by tension springs (blue) between the rim and the center of a wheel centered at point P. Then the locus of the weights will be very approximately a circle (purple) centered at a lower point, O.

Obviously the weights in this wheel will be balanced overall, and so the wheel will have no tendency to turn.

Fig 2. A fixed magnet repels magnetic, spring-suspended weights,
on one side of the wheel only

A magnetic modification

Now suppose the weights have been made as magnets, and another fixed, radially magnetised repelling, semicircular magnet (orange) is added on one side of the wheel, as shown in Figure 2. Then the locus of the magnet-weights will be as shown by the purple curve in Figure 2, i.e. they will be raised just before and after they have crossed the vertical centerline.

In this design, with the magnet-weights suspended by springs as they are, it would be reasonable to expect that the repulsive force on each moving magnet tending to turn the wheel back as it rises just before top center would not be very much greater than the similar repulsive force on each magnet tending to turn the wheel forwards as it rises just after bottom center.

So, on the one hand, the magnet-weights fall through a greater height on the descending side, and this should cause the wheel to turn. On the other hand, it could be argued that as the descending magnet-weights complete their fall, there will only be a net exchange of gravitational potential energy to spring stored energy (where there was no such net exchange before), which will be enough to ensure that the wheel won't turn.

Resonance

However, something else can also be done:— wherever weights are combined with springs, mass-spring resonance can be made to occur.

Modelling — summary

In Figure 1, assume the weights are 0.5 kg each, at approximately 0.125m radius from O. The springs between the weights and the rim, and the center P of the wheel are:—

Unstretched length Lo = 0.05m
Max. stretched length Ln = 0.4m
Max. force Fn = 11.445N
Spring constant k = 32.7N/m

(In Figure 1, the weights are shown in their correct positions for the above data, for a stationary or very slowly turning wheel of 0.25m radius and distance OP of 0.05m).

With the wheel stationary, we then add a force radially outwards from O of 8.177N on the top weight, and allow it to rise to its natural position for this, at very nearly 0.25m above O. (This is similar to Figure 2, but with greater displacement). We then remove this artificial force, and rotate the wheel clockwise at a steady 8.0888 rad/s. Then (radial) centrifugal force of 8.177N will replace the artificial force. Then, as the wheel rotates, approximately one half-cycle of mass-spring resonance per half-revolution of the wheel will occur. At the bottom of its fall each weight has dropped to slightly over 0.323m below O, i.e. well below its natural position for a 8.177N radial force. (And so its spring to P could then raise it to well above that natural radial position on the ascending side).

No energy gain

However, I have not found any overall energy gain from this approach. The old question "Where does the (extra) energy come from?" applies here. Even with mass-spring resonance occurring, there is just an exchange of energy between different forms, i.e. kinetic, potential, spring stored energy, and rotational energy of the wheel. As for forces of magnetic repulsion, in this device the magnets could just as well have been replaced by mechanical components, e.g. compression springs.

Can we be more creative?

So, we'll have to be more creative about how we use permanent magnets, if we hope to gain any net energy from them. More on this next.

Modified Bowman Motor

Primary reference: 

http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/MagneticMotors/Bowman/index.html

In 1954 Lee Bowman invented a three-rotor permanent magnet motor using Alnico magnets, which was claimed to have worked as a perpetual motion, as shown below:—

The original Bowman motor

A modified version

After a quick look, I had not thought this motor interesting enough to investigate further, but a friend who was also interested in magnet motors eventually persuaded me to build a physical prototype of a modified version of it — see below. (This was a long time before I was able to do any computer modelling of devices like this).

(Most of) my modified Bowman motor

Unlike the original, this prototype used NdFeB35 magnets, and had only two rotors geared together, of equal size. The magnets on each rotor were arranged to attract those on the other rotor. The axle with the pinion on it originally passed through another piece of framework and carried a flywheel (these two items not shown).

As with the original Bowman motor, a separate fixed "actuator" magnet was arranged to repel the magnets on one rotor. The intention was that when a pair of rotor magnets crossed each other, the repelling actuator magnet would reduce the attractive forces between them at the end of the crossing, as they started to move apart again. (It would do that by reducing the flux density of the rotor magnet that it was repelling).

