Magnetic Power?

[Overman]

Hey all, in need of help here,

This sounds bogus to me, (http://www.magneticpowerinc.com/) and flips off all of the BS detector flags, but would love some help of people more experienced in the field to see if

A) anything like this is even remotely physically possible

and

B) if not, please assist in help researching this company for fraud/its origins...

Thanks!

[Freethinker]

:bs:

From the site:

GENIE generators (as well as other self-sustaining magnetic systems) are being designed to operate continuously, without fuel. The principle energy source is the Zero Point Field, which permeates the universe and is abundant, renewable and pollution free.

[wahrheit]

:bs: x :bs:


Sounds similar to the Steorn stuff.

[The Man]

Unfortunately I can not open .pdf files on this computer so I will have to look at most of their documentation at some other time in order to give you more information. Certainly “nondestructive interference of energy” is a common physical phenomena and simply refers to the in phase superposition of waves. No energy surplus can be generated by constructive (or nondestructive) interference. Zero Point Energy is also a common phenomenon of quantum physics. However it is governed by the conservation of energy and the uncertainty principle. Energy can be “borrowed” from the “Zero Point Field” but due to conservation of energy it must be “repaid”. The temporal and spacial limits applied to that “energy loan” (fortunately no interest is applied to that loan) is determined by the uncertainty principle, the more energy that is “borrowed” the sooner it must be “repaid” and the smaller the spacial scale to which that energy can be applied. It is a common ploy to try and misapply established physical concepts in order to justify a perpetual motion machine. They claim this is not a perpetual motion machine and try to adhere to the conservation of energy by saying “They are certainly converting some form of energy.”. They attribute that energy source to the “Zero Point Field”, which would violate conservation of energy and the uncertainty principle. Even if such a non-local “borrowing” of energy was possible from the “Zero Point Field” it still must be repaid somewhere. So, your home zero point energy generator might only be stealing energy from your neighbors zero point energy generator and theirs from yours. If one chooses to steal one should at least know from whom (or what) they are stealing.

[Leftus]

After a cursory glance at a few of the PDFs it's almost impossible to really debunk because they don't say how they are going to do it just that they might be able to do it. They make the assumption that what they are doing is possible without stating how beyond revolutionary and previously unknown or whatever and then base everything else off of that. I mean, I assume that magnates are going to be involved but they don't even say that much.

For example :

A revolutionary breakthrough by Magnetic Power Inc., called GENIE™ (Generating Electricity by Nondestructive Interference of Energy) promises to make possible the elimination of the need for batteries of every variety.

You have the important claim, the revolutionary breakthrough, assumed to be true and the possible outcome to be puffery.

Beyond that, I could not find a trademark for GENIE™ that matches this claim. So either the trademark hasn't been processed yet or it's been rejected, or it was never filed. It's also another Zero Point Energy claim which by itself is not compelling without evidence of which this fellow is scant.

[Overman]

A short Google search of the owner turns up the same type of thing (different source of Energy) in 2005 (http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2005/06/zero_point_ener.html)

And here we are spouting the same stuff in 2004 (http://www.americanantigravity.com/mark-goldes-article.shtml)

And here we find a pretty good discussion of this guy pulling the same tricks in 06 (http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=8490&st=15)

[3bodyproblem]

However it is governed by the conservation of energy and the uncertainty principle. Energy can be “borrowed” from the “Zero Point Field” but due to conservation of energy it must be “repaid”. The temporal and spacial limits applied to that “energy loan” (fortunately no interest is applied to that loan) is determined by the uncertainty principle, the more energy that is “borrowed” the sooner it must be “repaid” and the smaller the spacial scale to which that energy can be applied.

"And if elected, I er, Mayor Joe Quimby, pledge to "repay" the, ah, er outstanding "energy loan" to the ZPF within 4 years. By close of the,ah er, fiscal year 2012, we intend to be running a surplus, with zero, um, ah, er, uncertainty! Thank you Professor Frink!"
:D

Magnetic Power! "Wave of the Future, Wave of the Future" show me the blueprints

[The Man]

Zero Point Fiduciary energy (ZPF energy); maybe we should apply for a patent. Although I would want to at least charge some interest. Unfortunately if dispatched like normal government fiscal responsibly it would be more like Zero Payment Fiduciary energy and they would wind up with about a 10 trillion megawatt deficit, but then we could foreclose.

