Skip navigation
8comments
Share conversation: Share via:

Andy E. Williams

Feb 25, 2018
09:27

Member


1 |
Share via:

Those are a lot of fantastic claims for a technology idea without a simulation, without a working prototype, without concrete projections for impact, without independent third party confirmation, etc. In fact, the proposal was so completely lacking in credibility that it was difficult to get myself to read through it.

Of course I fear my own submission may also provoke the same reaction. Though in my case I have detailed concrete projections for impact, as well as detailed explanations for all the fantastic claims I make, it's also very possible in my case as well that no one would read that far.


Andy E. Williams

Feb 25, 2018
09:16

Member


2 |
Share via:

But in case I'm somehow wrong, can you add a simple diagram showing the various forces involved and providing equations showing how those forces balance out to provide this benefit you claim? Without that, the numbers you provide aren't "concrete projections" but instead appear to the casual observer to be groundless speculation.


Fred Ball

Mar 12, 2018
04:02

Member


3 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor

Andy: Our plan is to computer model and simulate the technology.. that is why we have entered the contest to try to find a partner to work with us on getting this don.  Projections of impact are presented. The mathematics and subsequent experiment to prove/disprove the theory was conducted by a third party (Jorge Cure) on our request, and after the result, Prof Cure wanted to join us. Unfortunately he as since passed away as well has one of the original founders.  We only have provisional patents and can't detail as much as you request  but the explanation below might help.  The technology design is based on the key aspect of converting the effects of g-forcve into work (kinetic motion) you'd have to use the assumption that the test actually did prove our key aspect. There may be multiple ways to build a technology that takes advantage of the key aspect, we believe however, that the propose will work the best. If someone understands the key aspect, how and why it works, it is easy to imagine that the technology design we have proposed would also work. I would be happy to show the details and parameters of the experiment to a qualified potential partner.  Section "D" is the paragraph that summaries the key aspect. 

EXPLANATION

We invented a method that converts the effects of g-force into kinetic motion. In a scientifically valid experiment we demonstrated this when a 4-wheel cart with the technology built into the wheels accelerated at a greater rate and rolled further than the same cart with the technology inactive. The conversion of the effects of g-force were added to the overall kinetic energy of the cart. This experiment was conducted on Earth under normal gravity (1G) which makes the conversion relatively small and difficult to even notice without precision measuring equipment, and the mathematical prediction was verified by the experimental result. The mathematics that were verified indicate that when under multiple g-force the result is increased at a geometric rate. 

The P6G relies on two variable, computer controlled sources of energy to operate: 1. Stored renewable energy from a battery and 2. The conversion of g-force directly into kinetic motion. The quantities from each source are varied by a computer depending on the load demand and conditions inside the device.

A. A majority of conventional electricity generation systems burn a fuel to create kinetic motion from which electricity can be generated. Our technology also relies on kinetic motion but we use electricity as our “fuel” to create kinetic motion, not via a conventional motor, instead we will use a repulsive magnetic drive system, driving from the outside-in using less energy and creating far less heat while providing a mechanical advantage.

Note: Whenever heat or energy is conserved in a process, more energy is available to do the work of the device.B. The P6G has multiple generators that roll within a contained track in a nearly frictionless environment via air bearings and maglev technologies. At start-up and low RPM, 100% of the energy required to create kinetic motion will come from the battery.

C. As the device increases in RPM, the rolling generators will be subjected to increased levels of the effects of centrifugal force. Laws of physics dictate that when the speed of rotation (RPMs) are doubled, g-force is quadrupled and conventionally it requires quadruple the energy to double the RPM’s. Our more efficient design requires only half of the input energy to obtain that.

D. As the device approaches optimal RPM a proprietary design aspect inside each rolling generator converts a small portion of the effects of centrifugal force directly into kinetic motion. This is accomplished by the continuous redirection of the angle of the effects of centrifugal force, slightly forward of the 90 degree perpendicular in the direction that the wheel is rolling. Exactly how this can done is proprietary and is part of our provisional patent. The effects of g-force are now adding to the overall kinetic motion of the device.

As RPMs increase, g-force increases and more and more of the kinetic motion (that is the turning of the device) will come from g-force. As more and more energy enters the system, in order to maintain a given RPM, the computer will stabilize the amount of overall kinetic motion by reducing the quantity coming from the battery. Then, a given RPM is maintained while a high value of torque is created.