It is almost needless to say that this prototype did not work.

I had originally intended to add at least a second actuator magnet below the one shown, which would have doubled the energy output — had there been any — because each rotor magnet crosses with its partner on the other rotor twice per revolution. I never did that, since there was no detectable energy imbalance at all with the single actuator magnet.

Conclusion

Even though a version of the Bowman motor might possibly be made to work, at very low power output, with highly non-linear magnets (like Alnico, as used in the original version), I don't think it worthwhile to investigate this concept any further.

The Kozeka Principle Part II

Magnets with non-linear demagnetisation curves

So far I had only looked at neodymium-iron-boron magnets, which have linear demagnetisation curves. Would magnets with non-linear curves do better?

Repulsion force graphs for two 96 × 60 × 8 Feroba2 magnets (upper),
and for two 50 × 50 × 150 Feroba2 magnets (lower)

Here are two sets of results for repelling Feroba2 ferrite magnets. (Note that for all these repulsion graphs, repelling forces are now defined as positive. This was done for easier comparison with attraction graphs for similar pairs of magnets).

Once again there is negligible energy difference between horizontal and vertical repulsion.

A significant energy gain — but probably only a "one-off"

Repulsion force graph for two 50 × 50 × 150 Alnico5 magnets

Here are results for a large pair of Alnico5 magnets (150mm high), repelling. At last, here is another potentially interesting feature:— there is a significant energy difference. The energy gained by horizontal repulsion is over 5% higher than that expended against vertical repulsion. However, I'm fairly sure that what is really happening here is that the modelling program is showing only a "one-off" energy gain. In practice, repelling alnico magnets like these would be permanently demagnetised to a significant extent during the first time they were placed close together, but the program is not taking account of the already largely demagnetised state of the magnets, which is what would exist for all cycles after the first one.


Conclusions

1. It is possible that with further work, a very low-power permanent magnet motor could be made using magnets with very non-linear demagnetisation curves (such as Alnico), perhaps even with the magnets significantly demagnetised. The Bowman motor is a possible example, which I'll look at next time.

2. Since, unfortunately, I cannot see any way of avoiding the energy "well" previously discussed in Part I, it is not worthwhile for me to investigate the Kozeka idea any further.

The Kozeka Principle Part I

Primary references:—

http://www.kedroncorp.com/abstract.html [now only available archived; e.g. at https://web.archive.org/web/20080615010715/http://www.kedroncorp.com/abstract.html], and search http://peswiki.com/index.php/Main_Page for "kedron".

Kozeka principle:— a difference is claimed between the energy delivered
when two magnets attract horizontally, and the energy required to separate them vertically

Summary of operating principle

In 2007 Dr Kenneth Kozeka claimed that there was a difference between the energy delivered when two magnets pulled together horizontally, and the energy required to separate them vertically. He claimed that two NdFeB38  3/4 inch cube magnets "... are capable of generating 7.46 inch-pounds (work) when they pull themselves together “sideways” in the horizontal plane. It takes only 6.56 inch-pounds to pull the magnets apart along a vertical path that is perpendicular to the path they followed when they came together. This leaves a .90 inch-pound net-yield of mechanical energy (work) which can be used for example to turn an electric generator."

Kozeka's graph of attraction force vs distance. The units for the axes are not stated

I decided to model Kozeka's idea exactly as described above (except that I used NdFeB39, which was already in my program's library, instead of NdFeB38.) Ansoft Maxwell v11 was the magnetostatic modelling program used. The results when plotted out gave the graph shown below.

My results for attraction force vs distance

Integrating the attraction force curves to find the energies gave negligible energy difference between them, i.e. 0.6957J = 6.157 inch-pound versus 0.6929J = 6.132 inch-pound. (The difference is well within the 1% energy error I used to define "solved" force calculations).

Further Investigation

These results showed one potentially interesting feature: although it is hard to see in my graph above, the horizontal force goes slightly negative for a while. I decided to investigate this further, with larger but thinner magnets.