[Stout]

Is it just me..or does the search function on this site leave a lot to be desired ? Like functionality for instance. I've been trying to find a thread(s) on ZPE for about 12 hours now and i finally resorted to using the google, and this is the thread it returned.

Yesterday i had "some guy" who seems reasonably knowledgeable and intelligent talking up this idea and as much as I posed that it's probably cowspoo, he seemed rather convinced by a book he'd read on the topic and was spouting the usual "suppressed by big oil, used on the stealth bomber, yadayada" lines that "some other guy" used on me last year re that steron nonsense.

The problem is....Quantum mechanics is way over my head.

I've looked at several websites promoting this technology ( hey...look...Stan Meyers ) and they're pretty convincing, I expected them to be though.

I can't seem to find anything anti, or anything that debunks this idea and I'm looking for a link to email this guy that's convincing enough that maybe, just maybe, he'll reconsider his position.

[The Man]

It really just comes down to the basic physical principle of conservation of energy; you could try searching for that. Unfortunately, for those of a conspiratorially inclined nature little can be expressed that is not evident of that conspiracy. Even if such over unity (more energy out then in) devices were possible it would just mean that the extra energy has to come from somewhere else, a concession even made by the author of the website presented in the OP. So the ZPF would just mask where you might be stealing your extra energy from. Taking energy from the SUN no problem, it has enough to go around, taking energy from your neighbors pacemaker, your local hospital or even the aircraft flying overhead, big problems. Such devices, if they were possible would only tend to destabilize world affairs, with everyone trying to take energy from everyone else. Free energy is a misnomer, everything has a cost, but cheap, clean, reliable energy is not only a theoretical possibility but also a future necessity. Plants are very efficient at capturing and storing solar energy, so efficient in fact that our current fossil fuel dominated energy system is merely utilizing that stored energy form long ago. The real physics are there, we just need to learn and utilize them so we can cutout all the wasteful and polluting processes in between.

[Stout]

Hi The Man

I hear you on the need to reduce waste, in fact, I hear it everywhere but what I'm not seeing is anything more than a bandaid-on-a-brain-tumour attempt at reducing energy need.

I'm all up for "alternative" energy sources, but I feel it's a long long way off before we wean ourselves off fossil fuels.

Which is why I can understand the attraction to ideas such as ZPE and it's quite simple to imagine that such a device ( the guy I was talking to was talking about bucket sized generators in everybody's house, supplying enough power to run not only the household, but power the electric cars as well.

I'm going to have to look int this whole taking energy away from other sources idea, I didn't get the impression that that's what ZPE is all about, but I only briefly scanned the "pro" sites. I guess I'm thinking that this is somehow akin to some sort of nuclear reaction, without all that bothersome nuclear waste.

[CaveDave]

[TONGUE IN CHEEK DERAIL]
... They make the assumption that what they are doing is possible without stating how beyond revolutionary and previously unknown or whatever and then base everything else off of that. I mean, I assume that magnates are going to be involved but they don't even say that much....


From NetDict:
Magnate \Mag"nate\, [F. magnat, L. (pl.) magnates, magnati, fr.
magnus great. See {Master}.]
1. A person of rank; a noble or grandee; a person of
influence or distinction in any sphere; -- used mostly of
prominent business executives; as, an industrial magnate.
--Macaulay.
[1913 Webster +PJC]

2. One of the nobility, or certain high officers of state
belonging to the noble estate in the national
representation of Hungary, and formerly of Poland.
[1913 Webster]

____________________________________________

magnate
n : a very wealthy or powerful businessman; "an oil baron" [syn:
{baron}, {big businessman}, {business leader}, {king}, {mogul},
{power}, {top executive}, {tycoon}]



...
Yesterday i had "some guy" who seems reasonably knowledgeable and intelligent talking up this idea and as much as I posed that it's probably cowspoo, he seemed rather convinced by a book he'd read on the topic and was spouting the usual "suppressed by big oil, used on the stealth bomber, yadayada" lines that "some other guy" used on me last year re that steron nonsense.
...

