free energy Rumanian letter, Fischer engine
Dennis Lee says he will start another nationwide tour kicked off with a full
page ad in the Sept 17 USA today.
A guide for how to sell power to the grid
from Rumania I got:
We offer to wide use the invention from area of hydrogen power " the
Electrohydrogen generator" (application PCT/RU98/00190 from 07.10.97). The
generator is executed as capacity filled with specially picked up electrocast and
is actuated by a mechanical drive. In the device there is a decomposition of water
on hydrogen and oxygen. The thermal energy, necessary at it, acts through the
heat exchanger from an environment or from the heat-losses sources. While using
1 kJ of mechanical work it is necessary 88 kJ of heat ( heat of marine and river
water, air, geothermal, solar or other energy). That is the Electrohydrogen
generator is the thermal pump with high specific productivity.
The expenses of energy for reception of 1 cubic meter of hydrogen make 14,42 MJ,
that in 3,4 times is less than at usual electrolysis.
Made hydrogen and oxygen can be used in engines of internal combustion, furnaces,
heating systems etc.
We invite the partners for joint study, practical use, commercialization
of the invention and sale of the licenses.
V.V. Studennikov, G.I. Kudimov
Russia, 117574, Moscow, str. Vilniusskaya, 4, apt..339, ph. (095) 421-13- 87
E-mail: ehg@... V.V. Studennikov
Russia, 115580, Moscow, Musa Dzhalil str, 27, apt. 284, ph./fax (095) 396-80-27
I got the following email concerning Tom Napiers page on heat
based free energy machines:
I'm reading the
materials that attempt to refute Dennis Lee's claims and I'm seeing
tremendous gaps in logic. The article by T.M. Napier, by the way, at
http://www.voicenet.com/~eric/dennis31.htm, is just full of holes. He
explains, for example, that, "Remember, it takes 970 Btu to convert a pound
of water into steam." But he completely misses the important point: that's
only true at sea level pressure! At much higher pressures, it takes
significantly more Btus to convert water into steam. Thus, at 218
atmospheres, we're talking tens of thousands of Btus. Mr. Napier seems to
have no clue whatsoever as to what he's talking about.
He then goes on to say, "That water needs to get 970 Btu from somewhere
before it can become steam." This is simply not true. You can turn water to
steam by lowering the pressure of the container (expanding the volume). You
don't have to add energy. Is Napier brain dead here, or am I missing
He furthermore misses the whole point about *volume* and *pressure*. As the
volume of the cylinder expands, the pressure drops, and if dropped far
enough, the steam condenses. This is a no-brainer, and yet high-and-might
Napier missed it outright!
At this point, I find Napier's rantings no more credible than Lee's. If this
is the refutation from the "educated" science mind, I tend to agree with
Lee's assessment that modern science is blind and brainwashed. I was hoping
to find more credible information on your site, but so far, all I find is
snobby-sounding hogwash from so-called scientists. How can they hope to
refute free energy charlatans if they don't even understand physics
==================== the following response is from Tom Napier:
Subject: Problems with the Fischer engine
Date: 30 Aug 1999
You have perfectly demonstrated the dilemma faced by the scientific
skeptic. He can explain a subject in rigorous detail with all the
exceptional cases and provisos mentioned; this loses the reader's interest
rather quickly. The alternative is to simplify things and to concentrate
on the main point. This suits most readers but is frequently pounced on
by the hypercritical. As the argument goes, what the skeptic wrote does
not apply in every special case therefore everything he has written can be
You say, "At much higher pressures, it takes significantly more Btus to
convert water into steam." This is simply wrong. The latent heat of
vaporization of water (also called the enthalpy of vaporization) is not
directly affected by the pressure. Raising the pressure raises the
temperature at which water boils. The latent heat is roughly inversely
proportional to the absolute temperature. (Reference, the CRC Handbook of
Physics and Chemistry.) Over normal temperature ranges this effect can
be ignored, which is what I did in my article. At 572 F (300 C), for
example, it takes about 40% LESS heat energy to vaporize a pound of water
than it does at 212 F. The 218 atmospheres you quote is the critical
pressure of water, at which point the water is at a temperature of 705 F.
It then requires negligible energy to convert it to a vapor at the same
temperature and pressure. This is very different from the "tens of
thousands of Btus" which you mention. However, as soon as the piston
moves the pressure and temperature will fall and it will require a
significant input of additional heat energy to convert the water to steam.
This energy can only come from the water itself, cooling it. As I showed
in my article, there is insufficient energy in the water to convert more
than a fraction of it to steam even if the pressure is reduced to
atmospheric pressure. Thus my article was qualitatively correct even if
the numbers were not exactly right.
Your third paragraph ("the pressure drops, and if dropped far enough,
the steam condenses.") contradicts your second one ("You can turn water to
steam by lowering the pressure of the container (expanding the volume).")
Presumably you are referring to adiabatic expansion in the first case and
to expansion at constant temperature in the second case. I worked out an
example just to check this.
Suppose you start with steam at one atmosphere and 100 C. If you lower
its pressure adiabatically to, say, half an atmosphere its temperature
will fall to approximately 45 C. The vapor pressure of water at 45 C is
about 0.093 of an atmosphere so that at 0.5 atmospheres pressure some
steam will condense. Of course the real situation is much more
complicated since the condensing steam gives out heat and at the same time
reduces the pressure. I'd probably have to write a simulation program to
see what really happens and that's too much trouble. By definition,
adiabatic expansion requires no external work but in this case you would
need to do work against atmospheric pressure to cause the expansion.
In the second case, suppose you had water at, say, 20 C. Its vapor
pressure is about 0.023 atmospheres. You can convert it to steam (or
water vapor, I'm using both terms interchangeably) at 20 C by doing work
to reduce the pressure below 0.023 atmospheres and by supplying more heat
at 20 C.
By the way, you have to be very careful what you mean by "lowering the
pressure." It can mean allowing a gas, e.g. steam, to expand and to do
work, as in a steam engine. It can also mean applying an external source
of energy to reduce the pressure of the gas. The first converts heat
energy into mechanical energy while the second converts mechanical work
into heat energy by cooling the gas. If you want to convert the steam
back into water (so you can pump it back into the boiler) you either have
to cool it or compress it or both.
There is no magic way of completing the cycle in a steam engine which
can make it more efficient than the thermodynamic limit given by the input
and output temperatures. Neither is there any way to get round the second
law of thermodynamics and to extract net energy from the environment.
Tom Napier (Whose neurons have not yet all atrophied.)
Eric Krieg eric@...