From: James R (Avatar) 24/03/2001 14:20:10
Subject: Revolutionary? generator post id: 263755
On Channel Seven's Today Tonight show in Melbourne yesterday, there was a story on two inventors have invented a new type of generator which they claim outputs five times as much energy as is needed to run it.

Needless to say, the story was sketchy on detail. Nothing was said about how the generator worked, except that it had something to do with magnets.

The story relied heavily on the claims of the inventors, who also said something along the lines of "Every scientist who has looked at our machine agrees it does what we say."

Did Today Tonight attempt to get an expert opinion on the matter? Well, they said they asked scientists at "a nearby university" (not sure where), and they said they would be interested in the invention. Fair enough - who wouldn't be? But did the producers of the segment organise for anybody to take a close look at the invention? Of course not.

If the inventors' claims are true, this invention will probably be one of the most significant inventions of the century.

Why do I have a nasty feeling about this?

JR
From: James R (Avatar) 24/03/2001 15:05:07
Subject: re: Revolutionary? generator post id: 263764
Hmm.. Yes, I went looking for TT on the Seven site. Interestingly, when you search for it using Google, one of the first results which comes up is a link to a newspaper story entitled "Today Tonight credibility goes pop."

Quite appropriate in the current context.

JR
From: The Phantom Menace 24/03/2001 15:07:13
Subject: re: Revolutionary? generator post id: 263765
Today/Tonight

http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/spoon/bs-ch7tt.htm
From: Kevin W ® 24/03/2001 15:07:48
Subject: re: Revolutionary? generator post id: 263766
The inventors were from Cairns, and were Lou Brits and John Christie. There was a huge article on the front page of my local newspaper (The Cairns Post) a few weeks ago, and they followed it up in the following days.

Here are some excerpts.


TWO Cairns inventors yesterday (Tuesday March 6) unveiled a world first commercial machine which can power a house from a permanent, clean, green and virtually free energy source.

The machine, developed by Brinsmead mechanical engineer John Christie and Edge Hill electrician Lou Brits, has an international patent pending and is expected to go on the market for $4000-$5000.

Relying on the attraction and repulsion of internal magnets, the Lutec 1000 operates continually on a pulse-like current 24 hours a day - producing 24 kilowatts of power - once it is kickstarted from a battery source.

The device is 500 per cent efficient, compared to a car which is less than 40 per cent efficient and loses power through heat and friction.

No powerlines would be needed to distribute energy from the individual power sources.

There is no heat, harmful emissions or airborne matter in the transmission.

If it were not for the magnets, which have a life of 1300 years, and the battery pack, which has a life of about five years, the machine would be in perpetual motion.

A demonstration of the motor from the carpeted study of Mr Christie's Brinsmead home revealed the device in all its glory - bigger than the average cyclone back-up generator but much less noisy.

...

Mr Christie said the average home with a pool needed only 14kW of energy per day - which meant a 10kW daily excess would be left over during the generation process.

Griffith Hack partner Cliff Carew, who was speaking from Brisbane, confirmed the device was genuine and unique.

"An international application has been lodged, they've conducted an international search and haven't come up with anything similar, so it would seem to be a new concept," Mr Carew said.

He said it would be another two and a half years before the patent was recognised in 140 countries around the world - the usual length of time for an international patent to be processed.


James Cook University Townsville wanted to test the machine, but the pair declined, as they did not want to move the machine. However, they were happy for them to test it if they brought their own equipment to the machine.


KW
From: James R (Avatar) 24/03/2001 15:08:17
Subject: re: Revolutionary? generator post id: 263767
John,

Revolutionary is my term, not theirs. It would be nice if this generator thing worked, but the Law of Conservation of Energy suggests that this is unlikely.

I'm willing to be convinced (as always), but more information is needed.

JR
From: James R (Avatar) 24/03/2001 15:18:48
Subject: re: Revolutionary? generator post id: 263769
Thanks, Kevin.

My baloney detector's alarm bells are ringing louder now. A few comments:

TWO Cairns inventors yesterday (Tuesday March 6) unveiled a world first commercial machine which can power a house from a permanent, clean, green and virtually free energy source.

This claim would be easy to verify. Turn off the house at the power grid. Hook up the machine, and see.

The device is 500 per cent efficient, compared to a car which is less than 40 per cent efficient and loses power through heat and friction.

The Law of Conservation of Energy, and the laws of Thermodynamics say this efficiency is impossible. So, either the thing doesn't work, or physics needs to be re-written. My money's on the former.

There is no heat, harmful emissions or airborne matter in the transmission.

Which begs the question - what is the power source? Where is the energy coming from?

If it were not for the magnets, which have a life of 1300 years, and the battery pack, which has a life of about five years, the machine would be in perpetual motion.

Perpetual motion machines are prohibited by the second law of thermodynamics.

Griffith Hack partner Cliff Carew, who was speaking from Brisbane, confirmed the device was genuine and unique.

Carew is being paid to file a patent application. I agree it is probably unique, and it is a genuine device. It just doesn't do what the inventors claim. But a device doesn't have to work to obtain a patent. You can get a patent provided you have a sufficiently original invention, even if it doesn't work.

James Cook University Townsville wanted to test the machine, but the pair declined, as they did not want to move the machine. However, they were happy for them to test it if they brought their own equipment to the machine.

I bet they're happy for it to be tested under "controlled conditions", but not otherwise.

JR

From: GM 24/03/2001 17:59:58
Subject: re: Revolutionary? generator post id: 263830
This sort of "discovery" is not new. As a Kiwi living in Melbourne I was embarassed for Kiwidom to see programs on another Kiwi, namely Rick Mayne, who came to Australia with a lovely invention called the Split Cycle engine. A lot of fools (they are easily parted form their money) invested in his idea which also went against thermodynamic principles. Where is that idea now?
The problem with building too many of these machines is that the world will have to hurry up and start using more energy, for at 500% efficiency we'll have a job to keep ahead of them.
From: Nomad ® 24/03/2001 23:19:55
Subject: re: Revolutionary? generator post id: 264061
I agree that this is too good to be true. One litimus test for something like this is how much coverage it actually gets. A $5000 generator that will produce free energy and could replace car engines as well as household connections to the electricity grid would get more than a few isolated stories if there was any truth to it - it would be getting international coverage and scientists wouldn't keep quiet about it. Remember cold fusion? And even that didn't turn out as it was claimed.
From: Robert ® 01/04/2001 14:17:22
Subject: re: Revolutionary? generator post id: 269675
Today's Sunday Mail (excellent collection of journalism that it is) contained an article on the machine today. It had a picture and mentioned that the motor outputs 24 kW-h of electrical energy in a 24 hour period (ie. 24 kW of power). It mentioned that the motor spins due to the 'attraction and repulsion of the magnets'. It showed a security guard + inventors standing nect to the machine. It also had a physicist from James Cook University at Townsville (I think) urging people to be cautious if they were thinking about investment. He extended an invitation for testing which was declined on the grounds that the inventors did not want the motor let out of their sight.
This forum is un-moderated. The views and opinions expressed are those of the individual poster and not the ABC. The ABC reserves the right to remove offensive or inappropriate messages.