Perhaps the magnates were not attracted to the concept?:D
[/TONGUE IN CHEEK DERAIL]

Dave :boxedin:

[ben m]

Aha, that's the company of Mark Goldes. He's been pushing crackpot schemes for over a decade, and he's fooled more people than the average crackpot. His claims include both free energy and room-temperature superconductors ("Ultraconductors"). His achievements include zero working prototypes, zero refereed papers, and zero watts delivered to the grid, but more importantly he has a slick corporate-looking web page and spends a lot of time posting comments on various web forums.

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/1998/07/13894

[marting]

Perhaps the company is looking to take in a few more investors..

:)

[TheDaver]

WRT to actual topic, that being the most recent Goldes scam… well, I can assure you that it’s a scam. Think of magnets like exotic springs. You push against them with the right force in the right way, and they push back. They store and release energy, and they can translate it (e.g. kinetic to electric), but they aren’t some sort of magical source of it.

[Stout]

Hi all

I did a bit of searching on Mark Goldes, and came up with this link.

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=32984&

In asking somebody else about the guy who was talking about ZPE, I found out that he's a web surfing guy who hates big oil and is therefore prone to accept anything that might give said big oil a black eye.

So if that's what's going on here, I'll see how he reacts to the link. If he turns out to be woo, then I probably wont bother with him as he's someone I don't really want to develop an adversarial relationship with.

[Mark Goldes]

Readers with open minds might take a look at anotherviewpoint.net

There are a number of articles in refereed journals about our Ultraconductors. These are polymer ambient temperature materials that will do everything a superconductor can do, at ambient temperature and pressure. A partial list can be found on the Ultraconductor website. There are three issued U.S. Patents and a large pending appliication we are dividing into ten more. These materials have been independently reproduced at the Ioffe Institute in St. Petersburg, Russia, which stated they found them to have zero resistance. They have been tested to 9 Tesla at the Bar Ilan University with no loss of conductivity. They were reproduced the the U.S. Air Force by Fractal Systems following the completion of four Small Business Innovation Contracts, including a highly competitive Phase II. Now that funding to resume commercialization is on the horizon, they will be developed into wire. A one to two micron diameter Ultraconducting region will always carry 50 Amperes. That can result in wire a small fraction of the diameter of a human hair carrying high current!

Skepticism about our energy work is certainly understandable. However, before this summer is over, after long delays primarily resulting from a lack of adequate finance, we anticipate a self-running prototype will be evaluated by EarthTech International. It will then be brought to a National Laboratory. Demonstration devices and toys are likely to be in the market within a year. The article at magneticpowerinc.com entitled Perpetual Commotion may be of interest.

[Spud1k]

Can you give any quick references for these journal articles?

[Mister Earl]

Mark, have you built a single prototype yet that has shown returns? If so, have you enlisted the assistance from anyone with a PHD in physics? Why or why not? And finally, is your home attached to the local power grid, or is it run by one of these prototypes?

#EDIT: Also, I would like to add that having a patent doesn't mean validation. The requirement for a patent is uniqueness, not viability.

[Mister Earl]

After reading again what you have posted, Mark, it seems that you are claiming that you have invented a superconducting wire at room temperature? Have you had anyone in the United States examine this? Did you publish your results in any kind of peer-reviewed journal?

[Cuddles]

There are a number of articles in refereed journals about our Ultraconductors. These are polymer ambient temperature materials that will do everything a superconductor can do, at ambient temperature and pressure.

Firstly, I'd just like to say pull the other one, it has bells on it. Secondly, what is it with woos having to make up silly new words? Ultraconductors? Why? They're already called superconductors.

Skepticism about our energy work is certainly understandable.

...snip...

toys are likely to be in the market within a year.

Right. The biggest advance in electronics since superconductors were discovered coupled with the biggest advance in power since power was discovered and what is the first thing you do? Toys. Damn right the skepticism is understandable.

[marting]

Skepticism about our energy work is certainly understandable.

