Sign up ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free.

Its makers say that it's a highly efficient motor because it resonates with (what they call) "Essential Energy", which is free energy that is everywhere in space. (I think that’s just a different name for Dark Energy which somehow they are managing to disturb with the coils of the motor, and when it disturbs back, a bit of power is generated in the coil).

I’ve listened to a radio interview of the makers, and they sad that a small motor powered by a 9v battery ran for about 2 hours with enough torque that they couldn’t stop it with their own hands.

Is that what is really happening? Is it revolutionary? Or just bull… just a motor that consumes less energy since its coils are turned off half of the time?

Also, strange things happen on the proximities of a running motor (a similar motor will start running even though it has no power, but it will run slower than the first one). Caused by the same thing that wireless cell phone chargers use to work?

share|cite|improve this question
Essentail energy is not a physics term. Thus it is invented to gain from the prestige of physics. Forget it, it is just a trick to get at your money. – Arnold Neumaier Mar 15 '12 at 17:11
Agreed. ANY time someone has a "new" device that is either 100% efficient, or violates the laws of thermodynamics, and they claim that you can get in on the "ground floor" by making an investment in a new company, it's definitely time to hold onto your wallet very tightly. – David White Aug 6 at 20:50

4 Answers 4

up vote 7 down vote accepted

A total lack of anything in the peer review literature is a warning sign. A website that explains the operating principle of the motor as arising from disinverted Aristotlean metaphysics is something else entirely.

share|cite|improve this answer
So, when ignoring the disinverted metaphysics nonsense, I end up with just a simple motor with a fancy name? – GustavoFSx Jul 11 '11 at 13:46
@ GustavoFSx: I don't know. Their site does not provide sufficient cogent technical information. – Richard Terrett Jul 11 '11 at 14:34
I don't mean that in a 'well, you never know' sense. In the impeccably enunciated words of Carl Sagan, 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence', and well, their website has a dearth of even ordinary evidence to characterise this motor. Moreover, the efficiencies they list here: are actually fairly underwhelming when compared to those listed for commercial motors (that do not claim to tap into vacuum energy or whatever) in this very comprehensive study: (pp. 14-16) – Richard Terrett Jul 11 '11 at 16:02

I always look up when perpetual motion type machines come up, i.e. more energy out than in. I also asked a question here on the possibility of milking energy out of the vacuum. It is always possible that by serendipity somebody may hit the pot of gold of energy, never mind how he/she interprets it. If a machine gives more energy output than input, the theory will be found soon enough.

I found a demonstration of a motor, and a web site.

On the website they say that a commercial product will be ready by 2009. It is now 2011 and this is the first time I hear of this. Hmmm is all I say. There is nothing like the market to clear the wheat from the chaff, so I would say this is chaff. This is supposed to be the users forum, and not many beating a path to the door.

share|cite|improve this answer
You can purchase a motor kit for 320 USD, which consists of a coil former, two ring magnets, a reed switch and a toggle switch. and a wooden base. I d say hat one can buy that material for about 10 to 20 Dollars everywhere. – Georg Jul 11 '11 at 15:12
@Georg one more reason to down grade the thing. A better mousetrap has people flocking, let alone a free soup one :). – anna v Jul 11 '11 at 15:19
But it's not intended to be perpetual, just more efficient using that "energy bounce" created by shutting down the coil. That anomaly is shown here link. What is the real reason for this power peek? Maybe that's what makes the motor more efficient since this energy is not wasted. – GustavoFSx Jul 11 '11 at 16:07
"""energy bounce" created by shutting down the coil. "" This is very old pysics! I see two possibilities re Your person: either You want to disseminate this nonsense, or You are a silly boy. – Georg Jul 11 '11 at 17:14
@GustavoFSx In the video they claim more energy out than in. The link you give is nonsense as far as energy balances. Of course the magnetic field will discharge and volts are not a conserved quantity. Maybe you should take some real physics courses. – anna v Jul 11 '11 at 17:55

The "tests" spoken of are meaningless. Things like apparent torque, fans that "usually require 60 or 80W" are deceptive. These are all subjective and meaningless. They are likely to convince the naive but not the expert.

Show real data, energy in and energy out measured by agreed standards. Then I will take it seriously. The burden of proof is on the developers.

share|cite|improve this answer

The claim you cite from the radio does not claim anything relevant:

A small motor powered by a 9v battery ran for about 2 hours with enough torque that they couldn’t stop it with their own hands.

There is a large choice of gear motors available, you could choose a small one (as they report) that runs on 12V usually. It will use less energy when run on 9V.

Now, what kinid of battery capacity was available?

There are the common 9V block alkaline bateries, but it's not stated they used them. There are better 9V batteries, 9V block lithium batteries are of the same shape, but a lot more capacity than alkaline. Also, there are larger standard 9V batteries, like the P99.
(I can not easily compare the capacitys of batteries because the useable capacity depends on the current used. And that depends on the motor we do not know.

Now, what does the motor do?

Almost nothing.
It just keeps spinning with no load, except when someone tries to demonstrate or confirm that it could not be stopped by hand. We can assume the fraction of the two hours that was used to hold the motor by hand was short, because it hurs quickly when the motor does not stop as claimed.

During all other times, it turns its mechanical parts, that do need some energy for turning. But without load on the gear, these losses are small. We can assume it's a gear motor, becauses it is small and has high torque. The gear is normaly an integral part of the motor, so for the user its just a motor with high torque and running relatively slow.

Oh, and when one tries to hold the axis of a motor by hand, it get's much harder the smaler the diameter of the axis is - and small motors have a small axis.

As written, and taking the context in mind, one could argue that the claim is deceptive.

share|cite|improve this answer

protected by Qmechanic Jan 24 '13 at 21:52

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality answers, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site.

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.