Introduction

This document presents simplified qualitative designs of four publicly known inventions that appear to be producing free energy. The underlying principles of each have been explained enough to make them clear to the layman. It is expected that there is enough information for a capable and well-equipped hobbyist to replicate the technology. The original inventors, clever though they were, kept their work and discoveries a secret, leaving others to speculate what was done.

The four technologies could be referred to as the magnet motor, water heating by sound waves, water heating by cavitation, and mechanical water cracking. While there are four technologies presented, there are only two elemental principles involved: magnetism in one, and mechanical resonance in the other three.

Magnetism

The free energy potential of magnetism seems obvious. Unusually strong permanent magnets are readily available, and weigh considerably less than the amount of weight they can pick up. It’s not unreasonable to find a 7 pound magnet that can lift 500 pounds. It is easy to imagine a carriage that can be rolled over a 500 pound steel weight, so that there is space between the top of the carriage and the top of the weight. If we place the 7 pound magnet on the carriage, and then roll it over the weight, the magnet will lift the 500 pounds up to itself. We will have only done the work of lifting the 7 pound magnet up onto the carriage, and pushing the carriage forward. The magnet will then do the work of lifting 500 pounds, which is much more work than we’ve just described.

This is a very simple example of free energy. The magnet is doing work that we don’t have to supply. That this isn’t openly discussed as free energy is very disappointing. Granted, the resulting work is complicated by the fact that after the magnet lifts the steel, one has to exert at least 500 pounds of work removing it from the steel to accomplish the next lift. That is a complication, but it does not negate the original accomplishment.

Magnet Motor

The magnet motor is a motor that capitalizes on the magnetic attraction and repulsion of a permanent magnet by an iron core electromagnet, if that electromagnet is properly actuated, combined with the ability of a moving magnet to generate current in a coil of wire. Inventors to date include Troy Reed of Oklahoma, Lou Brits and John Christie of Australia (as Lutec, with patents), and in some fashion different from this description, Joseph Newman of Louisiana.

In figure [pre-lock], R is a rotor, a disk that is free to rotate on its center point against the backdrop of the page upon which it is drawn. D, E, F, and G are permanent magnets affixed to this disk. Note that they are 90 degrees apart, and that opposing magnets D and F both have their north poles pointing away from the axis, while opposing magnets E and G both have their north poles pointing toward the axis.

A, B, and C are iron core electromagnets/coils affixed to the stator, the chassis upon which rotor R rotates. Note that they are 120 degrees from each other, and while they can be referred to as electromagnets, they serve a purpose in an active sense as well as a passive sense. Active, in that if a current is passed through the winding around coil A in the appropriate direction, it can be used to generate a magnetic field which opposes the field of the permanent magnet nearest to it on the rotor, causing that magnet to be repelled, and causing the rotor to turn. Passive, in that if no current is passed through the winding around a coil on the stator, the permanent magnet nearest to it on the rotor will be forcefully attracted to the iron core of that coil. While being drawn toward that coil, the motion of the magnet will induce a current through the winding of that coil which can be collected in a capacitor for use later.

Figure [pre-lock] shows the first state for consideration, a balanced state where no magnet is locked in attraction to an iron core coil. Magnet D is located 15 degrees counterclockwise of coil A, while magnet G is located 15 degrees clockwise of coil C. They are balanced against each other. Likewise, magnet E is 45 degrees counterclockwise of coil B, while magnet F is 45 degrees clockwise of coil B, again both balancing against each other.

The slightest nudge of the rotor clockwise will find magnet D closer to coil A than magnet G is to coil C, upsetting the balance and pulling the rotor in a clockwise direction. The same nudge pushed magnet E closer to coil B, and magnet F further from coil B, upsetting that balance as well, adding to the force pulling the rotor in a clockwise direction.

Now the alignment of the magnetic poles becomes relevant. While the south pole of magnet E is approaching coil B, it will induce a current in the winding of coil B that would resist the approach of the magnet, were the current actively applied. Likewise, while the north pole of magnet F is leaving coil B, it will induce a current in the winding of coil B that would resist the departure of the magnet, were the current actively applied. Given that magnet E is approaching with a south pole, and magnet F is departing with a north pole, they are working together to induce the same current in coil B.

The distances are different, but the same thing is happening at each coil. Coil C is being departed by the south pole of magnet G, while being approached by the north pole of magnet F. Coil A is being departed by the south pole of magnet E, while being approached by the north pole of magnet D. All the current being induced in these coils can be collected and stored in a capacitor.