My first boss told an interesting story to me back in 1971. It seems his first job, decades earlier, was to make a power generator "work." The "generator" inventor had latched onto a businessman who funded the program. This was, of course, an over energy, electromagnetic mechanical device where magnets were "flipped" at "just the right times." The businessman had invested about $1M (real money back then) and build many protos but they always needed another in order to "fine tune" the device. There's a reason physical laws are called "laws." My boss quickly started looking for a new job.

Some things don't change.

[marting]

Firstly, I'd just like to say pull the other one, it has bells on it. Secondly, what is it with woos having to make up silly new words? Ultraconductors? Why? They're already called superconductors.


Yep. Bells and Whistles, woo-woo!

It's a big red flag that impacts the credibility of the superconductor effort. I give 'em a pass on the "Ultraconductors" though. It's pretty standard marketing stuff. At this point the company is what is being marketed rather than an actual product.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_sky_law

[Mark Goldes]

Technical Papers and Supporting Research
1. Interpretation of Large Room Temperature Diamagnetism at Low Magnetic Fields in Films of Oxidized Atactic Polypropylene in Terms of Superconducting Current Loops [1]. D..M. Eagles [2]
2. Observation of Extremely Large, Field-Dependent Diamagnetism at 300 K in Certain Disordered Organic Materials [3]. D.N. Rogachev et al. [4]
3. Room Temperature Superconductivity in Films of Certain Polymers [5]. L.N. Grigorov et al.
4. Superconductivity at Room Temperature in Oxidized Polyproylene [6]. V.M. Arkhangorodskii et al. . A.F. Ioffe Physicotechnical Institute, Acadamy of Sciences of the USSR, Leningrad
5. Highly Conducting State in Oxidized Polypropylene Films [7]. V.M. Arkhangorodskii et al. . A.F. Ioffe Physicotechnical Institute, Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Leningrad.
6. Possible High-current Superconductivity at Room Temperature in Oxidized Polypropylene and other Quasi One-dimensional Systems [8]. Eagles D..
7. Observation of Extremely Large, Field-Dependent Diamagnetism at 300 K in Certain Disordered Organic Materials. (Same title as paper in Journal of Superconductivity which proceeded from this poster paper, presented in Switzerland) [9] .
8. Evidence of a "Supra-Conducting" Electron Liquid Crystal Phase in Insulating Organic Matrix: A New State of Matter? [10]
-----------------------------------
[1] Journal of Superconductivity: Incorporating Novel Magnetism, Vol.15, No.4, August 2002
[2] 19, Holt Road, Harold Hill, Romford, Essex RM3 8PN, England
[3] Journal of Superconductivity: Incorporating Novel Magnetism, vol. 13, No. 6, 2000
[4] Vysokomol. Soedin. B 35 (1993) 1921 [Polymer Science 35 (1993) 1625]. Polymer Science vol. 31, No 11, 1993
[5] JETP Lett. 51 No. 4, 25 Feb 1990, 258].(1989)
[6] JETP Lett. Vol 51, No 1, 10 Jan. 1990, 67-72. 603 [Sov. Phys. Doklady 34 (1989) 1016].
[7] Pis'ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 51 (1990) 56 [JETP Lett. 51 (1990) 67].
[8] Physica C, #225 (1994) p.222-234
[9] Paper Presented at Klosters Switzerland, Conference on "Major trends in Superconductivity in the New Millennium" Mar 31-April 4, 2000
[10] Paper Presented at Klosters Switzerland, Conference on "Major trends in Superconductivity in the New Millennium" Mar 31-April 4, 2000

This is from the website. More have been published that are not yet listed and will be added in the future.

[ben m]

I can tell you what Goldes' "discovery" was---I read his papers a few years back. Basically, someone was probing the conductivity of some sheet of polymer, at various places on the surface, with probes of various sizes---IIRC, they found patches where the resistance appeared low, and where R = rho*d/A didn't appear to be a good fit. They interpreted this data to mean that that "patch" of surface contained a short linear channel with zero conductivity.

Yep.

[The Man]

I'm going to have to look int this whole taking energy away from other sources idea, I didn't get the impression that that's what ZPE is all about, but I only briefly scanned the "pro" sites. I guess I'm thinking that this is somehow akin to some sort of nuclear reaction, without all that bothersome nuclear waste.


