Saturday, July 27, 2013

Infinite Energy is Real

Levitronics, Inc., has a patent application before the USPTO right now claiming to have invented an above-unity electrical generator that the patent office cannot dismiss out-of-hand. Why? Because William N. Barbat, the inventor, has shown them good evidence that the entire scientific principles upon which their across-the-board rejection of all above-unity claims are based - are INCORRECT. Specifically, the "new law" claimed by Hermann von Helmholtz that Newton's conservation of energy applied to magnetic and electrical energy as well, in his 1847 paper presented before the Physics Society of Berlin. Society members rejected this new claim as "metaphysics," meaning fake physics, as it was based on flawed science. Helmholtz published it anyway, with the misleading introduction that it had been "read" before the Physics Society, giving it undue credibility.  He became very famous, due to his claiming to have discovered new laws of nature, and received many awards.

Helmholtz's original premises warrant revisiting, which is what William N. Barbat has done.  The following is an attempt to describe the situation in lay terms:

In pouring over original publications by Helmholtz, Ampere, Gauss, Maxwell and other classics, some of which were tracked down in the basements of libraries across Europe, Bill Barbat has found a fatal flaw in Helmholtz’s energy-conservation doctrine that offers great hope.  Bill agrees with the first law of thermodynamics as Newton described it relating to kinetic and heat energy, but he shows that it has been misapplied in the case of magnetic and inductive energy.   Bear with me.

First, a quote from my freshman physics textbook (Douglas G. Giancoli, Physics:  principles with applications, Prentice-Hall, 1980, p.5)
“As with theories, laws cannot be tested in the infinite variety of cases possible.  So we cannot be sure that any law is absolutely true.  We use the term law when its validity has been tested over a wide range of cases, and when any limitations and the range of validity are clearly understood.  Even then, as new information comes in, certain laws may have to be modified or discarded.
“Scientists normally do their work as if the accepted laws and theories were true; but they are obliged to keep an open mind in case new experiments should alter the validity of any given law or theory.”

Theoretical Basis for Energy Magnification
To begin with, the principles of Thermodynamics were developed in the century before the science of Electrodynamics even existed, and therefore involve ONLY Newton’s in-line forces. After the principles of magnetic force and inductive force had been known for some time, a 26-year old Prussian Army doctor (Helmholtz), who had never taken a college course in physical science, confronted the Physical Society of Berlin with an unprofessional paper which all but one of the members rejected for publication as “a hazardous leap into highly speculative metaphysics.

To his credit, Helmholtz (1847) had cited a very important principle of energy, which is critical to this discussion:
If bodies … act in directions other than the lines which unite each pair of material points … then combinations of such bodies are possible in which force may be either lost or gained ad infinitum.”
 But what the members must have objected to was Helmholtz’s mistaken belief that magnetic and inductive forces are in-line with their causative forces. Helmholtz had learned about physics from very old books that his father brought home to him in his youth, so naturally he took the metaphysical attitude of pre-Ampère works that “magnetic attraction may be deduced completely from the assumption of two fluids which attract or repel in the inverse ratio of the square of their distance… ”.  He inferred that inductive force was in-line also by using rambling associations with magnetism.  However, Ampère had demonstrated that magnetic force is transverse to the force on moving charges that created the magnetic force, and Faraday had shown that inductive force (emf) on a secondary charge is offset from the accelerating force on the primary charge. Magnetic force and inductive force therefore adhere to the ad infinitum energy principle which Helmholtz cited, not his mistaken interpretation.

Helmholtz pulled a clever con job by self-publishing his rejected paper and by stating that it had been read before the Berlin Society instead of stating that it had been soundly rejected by peer review. His goal was fame and position, not the advancement of disciplined science. He eventually convinced the European intelligentsia that he had discovered a “law of nature.”   He was given all kinds of medals and honors for his work, by kings and other non-physicists, which gave his conclusions false credibility and a place in history that is as yet unshakable.   To this day it is politically correct to defend his self-described “law.”

Why a magnetic or induced electromotive force can be more (or less for that matter) than the causative force:
Electrons have a fixed charge but can have subnormal mass.  “Normal” is the mass of a free electron as in an electron beam.  Only with the unique charge-to-mass ratio of normal electrons are the magnetic and inductive energy outputs balanced with the energy inputs 1:1.  This is the key point - a particle’s charge is constant, and not related to its mass.  Physicists have observed that some electrons, namely the conduction electrons in semiconductors and superconductors, have less mass, with the same charge.  So it takes less causative force to accelerate them, yet they give off the same charge!  Let me say that again.  Because they are lighter weight, it takes less causative force to accelerate them.  So with increased acceleration, they produce a greater magnetic force than normal electrons, and with increased acceleration they produce a greater inductive force than normal electrons. (Larmor's equation shows inductive force related to the square of the aceleration.)****[Insert citation]

The ratio of charge to inductive force then obviously becomes greater than 1:1.  However, because they are locked into believing Helmholtz’s doctrine, physicists observing this phenomenon have decided this cannot be true, and have dismissed their own observations by calling the mass of these lighter-weight electrons “effective mass,” meaning that they effectively appear lighter, but they don’t believe it.  All kinds of relativistic theory has had to evolve then, compounding itself exponentially, because people are trying to fit their actual observations into Helmholtz’s incorrect assumptions.