Modelling of two 96 × 60 × 8 NdFeB45H magnets

For the two 96 × 60 × 8mm NdFeB45H magnets shown above, this effect becomes much more prominent (note how the blue horizontal force curve goes significantly negative beyond about 61mm of separation):—

Attraction force vs distance for two 96 × 60 × 8 NdFeB45H magnets

Can the "energy well" be avoided?

Once again, if the magnets are brought in from "remote" positions, there is no net energy difference. But, if it were possible to start the horizontal movement with the magnets separated no more than about 61mm, and to keep returning to such a starting position with little or no energy penalty, there would indeed be a large excess of energy to be gained. Unfortunately, it seems to be impossible to avoid the energy "well" involved in bringing the magnets together to this desirable starting position. I have looked at repelling instead of attracting magnets; at movement along each of the three orthogonal axes; at diverting the flux of one or both magnets into steel "shields" over part of the operating cycle, etc, but have never found any way of avoiding this energy "well", to the extent that any significant excess energy can be gained.

A version of the Kozeka principle with the magnets enclosed within low-hysteresis
steel shields over the energy well until they have reached the desirable starting position.
However, no net energy gain has been found with this approach.

Next time I'll look at versions of the Kozeka principle where, in one case, a significant energy gain is indeed achieved (but it is probably only a "one-off" gain).

An Early Attempt at a Magnet Motor

Here are some images of an attempt I made many years ago to make a permanent magnet motor. 

This device was designed around the alnico magnet assembly of an old loudspeaker. The general idea was that there would be attractive forces pulling together the two salient (toothed) rotors, in the 180 degree region in which they were completing the magnetic circuit; that they would be able to move apart again easily where there was much less magnetic flux between them (over the remaining 180 degrees); and that this would cause both rotors to turn.

Although the brass items, the turned steel items and the blanks for the rotors were of course made with a lathe, all of the rotor teeth were made by cutting with a jigsaw and a hand hacksaw, and finishing by filing. The cutting away of half the speaker steel assembly was also done with a hand hacksaw.

Years ago, I used to enjoy working in these "old school" ways. Nowadays I usually find them too tedious, time-consuming (especially when accuracy is required), and too much physical effort! I also grew tired of ending up with magnetised files, hacksaw blades etc. I now prefer, where possible, to use quicker and more efficient methods like laser-cutting, (although I don't have my own laser-cutter yet).

Nowadays I would always model a device like this first, using a magnetostatic simulation program capable of predicting the expected forces and torques, before I would ever consider building a physical prototype. Such a program would no doubt have told me what I found out from this prototype — it doesn't work!

Years later I did make a computer model of a development of this idea that did deliver a small amount of excess energy, and I'll discuss that in a future post.

General Comments, and a Glimpse Forward

I'm back

I'm now back from my hiatus. This was largely a case of déjà vu. When I took early retirement from professional engineering over a decade ago, I had hoped that I might no longer be heavily involved in catching and correcting the errors made by others — some with potentially serious consequences. Unfortunately, that hasn't always been so.

A step forward mechanically

I had left my investigations into mechanical perpetual motion more or less as in my posts of 18 April to 9 May 2015. However, I recently made a fairly significant step forward. As things stand, I could perhaps in theory design a perpetual motion wheel that would at least reach my self-imposed lower limit of one watt power output per kilogram of active mass. Unfortunately, the wheel would have to be extremely large — far too large to be practical.

Obviously the wheel must be compacted-up. There is a possible way forward to achieve this compaction, but there will be a lot of work ahead.

Magnet motors next

As I said at the outset, I had intended this blog to be mostly about my investigations into the interactions between permanent magnets, and between electromagnets and permanent magnets. I'll still look at those topics next, but not always in such detail as I had originally intended. Also, because of my foreseeable future work on a mechanical device, as well as ongoing "fallout" from other issues, I'll only be able to post once a fortnight or so.