E. At optimal RPM the generator will be creating 30kW continuous while kinetic motion from the battery’s input is reduced down to 5%, 90% of the kinetic motion will come from the conversion of g-force and 5% is lost. The system has a balanced conservation of energy equation as 5% + 90% + 5% = 100%

The standard view of energy does not include this new source of energy and therefore often leads to the wrong conclusion of an unbalanced first-law of thermodynamics equation. Energy was neither created nor destroyed. Often this misunderstanding leads to the false conclusion that this technology appears that it will create more energy than it uses, however, this is not correct. It is calculated that the mechanical design would use 31.5kW of energy to produce 30kW of output, having a loss in the system of 1.5kW or 95% efficient. Our process is not perpetual motion as an outside energy source is always required; it is not getting something for nothing; as it is getting something from somewhere new. It does not violate any laws of physics; only works differently than conventional wisdom says it has to.

We have proven this aspect through scientific experiment. We have designed a low-friction, ultra high efficiency mechanical device to take advantage of this new aspect of physics; conversion of the effects of g-force into kinetic motion and have provisionally patented the overall design.

The device will be far superior to existing conventional energy generation and existing renewables because energy drawn off a battery for heating, cooling etc... is not drawn off at 100% like all other technologies, instead when our technology is used it is reduces draw off the battery to as low as 5%, enabling the generator to operate far longer without any environmental impact.

Several aspects make this technology possible, including:

1. Ultra high efficient creation of kinetic motion

2. Low friction environment; low heat

3. Use of mechanical advantage

4. Use of high speed computers and sensors to vary, control the input sources

5. New, proprietary ability to instantaneously convert the effects of g-force into kinetic motion


Andy E. Williams

Mar 12, 2018
09:21

Member


4 |
Share via:

I maintain my earlier stance that this entry lacks credibility, but at the same time, it interests me because I'm curious about what it reveals about the challenge of communicating the value proposition of a new approach to potential partners and stakeholders during the process of innovation.


There have certainly been many cases in which innovations have been rejected throughout history because the audience wasn't capable of understanding them even though they were eloquently described. There have also certainly been many cases of innovations that proved to be right, but that were worded in such an incoherent, incomprehensible, or non-credibly way that they were rejected without consideration. One important aspect of communication appears to be to avoid making false statements. Your statement that your innovation uncovers a "new aspect of physics" appears to be profoundly false. There might be new engineering involved. But no new physics. In addition, your statement that "The standard view of energy does not include this new source of energy" also appears to be profoundly false for the same reason. This statement gives the impression you've developed a "new view of energy". I'm not sure what you mean by that. But again, you haven't defined any new laws of physics.
Also, while I understand you not wanting to give away too much, I'm guessing that a provisional patent provides legal protection only if you describe your work explicitly enough for a judge to clearly understand where someone violated your patent. I suggest you haven't done that.


One approach for solving the problem of communicating a complex approach might be to decouple each part of the problem, outline objective criteria by which the problem can be validated as having been solved, and then outline how your solution addresses each part.


You might start by saying for example, that this device works within the hub of the front wheels, or within the hub of the back wheels (whichever is the case) to store kinetic energy in the form of electricity. You might then provide some assessment of whether the amount of energy stored in terms of electricity is greater than the extra amount of energy required to generate that energy.


You might then talk about how the stored electricity is used to augment power to the wheels. And you might provide some assessment of whether the amount of power to the wheels cost more energy to generate than it provided. But easier said than done.


I'm reminded of a family run Thai restaurant I used to like to go to. All the food was made by the grandmother. Incredibly inefficient and impossible to scale. So the kids hired a chef to introduce more scalable production methods. But the grandmother just couldn't (or wouldn't) communicate the information the chef needed. "How much exactly is a handful?". "How long exactly do you mean by stir until done?" In the end, the restaurant shut down, even though they had amazing food, because they couldn't make a profit at their current scale, and they couldn't scale any larger. With granny's inability to communicate she had to do everything on her own. Countless innovators seem to face the same challenge. The issue is how to get the needed skillsets involved when the skillsets need to already be involved to be able to create a value proposition quantifying the benefit for them in engaging further.


Fred Ball

Mar 13, 2018
10:49

Member


5 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor

Andy: 

We are working on an animation right now, this might help communicate each step/system visually?