Figure [locked] is the next state in the cycle. Here, magnet D is locked in a state of attraction to coil A. Magnet E is 30 degrees counterclockwise from the iron core of coil B, while magnet G is 30 degrees clockwise from coil C, balancing it out. F is in a state of balance at 60 degrees clockwise from coil B, and 60 degrees counterclockwise from coil C. Magnets E and G are both 90 degrees from coil A, in opposite directions, balancing each other out. Given that we want our rotor to continue moving in a clockwise direction, the only thing required is enough current passed actively through the winding of coil A to repel magnet D. By incorporating a commutator (a mechanically timed switch) into our design, we will now switch from collecting voltage from all three coils as in the transition from pre-lock to locked states, to actively passing voltage through one of the coils (from a capacitor/battery combination) while still collecting voltage from the other two coils.

Now let’s consider several potential states of coil A. If we pass a certain amount of current through the winding, an amount we’ll just call ’10’, without any care or need for answering the question “10 what?”, then we’ll produce an electromagnet that will repel the permanent magnet on the rotor with some unimportant amount of force. If we pass the same amount of current through, but in the opposite direction, apparently now calling it ‘-10’, we’ll produce an attractive electromagnet which will pull the permanent magnet towards itself. Thirdly, if we pass no current through, obviously being ‘0’, the electromagnetic contribution is null, but the magnet is still attracted to the iron core, so it will pull toward the coil. This logic would imply that there is some amount of current, we’ll say 2 or 3, that will not make a powerfully repulsive electromagnet, but will make the usual ferromagnetic attractiveness of the iron core to the permanent magnet null.

We can apply that amount of current to coil A while magnet D meets and passes coil A. While magnet D is experiencing this “magnetic indifference” to coil A, very soon magnet E will be closer to coil B than magnet G is to coil C, and magnet F will be closer to coil C than it is to coil B, all propelling the rotor in a clockwise direction.

This magnetic indifference is necessary until the rotor reaches the state depicted in figure [post-lock]. At this point, magnet D is 15 degrees clockwise from coil A, magnet E is 15 degrees counterclockwise from coil B, and coil C is centered between magnets F and G, 45 degrees from each. Everything is in balance again, and once magnet E gets any closer to coil B, it will pull the rotor forward, starting the process over again.

According to the explanation, for 15 degrees of rotation, no active current is needed, and all three coils are having current induced in them by all the magnets on the rotor. For the next 15 degrees of rotation, one coil must have some amount of active current passed through it to repel the permanent magnet, while the remaining coils on the stator are still having current induced in them by the permanent magnets. The cycle then repeats. Half the time, no current is needed, and the other half of the time, one of the coils needs current.

The figures supplied here show a motor with three coils and four magnets. However, more of each could be used. In a motor with 100 magnets and 99 coils, for the first half of the aforementioned cycle, all 99 coils would be collecting induced current. On the second half of the cycle, 1 coil would need active current to repel a magnet, and the remaining 98 would be collecting induced current. If the example given doesn’t produce an over unity scenario, it’s plausible that there is a threshold where one is eventually reached.

This explanation could also be enhanced by minor changes not explored here. For example, what effect would bifilar or trifilar windings have on the passive and active states of the process? Is there some way flyback voltage exists in the process that could be harnessed to increase efficiency?

The most relevant question is this: Is the wattage generated passively by coils A, B, and C during the transition from state [pre-lock] to [locked], combined with the wattage generated passively by coils B and C during the transition from [locked] to [post-lock] greater than the active wattage needed by coil A to repel permanent magnet D during the transition from [locked] to [post-lock]?

Mechanical Resonance

Another principle which has been exploited in a free energy device is mechanical resonance. Mechanical resonance is the tendency of a mechanical system to oscillate with greater amplitude when the frequency of those oscillations match the system’s natural frequency of vibration. A water molecule is a mechanical system, and its fundamental vibrations are described by wavenumber, wavelength, and frequency in figure [vibrations]. By adding energy to the molecule’s inherent vibrations, we can increase their amplitude for the purpose of boiling the water, or breaking the molecular bonds to separate the hydrogen and oxygen.

v1, O-H symmetric stretching

3450 cm-1

2.898 µm

1.0343e+8 MHz

v2, H-O-H bending

1640 cm-1

6.097 µm

4.9166e+7 MHz

v3, O-H asymmetric stretching

3615 cm-1

2.766 µm

1.0837e+8 MHz

Sonic Water Boiler

Peter Davey of New Zealand demonstrated the boiling of water via sound waves, using a spherical transducer and an appropriately shaped and tuned bell. The technology is unique in how little energy it requires as compared to conventional boiling. In figure [Davey], A is a transducer, a spherical device that can be set to vibrate or pulsate at a given frequency. B is a tuned shroud or bell that is a set distance from A, and parallel to the surface of A. C is the gap between the two.