Harassment, and “Premature Deaths” 1989 - 2004 Part IV

[quote continues from Part III]

Eugene Mallove

Eugene Mallove

Eugene F. Mallove of Concord, New Hampshire, was murdered on May 14, 2004, aged 56. He was found beaten to death at his childhood home which he still owned in Norwich, Connecticut.

From 1987 to 1991 Dr Mallove held the position of Chief Science Writer at MIT. However, instead of endorsing a Cold Fusion report of pivotal importance which had obtained its negative result by fraud, he demonstrated a quality unusual in modern journalism:— integrity. He resigned his position in “disgust and outrage” (see below), and became Editor in Chief of Infinite Energy magazine, which he founded in March 1995 together with Contributing Editors Lawrence Forsley, who left Infinite Energy in late 1996; Chris Tinsley, who also suffered a premature death (see above); and Jed Rothwell, who left in late 2002, going to LENR-CANR.org.²⁸

"... I was moved to announce that I had discovered egregious scientific fraud (performed on a Federal contract, no less) on the part of MIT hot fusion people in their so-called ‘failure’ to reproduce the excess heat effect claimed by Fleischmann and Pons. The group had, in fact, found apparent excess heat in its experiment, but one of the sixteen authors on the final report to the U.S. DOE had shifted and manufactured the data to eliminate a positive result. Had this data been properly reported, the entire course of history would have been changed and there might never have been a need for a publication such as Infinite Energy. The 55-page account of this travesty is available free of charge in a downloadable pdf file from our website, www.infinite-energy.com. 

In disgust and outrage, I resigned my Chief Science Writer position at MIT ..."

— Dr Eugene Mallove, former Editor-in Chief, Infinite Energy magazine, No 49 p6 — an "insider" who turned whistleblower. Infinite Energy No 24 also gives a detailed history of these shameful events.


Although he sometimes had bitter arguments with others working in New Energy technology, Dr Mallove, who was probably its highest-profile exponent, did have some successes in his long battle for recognition of this subject. Infinite Energy was able to attract papers from some very high-calibre authors, refuting the prevailing orthodox assertion that no reputable scientist would have anything to do with New Energy. For example, in the second to last issue before his death, Dr Mallove had published landmark papers by Dr Otto Reifenschweiler, former chief physicist with Philips Research Laboratories.^29,30 These showed that as long ago as the 1950’s, highly anomalous experimental data on tritium was being obtained at Philips.

Dr Mallove was prepared where necessary to investigate and publish in considerable detail the efforts of the opponents of New Energy to discredit and suppress it. It is possible that the US Department of Energy’s decision to re-examine Cold Fusion in early 2004, after fifteen years of shunning and obstruction, was partly as a result of such pressure.^31,32 This in turn triggered the remarkable cover story in the August 2004 issue of Popular Mechanics magazine.³³ Only four days before his death, Dr Mallove had given an extensive briefing on Cold Fusion to author Jim Wilson, Popular Mechanics’ senior science editor. (see next)

“Reversing a 15-year policy, the [US] Department of Energy has quietly ordered an evaluation of cold fusion research. ...

The DOE will only acknowledge that its decision to re-examine cold fusion is in part based on national security concerns. ..

Among other things they [cold fusion researchers] are hopeful that Science and Nature, the two leading international science journals, will begin publishing  results of their cold fusion research. But this time their dream must be tempered with the fearsome new reality of international terrorism. Mallove told PM that scores of cold fusion experiments have revealed the production of enriched uranium, plutonium and tritium. If, as much of this research suggests, cold fusion can be used to produce weapons-grade materials, terrorists will have the ability to unleash destructive force previously available only to the world’s major nuclear powers...”

— Extracts from “Dangerous Science — Maligned and ridiculed, cold fusion gains respect as a cheap way to produce nuclear weapons,” Popular Mechanics August 2004 cover story.

Popular Mechanics August 2004

Harassment

Although not every inventor working on new energy technology suffers a “premature death,” it sometimes seems that practically all of them who are achieving anything worthwhile are subjected to some sort of harassment.³⁴ Examples are too numerous for any comprehensive treatment here, but I'll give brief details of one of the worst cases, together with an Open Letter on the subject.