Creditability: If creditability is based on outside people with the education necessary to make a judgment, reviewing our tech, then we do have credibility. Physics professors, PhD’s, former NASA engineers, former Navy engineers, and many, many people who have mechanical design and engineering backgrounds have reviewed our idea. The problem is two fold: 1.) if you are engineer currently employed by a large manufacturer, their legal team won’t allow their engineers to review our tech (without us giving the large corporation permission via their NDA to “steal” the idea, ie… we must admit they may have been already working on this exact same idea, first). Large companies can far out last us with the ability to employ lawyers 2.) Other independent people with credibility have reviewed our tech under our NDA and as they are not wealthy enough to fund us personally, yet, they realize the impact our tech will have, they have wanted to become involved. None of our team is paid (yet), and we all have other jobs to pay our daily living expenses. The team shown are only those that will immediately employ upon funding, many others have equal creditability but can’t become a compensated employee right away. Credibility… if so many people took the time to understand what we have and are then willing to do whatever they can… including working for “free” I think this speaks volumes.

We are fully capable of explaining this tech to qualified individuals. It is a challenge given the limitations of word count in the contest and the limitations of what we can disclose in any public forum. The purpose of our entry is not to convince everyone, we are only looking to be a finalist where we might be given the opportunity to talk about our idea but more importantly where we might pique a potential partner’s interest enough for them to agree to meet with us offline where the full story could be told.

I’m afraid most people are so skeptical, they won’t lose their skepticism until months after the product is available in Home Depot.

People tell us all the time: “If you had a working prototype, you would have credibility.” “If it’s such a good idea, why hasn’t some billionaire already funded you?”, “If it’s such a good idea why hasn’t someone (smarter than you) already invented it?” "Why hasn't some research university verified your claims?"

The fact is we could have a fully operational prototype sitting on a table and people could see it operate, observe the gauges indicating the various input/output but still they would question everything; they would look under the table in an attempt to discover our “trick”, they would question: “are the gauges calibrated properly?”, etc… etc… The bottom line is that unless you understand how and why the process works and how and why the mechanical design is configured to deliver the conditions to take advantage of the process, the skepticism won’t end.

Instead of building a physical prototype, our plan is to computer model the key aspect design feature first. Then various intricacies can be perfected by subjecting the design to computer modeled multiple g-force. Computer modeling is much less expensive, affords greater flexibility is and much faster than physical prototypes.

When the key aspect component is finished, we will have selected optimal materials and features but more importantly computer modeled estimates of performance. The computer model can be scrutinized, tested, evaluated, challenged by many outside entities. Although as we will have a partner at this point, I doubt they will want to expose the technology to the public prematurely and having outside evaluations will be of little value. 

Next, the entire generator will be computer modeled with every system similarly scrutinized to optimize function. When all the systems are complete, it is now very easy to transfer the entire computer model to a OEM manufacturer who can modify the design to work with their particular product. 3D printing/output of components will be relatively fast and the manufacturing tooling costs relatively low.

The CAD software (off the shelf) is $2,500 per month and our version will need custom modification to include the parameters and mathematics of the "new" physics of our process of converting g-force into kinetic motion. The hardware to run the software is thousands of dollars. These costs of setting up a business to completely design a computer model generator compared to the potential commercial value are relatively small, however.

My hope is that by being selected to attend this conference in Montreal, we might meet a high net worth individual who will be invited conduct whatever level of due diligence is required or a manufacturing partner who already has computer modeling infrastructure in place to do the same, but either way, once we are allowed to explain what we have to the right entity, we will be on the way. 

Fred


Bradley Layton

Mar 20, 2018
07:43

Member


6 |
Share via:

Fred Ball

Mar 29, 2018
11:47

Member


7 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor

Bradley: Thanks for posting the 2nd law of Thermodynamics... but why? Second law of thermodynamics: In a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems increases. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the second kind (machines that spontaneously convert thermal energy into mechanical work) are impossible.

The 2nd law is valid of course. Our process doesn't involve the conversion of heat into anything, in fact heat and friction are negligible, our system is not a closed nor an isolated system; external energy input always required. Many people have these misunderstandings. I have posted all the Laws of Thermodynamics on our web site, along how others might violate one of the laws... and a short answer as to why our tech does meet the criteria to be in violation of any of the laws. http://ienergycorp.us/FAQ.html

We have already proven the mathematics behind this technology through valid scientific experimental result showing that it is possible to convert the effects of g-force into kinetic motion. The mechanical design proposed simply creates the conditions to most efficiently utilize this new discovery. If you wanted to argue that your mechanical design X would work better than ours, then that might be a valid point to debate, but the basic science is proven, it just has not yet been publically published. We are here to meet the people necessary to bring to the next step.

Fred


Sunil Pandit

Apr 30, 2019
06:54

Member


8 |
Share via:
ADD YOUR COMMENT
You must be logged into your account to post a comment.
Click on the box