For the device to work, A must be made to vibrate at a harmonic of the three frequencies given for liquid water. B is meant to reflect the sound waves back to A, and so must be tuned to naturally vibrate at the same frequency (or a harmonic thereof). C is the gap between the two, and is crucial. Given the speed of sound in water, C must be an integer multiple of the wavelength of sound in water for the frequency in question. This way, the sound waves leaving A and reflecting back from B will meet more waves coming from A and produce a standing wave. This will create compressions and expansions in the water molecules themselves, and not just slosh them back and forth. These vibrations will produce an increase in the amplitude of the vibrations of the water molecules, which we experience as an increase in temperature. While A and B are presented as being spherical and hemispherical in shape (as in Davey’s design), other shapes could be explored. It is plausible that giving both a conical shape would allow the gap (C) to be manually adjusted while keeping the surfaces of A and B parallel to each other.

Cavitation Water Boiler

Water heating by cavitation has been demonstrated by James Griggs of Rome, Georgia. By intentionally creating a water hammer situation via cavitation, water is boiled, creating heat of more energy than the electricity used to run the process.

Figure [cavitation] illustrates James Griggs’ device. Item A is a solid metal disk. B is one of twelve cavities bored into the disk, drilling from the edge of the disk towards the axis. The drilled hole is less than the thickness of disk A. For example, if A is 12 inches in diameter, then it may be 3 inches thick, and hole B would be 1 inch in diameter, centered between the two flat sides of the disk. Finally, C is an enclosed drum, inside which A is able to spin on an axis (not shown), and from which, A is kept equidistant. The whole device has plumbing such that water is brought into the space between A and C. The water is heated by the spinning motion of A inside C and removed from the device for use.

The space between A and C, including the 12 cavities like B, is filled with water. A is spun at increasing speed, until the centrifugal force creates a drop in pressure at the deepest part of B. A cavitation event occurs, sending a shockwave down B toward the circumference of A. Said shockwave bounces off of the inside diameter of C, back down B toward the origin of the shockwave. The return of the shockwave adds to the imminent implosion event, which, encouraged by the low pressure area, is followed by another cavitation event and accompanying shockwave, repeating the cycle. In addition to this activity, parts of the shockwave are close enough to the walls of B that instead of bouncing back down the length of B, they get trapped between the outer edge of A and C.

These are the relevant dimensions: First, the speed in rpm of A required to produce the low pressure condition in B which precipitates cavitation is probably a lower bound value. Secondly, the distance from the inside diameter of C to the outermost diameter of A must be an integer multiple of the wavelength of sound for the given frequency (the same frequency as the Davey device) in water, ensuring that waves trapped here will be standing waves. Thirdly, the distance from the inside diameter of C to the deepest part of B must also be an integer multiple of the wavelength of sound in water for that frequency, for the same reason. Ideally, though probably not crucial, if C and A were each tuned vibrationally to a harmonic of the appropriate vibration frequencies of the water molecule, the whole process would probably benefit.

Electrical Water Cracker

Electrical water cracking is the breaking down of water into its components of hydrogen and oxygen via fatigue of the bonds of the water molecules using the electric force, as opposed to the ionization that occurs during conventional electrolysis. This process has been demonstrated independently by Stanley Meyer (including a patent), Denny Klein, and Daniel Dingel.

In figure [water cracker], A+ and B- are electrodes or plates placed in a bath of distilled water. A high voltage potential will be cyclically applied to the plates, with the water bath acting as the dielectric in an ad hoc capacitor. By cyclically, we mean A will receive a positive charge while B receives a negative charge, then the potential will be discharged, then the process will repeat. The plates should be insulated, as the intent is to subject the water to an electric field, and not actual current flow.