T. Henry Moray

T. Henry Moray (1874-1974), the inventor of a solid-state Free Energy device which apparently captured radiant energy from its surroundings, was subjected to numerous death threats, and both he and his wife were actually shot at on several occasions. Once, while out driving, his car was hit many times by shots fired from another car — fortunately in anticipation of such an event Moray’s car had been bulletproofed. On another occasion, while working in his laboratory, Moray was shot and wounded in the leg. In another bizarre incident a Dr Felix Frazer suddenly smashed Moray’s device with a hammer before Moray could stop him. Frazer had been appointed as a “scientific expert and bodyguard” by the Rural Electrification Administration, for whom Moray was working at the time.³⁵


An Open Letter

An Open Letter to All Working on Alternate Energy, from Paul Brown

Greetings,
I have been involved with alternate energy research since 1978 while still a college student. Over the years I have heard many nightmare stories about people who developed something significant only to be persecuted, harassed, prosecuted, and even killed. I was sure that these stories were exaggerated or possibly the result of the inventor’s own paranoia or such. Further I met several inventors whom I felt were their own worst enemies (via fabrications of their imaginations) which confirmed my beliefs.
As time went on, and in about 1982, I became involved in work of some significance and received some minor criticism and skepticism that I found to be beneficial as well as practical, but no death threats or any other forms of persecution. I built experimental devices, learned things unavailable from books, filed for patents and in general felt very satisfied with my life, society and the scientific system.
However, things began to change slowly and alarmingly. The more success I had in my endeavours — the more I began to attract dishonest and greedy people (I know this now but was unaware of it then). My life became more uncomfortable as time went on but I was not sure of the problem.
In 1987 we decided it was time to let the world know what we were working on and the results we were getting. It was a proud time for me. I thought we were doing the right thing. But this was the real beginning of the worst.
Since that February 1987 I or my company have been persecuted by the State Department of Health; then the Idaho Dept. of Finance filed a civil complaint against the company and myself; my licence for handling radioactive materials was then suspended for six months; I began to receive threats (i.e. “We will bulldoze your house with your family in it”); securities fraud charges were then filed against my company and myself; then investigation by the Oregon Dept. of Finance; then the tax man; then the Securities and Exchange Commission; my wife was assaulted; I lost control of my company; my home has been robbed three times and vandalized on four other occasions; twice now I have been accused of drug manufacturing; I lost my home; most recently my mother’s car was pipe-bombed. With each hardship I strive harder towards successful development of the technologies under my endeavour. But it only seems to get worse.
Someone once said: “Paranoia is only a heightened sense of awareness.” He was right! It is hard for the average guy to comprehend these disasters happening to select people. I am here to tell you it is not coincidence. I now understand why some inventors drop out of society.
My advice is to keep a low profile until you have completed your endeavour; be selective in choosing your business partners; protect yourself and your family; know that the nightmare stories are true.
God speed. Good Luck in your endeavours, and Never Lose the Faith.

Sincerely,
Paul Brown³⁶

Paul Brown

 As a sad footnote to all this, Dr Brown, whose company Nuclear Solutions LLC (formerly available at http://www.nucsol.com) had developed a process using gamma radiation (X-rays) to remediate radioactive waste, was himself killed in an automobile accident in Boise, Idaho, on April 7, 2002.^37,38