Well it’s not really an idea but is just the consequence if the ZPE devices worked and adhered to the conservation of energy, as the author of the website linked in the OP claims. The other problem and the basses of zero point energy is the uncertainty principle, due to planks constant, energy can in a sense be barrowed as long as it is paid back in time. The more energy that is barrowed the sooner it must be “paid back” and the smaller the spacial expanse that the energy can be applied to. With Planck’s constant at about 6.626 X 10-34 Newton Meter Second it is not very much energy (6.626 X 10-34 Newton Meters) for much time (one second) or much momentum (6.626 X 10-34 Newton Seconds) over much distance (one Meter). Even if one could bypass this limitation there is still the conservation of energy as I mentioned before, also any significant alteration of the limitations of uncertainty and Planks constant would have serious and counter productive results (the devices position / momentum and energy / time would become as equally uncertain)

[Horatius]

There are three issued U.S. Patents and a large pending appliication we are dividing into ten more.


Could I trouble you for the patent and application numbers?


Have you filed anywhere else in the world?

[Spud1k]

OK, I'll clarify. Are there any articles which prove that these devices "will do everything a superconductor can do, at ambient temperature"? Given that room-temperature superconductors have been the holy grail of condensed matter physics for a long time now, they've been kept awful quiet.

I'm getting a cold fusion vibe here. I'll believe it when I see it, basically.

[Mark Goldes]

• First U.S. Patent - #5,777,292, then #6,552,883 and #6,804,105.
• Equivalent patents pending or issued worldwide.
• Fourth application filed…being subdivided into ten applications.

Scientists working in superconductivity rarely have much experience with polymers.

Dr. William Little, Professor Emeritus of Physics, Stanford University, predicted room temperature superconductivity would be achieved in a polymer in a paper in Physical Review in 1964. A parallel article appeared the same year in Scientific American. Bill believed it would be found in a conjugated polymer, as it turned out, the materials are atactic, i.e. amorphous. Bill has long been a member of our Scientific Advisory Council.

Since these materials conduct differently than conventional superconductors, we decided to call them Ultraconductors(tm). However, they appear to be useful for all of the same applications, without the need for refrigeration.

[Horatius]

US Patent 5 777 292: (http://www.google.com/patents?id=dg0kAAAAEBAJ&printsec=description&zoom=4&dq=5,777,292)

Because the mechanisms and characteristic properties of new types of superconductors are presently unknown and are certainly different in essential respects from those of conventional superconductors, such new types of conductors will be called highly conductive materials in order to avoid confusion with conventional superconductors and their characteristic properties. We define a highly conductive material to be a material whose conductivity .sigma. can exceed 106 S/cm. Although all superconductors are necessarily highly conductive materials, all highly conductive materials are not necessarily superconductors in the limited sense of the word. In particular, an ideal conductor is a highly conductive material but not a superconductor.