Starting at the bottom of the figure and moving up, the cyclical charge applied to the plates causes the alignment of water molecules as shown, with the two hydrogen atoms turning toward the negative plate, and the oxygen atom turning toward the positive plate. If the frequency of the charging and discharging of the plates is a harmonic of the appropriate vibration frequencies of the water molecule, then with each successive charging of the plates, the oxygen and hydrogen atoms are not only pointed toward their respective attractors, but are also drawn, or stretched toward them as well. This process may benefit most from a harmonic of only the v1 and v2 vibrations (symmetric stretching and bending) of the water molecule. The atoms are pulled further and further apart with each charge cycle until they are liberated from the molecule. The hydrogen can then be used as fuel.

Where are the Devices?

At one point, a working model of Jim Griggs’ cavitation device was reportedly installed and used in a gymnasium, a dry cleaning plant, the Atlanta Police Department, and a fire station. So few examples of that device and no current examples of the other devices makes it easy to pass them off as urban legends and crackpottery. In spite of convincing demonstrations and numerous patents, the technologies have failed to become commonplace. This failure can be attributed to the secrecy of the inventors, the myopia of society, and suppression by the energy industry.

The inventors appear to all be lone actors, capable do-it-yourselfers in their garages, fashioning clever mechanisms with readily available tools and materials. Like any owner of “proprietary information”, they carefully divulge as little as possible, only enough to obtain a patent or narrate a demonstration. They could choose to disseminate the complete technical details of their discoveries so that other do-it-yourselfers could replicate their results. In the pursuit of profits, they have chosen not to do so.

Society in general has been trained to be close-minded to anything claiming to be as revolutionary as free energy. Anyone who has heard the laws of thermodynamics is proud to quote them as soon as anyone else starts to suggest such a thing. Anyone claiming to have invented a free energy device is quickly dismissed as a crackpot or charlatan, and to be fair, there is no lack of either. Anything purported to be a free energy device would most likely be leveraging a novel, previously untapped phenomenon. Such a phenomenon should at least be heard out and explored before being disregarded.

Suppression by the energy industry should require no explanation. The energy industry exists to seek profits, so the incentive they have to buy out, harass out, or in any way suppress competing technologies is obvious. Evidence of several examples of such activity is readily available to any minimally interested researcher.

Ideally, a group of capable do-it-yourselfers will openly collaborate on one or more of these implementations until a successful reproduction is made. Then, creating an explicit set of instructions for others to perfectly replicate the device and results should be trivial. The old model of the lone inventor hoarding his knowledge to capitalize and profiteer is counterproductive to true progress.

The Laws of Thermodynamics

If there is any chance these are actually free energy devices, the obvious question becomes, “What about the laws of thermodynamics?” Regarding magnetism, it’s hard to feel compelled to provide answers. Magnets obviously do work without a required equal or greater investment. Furthermore, no one has provided a respectable explanation for exactly how magnets work, much less, how they respect the laws of thermodynamics. It’s not clear what one would need to argue against. Suffice it to say that the output of a successful magnet motor will be a function of the strength of the magnets it contains.

Regarding mechanical resonance, and the apparent free boiling or cracking of water, here is a theory. An increase in the temperature of an object is nothing more than an increase in the amplitude of the inherent vibrations of that object. From the standpoint of thermodynamics, the transfer of heat is an increase in the amplitude of the vibrations of some target, via proximity (conduction, convection, radiation) to higher amplitude vibrations of some source. For example, a stove top burner (the source) produces the goal amplitude, and a pot of water (the target) sits on it at a lower amplitude until it eventually catches up. Until the water boils, the burner is producing heat that is lost and wasted. This is a typical brute-force heat transfer dependent on amplitude, and the laws of thermodynamics as currently stated apply here.

However, with a proper understanding of frequency, we can raise the amplitude of the vibrations of a target material with lower amplitude vibrations of a source. Consider a parent pushing a child in a playground swing. The amplitude of the swings of the child is higher than the amplitude of the pushes received from the parent, yet the amplitude of the swinging child continues to increase. The requirement is that the frequency of the pushes of the parent and the oscillations of the swing must harmonize. Such harmony is a specific, precise event not typically found by accident.

The frequencies of the vibrations of a source and target are not specifically addressed by the laws of thermodynamics. Given that a resonant vibration may be hard to pinpoint for a complex material, it stands to reason that frequency has been largely ignored. But just as discussions of elemental concepts can involve idealized parameters like an “ideal gas”, if we constrain our target to an ideal material like distilled water, we can discuss the vibrational frequencies of that material ideally. The laws of thermodynamics are not being disputed. It would appear that while they are accurate as they are, they are ultimately not complete. It would appear they need to be amended to include the very rare scenario where a lower amplitude energy source can increase the amplitude of a target if their frequencies are in harmony.