"Excluded" — Attempts to find nucsol.com on archive.org now give this result

References and Notes

28. http://www.lenr-canr.org.
29. “Cold Fusion and Decrease of Tritium Radioactivity,” Otto Refenschweiler, Infinite Energy No 54 p13.
30. “Further Evidence of the Decrease of Tritium Radioactivity by a Thermodynamic Evaluation of a Heating Experiment,” Otto Reifenschweiler, Infinite Energy No 54 p14.
31. Infinite Energy No 55 p9. Dr Mallove warned against “... the pathological skeptics [who] will be out in force with sharpened knives and all manner of dirty tricks to derail this review.”
32. Formerly available at http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-4/p27.html, but no longer avalable there, or on archive.org. However I did find it at http://archive.is/eCZ4e
33. Jim Wilson, “Dangerous Science” Popular Mechanics magazine, August 2004, p75.
34. High-profile supporters are also harassed. For example, a few months after author Sir Arthur C Clarke publicly endorsed cold fusion in Discover magazine of May 1997, unfounded stories surfaced in the news media accusing him of child abuse.
35. Tutt, The Search For Free Energy, Simon & Schuster, 2001 p32-65.
36. Tutt, ibid p282-284.
37. Infinite Energy No 43 p69.
38. http://autoweek.com/article/car-news/strange-life-and-stranger-death-paul-brown-case-another-smart-guy-doing-dumb-thing 

[quote ends]

Conclusion and hiatus

This concludes my series of posts on harassment and premature deaths. This blog will now go into a brief hiatus, hopefully for no more than a month.

Harassment, and “Premature Deaths” 1989 - 2004 Part III

[quote continues from Part II]

Stan Gleeson

Stan Gleeson

Gleeson was the lead researcher for the Cincinnati Group, a religiously-inspired group of researchers who, among other things, have produced (and offered for sale) a low energy electrolytic transmutation kit. This is made principally of zirconium, and it can take the radioactive element thorium through to its daughter products in a matter of hours, rather than the many thousands of years required under natural conditions. This device, which has been independently verified, was seen as an important step towards safe, cheap and effective radioactive remediation.

Cincinnati Group advertisement for their electrolytic transmutation kit

As was briefly reported by Chris Tinsley, the Cincinnati Group also discovered how to produce an electrochemical “fireball” capable of melting asbestos sheet or ceramic tiles with a power input of only a few tens of watts.¹⁸ Tinsley was himself able to verify some of this work.

None of this is explicable by conventional physics.

As the brief report in Infinite Energy put it: “...The company has seemed less active in the field since the untimely death of its lead researcher Stan Gleeson in 2000.”¹⁹

Gleeson’s premature death was followed by that of another Cincinnati Group associate, Don Holloman, in early 2004.


Kevin Wolf

Kevin Wolf

Nuclear Chemist Kevin L. Wolf, of the Cyclotron Institute at Texas A & M University, died at his home in College Station, Texas, on September 11, 1997, aged 55.

Although always a member of the scientific establishment, Dr Wolf was an early pioneer of Cold Fusion, announcing in May 1989 that he had detected neutrons and tritium in Cold Fusion experiments at Texas A & M. However he evidently succumbed to pressure that was subsequently applied, and started to express doubts about alleged “pre-existing contamination” (doubts which were later shown by other meticulous studies to be baseless).

During research funded by EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute) in 1992, Wolf discovered that three of his palladium cathodes that had undergone electrolysis in heavy water had become highly radioactive. Gamma rays from at least seven radionuclides were unmistakably observed. However, although Wolf was completely convinced that his results were genuine, he apparently could not accept a “Cold Fusion” explanation for them.

Wolf was scheduled to talk about his work at the fourth ICCF (International Conference on Cold Fusion) in December 1994, but did not show up, having been “encouraged not to attend” by an opponent of Cold Fusion within EPRI, Dr Tom Schneider. Some details of Wolf’s research were belatedly announced by Dr Tom Passell of EPRI at the 1995 ICCF.^20,21

The System devotes much more effort into suppressing heretical views held by members of the establishment than it does for “outsiders,” who are relatively easily marginalised. It also tries to control both sides of any heresies that it cannot fully suppress — thus EPRI funded Cold Fusion research while at the same time its senior management strongly opposed any positive results. Wolf was evidently placed under very heavy pressure from powerful opponents of Cold Fusion, and he was also severely criticised by some Cold Fusion advocates for giving in to this pressure. It seems reasonable to speculate that all of this may have had an adverse effect on his health.