Theoretical Background The invention is based on two discoveries which have simple theoretical explanations from the viewpoint of modern physics and physical chemistry.
The first discovery is that if several conditions are fulfilled some macromolecular substances may be an exception to the well known fact that organic and elementorganic compounds usually have no free electric charges for the conduction of electric current. These conditions are: the substance must be in a viscose liquid state, the macromolecules must contain a certain amount of polar groups having a large dipole momentum (e.g. >C=O, --HC=O, --OH), and the substance must have a low percentage of double bonds (low degree of conjugation). Note that the large dipole momentum in some compounds may be provided by the elements in the main chain (e.g. Si--O) rather than side groups.
The reasons for these conditions are as follows. Due to the high flexibility of the long macromolecular chains while in the viscose liquid state, the polar groups can easily change their spatial positions and orientations. As a result, the substance is endowed with a high static dielectric constant and has properties close to those of low molecular weight polar solvents. It is well known that electrolytic dissociation in polar solvents leads to spontaneous charge separation and results in the appearance of some small concentration of free positive and negative charges. It has been discovered by the inventors that a similar process takes place in the case of many macromolecular substances provided they are in a viscose state and have polar groups. Rather than the production of negative ions as in the case of electrolytic dissociation, in this case free electrons appear that are surrounded by oriented dipole groups. These free electrons are known in physical chemistry as "solvated electrons" and in physics as "polarons". Typical equilibrium concentration of these polarons range from 1014 to 1018 polarons per cm3. The polarons are not bonded with parent macromolecules and can move due to heat motion in a flexible liquid macromolecular medium. The free movement of polarons, however, can be lost if the macromolecules have a significant number of conjugated bonds because large conjugated systems can effectively trap the free electrons in empty electron energy levels. In a macromolecular substance satisfying all three conditions, therefore, the substance can experience self-ionization and the charges produced can remain free. The electron mobility, however, is initially quite low compared to metals.
The second discovery made by the inventors dramatically increases the electron mobility. It is found that under certain conditions the state of homogeneously spreaded polarons becomes unstable and due to their mobility polarons begin to join each other resulting in the formation of stable multielectron structures we shall call "superpolarons". Each superpolaron may be visualized as a long multielectron thread running through a cylindrical channel. The thread is surrounded by a cloud of homogeneous positive ions and a shell of dipoles oriented in a radial direction by the strong electrical field of the thread. This polarized shell creates a potential well which keeps all the electrons together in the channel and creates a strong overlapping of their wavefunctions. This situation has remarkable consequences. Because the well is a quasi-one-dimensional system, the electrons can obtain a mobility several orders of magnitude higher than that of metals. Moreover, the overlapping of their wave functions also creates a strong exchange interaction which counters the effect of Coulomb repulsion. Quantum mechanical calculations by the inventors show that the combined influence of both the polarized shell and the strong exchange interaction is sufficient to provide the stable existence of a superpolaron's multielectron structure. It is also known from quantum theory that the exchange interaction is most pronounced in the case of quasi-one-dimensional systems. Quantum mechanical calculations by the authors also show that there are no theoretical limitations on the length of superpolaron threads. It should be noted that the inventors have observed that, like superconductors, the conductors of the invention dramatically violate the Wiedemann-Franz law. These conductors, therefore, can be used as thermal insulators and other applications involving quantum coherence.


Is this one of the patents you mentioned?

I don't know enough of this topic to say if this makes any sense or not, but one would think that such a technology, patented on July 7, 1998, would have made more of an impact if there was any validity. Remember how quickly word of the ceramic based superconductors spread? Within a couple of years, there were lessons on how to make them that highschool students could follow.

[Mark Goldes]

Yes. That is the original Patent.

We were originally both surprised and bothered by the lack of recognition. But, then a Bell Labs scientist who was positively impressed, pointed out that we were fortunate that his own lab and others had not recognized the significance as, if they had, they would have rolled over us like a large truck and obtained the patents we are now pursuing.

An example of what usually happens to small firms is the invention of the MRI by Damadien and his firm Fonar. GE simply ignored the first two Patents until they were forced by order of the Supreme Court to forward $128 million to Fonar by wire transfer for infringement.

The lawyer who won that case has become a friend. When we first met, he mentioned the Patent you referenced was the first, in what was then 12 years of litigating patents, that he ever saw that had no prior art. It was all new science.

The Wright Brothers, who we all know flew in 1903, were not believed to have flown by most scientists until 1908, when Teddy Roosevelt appointed someone to find out if they had really achieved heavier than air flight. When he confirmed that fact, overnight the Smithsonian, Scientific American and the NY Times, changed their disparaging remarks to recognition of the achievement.

Since Ultraconductors will have abundant market we are confident they will ultimately be recognized. Perhaps, Dr. Grigorov, who discovered them, will one day be awarded the Nobel Prize, which we believe he richly deserves.

[Horatius]

Yes. That is the original Patent.

We were originally both surprised and bothered by the lack of recognition. But, then a Bell Labs scientist who was positively impressed, pointed out that we were fortunate that his own lab and others had not recognized the significance as, if they had, they would have rolled over us like a large truck and obtained the patents we are now pursuing.





So, if people from places like Bell Labs have looked at this work, and found it valuable, why haven't they licenced your patents, and comercialized them? Wouldn't the potential economic return justify such an investment?