Now, with my little ol’ Wildlife Biology degree I have no place trying to prove or disprove Bill Barbat's thinking on this, but I figure he’s the one with a 160 IQ in physics and who scored 100 points above the 99th percentile on his GRE’s in physics, not to mention his studies in physics and geophysics at CalTech and Stanford, so he probably has a pretty good head on his shoulders.   And if it is indeed true that this energy is being created all the time in excess of what it takes to make it, all kinds of corollary hypotheses start growing, for which he has good evidence as well, regarding the heat source in the earth’s core, cosmic background radiation which just refuses to cool off to absolute zero, and the formation of matter, all of which I will spare you until possibly a later discussion.

I feel it is very important that Bill Barbat’s theories have the chance to be adequately presented and debated in the public realm during his lifetime, and I am seeking opportunities for him to do that.  Obviously, if I am the only one left to defend his theories, they are in real trouble.  It has become apparent that, unless he is able to create a physical demonstration of these principles, no one will allow him to publish and debate these heretical interpretations, except by self-publishing.  Because he is not associated with any lab or university, it is very difficult and expensive to create such a demonstration, but he has made some progress toward this goal nonetheless.  

Technological Application
Helmholtz’s paper stated another energy principle:
“If the quantity of work were greater in one direction than in the other, we could use the first for the production of work and… applying part of the work gained, …produce an indefinitely large amount of mechanical force. We should have built a perpetuum mobile which both maintains itself in motion and is capable of imparting force to external objects.”

If you wish to see the patent application that seeks to capture some of this energy for human uses, you can access Patent Application #20070007844 at

This technology has its own interesting history.  Near as Bill can tell, it basically begins with a German Engineer named E. Leimer, whose experiments found a large increase in electric current in his radio receiver with radium placed on the copper antenna wire. After this was reported in Scientific American (1916), a young Seattle man named Alfred Hubbard apparently used this knowledge and figured out how to feed back some of the boosted power and lit a light bulb without a generator or battery.  By 1920, he had done it on a larger scale, demonstrating his device by powering a 35hp electric motor on a boat around Lake Union in Washington.   All of this was investigated for hoax by skeptical reporters, and vouched for by the Jesuit priest professor under whom Mr. Hubbard apparently had performed his work.

In 1928, Lester Hendershot demonstrated the principle again, powering another 35hp motor, this time on a model airplane.  This was widely reported at the time, and was witnessed by Colonel Charles Lindbergh and Major Lanphier of the US Air Force.  Major Lanphier’s troops even replicated the device.
Still, no one could explain why it worked.  For several reasons, the high-price of radium and low price of gasoline at the time probably foremost among them, financing was not forthcoming.  Also, Mr. Hendershot suffered paralysis from a 2,000 volt shock.  So the idea fell into oblivion for some time.

In the late 1950s, Mr. Hendershot tried to resurrect the technology and had gathered investors.  Unfortunately, he was unable to reproduce his 1928 generator.  Apparently, this so distressed him that he committed suicide in 1961.  Bill Barbat is convinced that, because Hendershot did not know why his 1928 model worked, he was unaware that the type of copper wire made in the early 1900s was the ticket.  The modern shiny wire, in use by the 50’s and 60’s, lacked the black cupric oxide coating the old wire had acquired during annealing.  Cupric oxide is a semiconductor whose low-mass electrons were ionized by the radium. When accelerated, they carry more inductive and magnetic power than those of “normal” mass, as described above.

Currently, we are preparing to replicate the historic results at the University of Texas in Austin.   Radium, though cheaper than in the 1920’s, is now understood to be quite hazardous to one’s health, so we need a laboratory that can handle it.  The lab is all set up to go, awaiting the delivery of radium, custom-packaged as we think it was in the original experiments.

On a second front, Bill feels certain that if one semiconductor can magnify energy in this way, others can too.  And not all of them need radium to stimulate the phenomenon.   Others are most likely stimulated by specific wavelengths of light, which would make this technology all the more accessible.  Bill has attempted to create many renditions of semiconductive coatings in his home laboratory, but it has been difficult without access to the coatings manufacturing technology available.  He did have some preliminarily promising results with a homemade GaAs coating on aluminum, but as the coil started to heat up, the two materials reacted and lost their individual properties, bringing the experiment to a halt.  We are currently working with a manufacturer in Canada on other coating possibilities, which he will test for energy magnification as soon as the coatings are able to be made with the right properties.

Well, thanks, for at least being interested enough to read this blog. 

“The purpose of the scientific method is to select a single truth from among many hypothetical truths. That, more than anything else, is what science is all about. But historically science has done exactly the opposite. Through multiplication upon multiplication of facts, information, theories and hypotheses, it is science itself that is leading mankind from single absolute truths to multiple, indeterminate, relative ones. The major producer of social chaos, the indeterminacy of thought and values that rational thought is supposed to eliminate, is none other than science itself.” 
Robert Pirsig: Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance, William Morrow & Co. 1974.

1 comment:

Fabio Tortorella said...

Hello i'm a brazilian researcher and i'm trying to get contact with you for partnerships but the email on levitronics website is not working.

my contact