Andrei Sakharov

Andrei Sakharov

Andrei Sakharov, Nobel Laureate, one of the best known scientists of recent times, was a personal friend of Stefan Marinov (see above). Sakharov had taken the courageous decision to visit the Methernitha community to see the Thesta Distatica at first hand. This was to be a high-profile visit — he was to have been accompanied by reporters from the Russian news media, including television. Soon after the final details of the visit had been arranged, but before it could take place, Sakharov died suddenly, on December 14, 1989.²²


Peter the Great

Czar Peter the Great

The death of Sakharov in 1989 is unfortunately reminiscent of that of Czar Peter the Great in 1725. In both cases famous, progressive and influential Russians had become very interested in the best examples of Free Energy machines of their day, but both died on the eve of effecting what could have been breakthroughs in the introduction of the technology to the world at large.

In his book²³ John Collins quotes quite extensively from correspondence concerning Peter the Great’s efforts to buy the Wheel invented by Johann Bessler, also known as Orffyreus. [See my posts from 20 May to 14 June 2014 on this blog for more on the Orffyrean wheel.] Below are brief extracts from two letters written by Laurentius Blumentrost, Supervisor of the Museum portion of the Czar’s library (he was also the Czar’s personal physician, and later became the first President of the St. Petersburg Academy of Science). On 25 November 1720, writing to Christian Wolff, Professor of Mathematics at Halle University, Blumentrost said:

“In your last letter, you mentioned that Orffyreus’ invention could be of some benefit to the public if it were put into the hands of an expert mathematician to improve it, and this could only be done if the inventor was paid a certain amount of money. His Majesty, The Czar, after due consideration, has graciously advised me that he will spare an unlimited amount of money provided that you, yourself undertake this task and enter into His service.”²⁴

The negotiations concerning Wolff’s entry into the Czar’s service proved to be quite protracted. By mid 1723, in another letter to Wolff, Blumentrost wrote:

“With regard to the perpetual motion machine, His Majesty the Czar has decided to put into escrow with the King of Prussia, that amount of money agreed with the inventor. It would the be left to your judgement whether the machine is a real perpetual motion and whether it would benefit the public. In accordance with this, I will negotiate with Orffyreus and inform you of the contract or agreement.”²⁵

However, on November 8, 1723 the King of Prussia suddenly issued a decree ordering Wolff to leave Prussia within 48 hours, or else be put to death by strangulation! He was evidently enraged that Wolff, his most eminent Professor, was negotiating behind his back to enter the service of the Czar. Collins suggests that this reason explains the suddenness and severity of the King’s decree much better than the reasons offered by the orthodox historians — centering around long-standing disputes in Leibnitzio-Wolffian philosophy. But to admit this reason would ultimately involve acknowledging the Czar’s great interest in Bessler’s Wheel, something which orthodox historians and others seem most anxious to avoid these days.²⁶

There is no doubt that the Czar was a willing buyer, and of course Bessler was always a willing seller at his asking price. So why did the deal fall through? The King’s decree effectively removed Wolff from further involvement with the Wheel, but that was not a fatal blow. The Czar’s interest remained undiminished, and in January 1725 Detlev Klefeker, the King of Prussia’s representative at his court, was preparing to go to Germany to purchase the invention for him. It has even been suggested that the Czar was considering going to Germany himself in connection with the purchase.²⁷ But on the 28th of the same month occurred the blow which was fatal indeed — Czar Peter the Great died. The giant Russian, a man of boundless energy, keenly interested in science and technology, a man who had both the means and the desire to give Free Energy to the world in the early 18th century, and who had already made the decision to do so, lay dead at only 52.

References and Notes

18. Infinite Energy No 5-6 p29.
19. Infinite Energy No 37 p41.
20. Infinite Energy No 2 p30.
21. Infinite Energy No 18 p40.
22. Tutt, The Search For Free Energy, Simon & Schuster, 2001 p103-104.
23. John Collins, Perpetual Motion: An Ancient Mystery Solved? Permo publications, 1997.
24. Collins, ibid p128.
25. Collins, ibid p143.
26. Collins, ibid p144.
27. R. A. Ford, Perpetual Motion Mystery, Lindsay Publications Inc, 1987, p180.

[to be concluded in Part IV]