[marting]

Here's a bit from consultant Lee Felenstein:

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:MTZts771Jc4J:blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2007/04/so_whats_up_wit_1.html+%22lee+felsenstein%22+%22fr ee+energy%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us
By Lee Felsenstein, EE

Magnetic Power, Inc. (MPI) has successfully tested a proof-of-concept prototype for a new kind of electrical power generator, based upon physical principles allowing for operation at greater than 100 percent efficiency. While the efficiency of this prototype is low, its performance under load indicates that the mechanism in operation is insensitive to loading and power output may thus be improved to exceed breakeven.
.....
(note: it ain't above breakeven in actual operation)

And here's his light hearted take hanging out with his buds in Silicon Valley:

http://superhappydevhouse.org/Lee+Felsenstein+checking+in

I PLAY AROUND WITH ATTEMPTS AT FREE ENERGY

In association with Magnetic Power Inc. I'm on the web talking about this. Please don't try to get me involved in your own crackpot project - one is enough. Basically, I believe it would be possible to get what looks like free energy (but which may not in fact be free) from static magnetic fields. At best, it could be revolutionary, at worst I'll have another story to tell at my own expense. I've looked at the technological approach and couldn't knock any holes in it. I am a skeptic and will believe it when I see it, and I can't see why I can't do it myself. I don't ask for permission from physicists in doing my engineering - engineers create phenomenon and physiciss explain them - first things first.

I love his candor.

[Mark Goldes]

The Senior Scientist we were in touch with at Bell Labs felt we would be better off not trying to work with them, for the reasons alluded to above.

Shortly afterwards, Bell Labs became Lucent, a sad step toward a decline in what had been the best such lab in the USA.

We expect to begin licensing Ultraconductors in the not-too-distant future. as the Ultraconductor program is revived with major new funding.

Our first Licensing Executive is now in the wings and will become full-time.

[Horatius]

We expect to begin licensing Ultraconductors in the not-too-distant future. as the Ultraconductor program is revived with major new funding.





So, what would you say to someone who has noticed that you've been making similar "not-too-distant future" comments (http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2007/04/so_whats_up_wit_1.html#c452236) for quite some time now (http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=32984&#p20725), and yet still have nothing to show for all your work?

Will there ever come a day when you will consider the possibility that these devices are simply not possible?

[Mark Goldes]

Ultraconductors are well proven.

Magnetic energy conversion systems reflect new science. Both in mechanical and solid-state systems we have repeatable Over Unity results.

Incidently, the hot fusion program, after billions of dollars of R&D has never achieved breakeven.

The most recent work in our labs clearly suggests self-running is not far ahead.

R&D on a relative shoestring moves much more slowly than it might.

However, to the surprise of skeptics and fence sitters, that ultimate test will be achieved.

Since some systems readily lend themselves to Demonstration Devices and toys, it will become clear that these systems are possible.

As with high temperature (ceramic) superconductivity, it may take a long time before there is general agreement as to why they function.

While scientists debate that issue, manufacturers will proceed to provide fuel free devices that can help to reduce the need for fossil fuels, more rapidly than most might imagine.

Since that is an urgent issue and may help save large numbers of lives, it has warranted a long and difficult effort.

[Horatius]

Both in mechanical and solid-state systems we have repeatable Over Unity results.
...

The most recent work in our labs clearly suggests self-running is not far ahead.




And aren't you even a little bit concerned about the apparent contradiction here? If you already have devices which can show "repeatable Over Unity results", shouldn't they already be self-running? Where's the problem?




As with high temperature (ceramic) superconductivity, it may take a long time before there is general agreement as to why they function.




Ah, yes, but what ceramic superconductors had, that you do not seem to have, was demonstrated functionality. Anyone who did the experiments in the manner described by the discoverers was able to replicate their effects, clearly and unambiguously. Why isn't the same true of Over Unity devices, or your "Ultraconductors"? Why is it, the only people who ever report positive results are either people like you, who seem to be seeking a personal profit, or anonymous "Scientists" who only ever appear in quoted form, being quoted by people like you?

It's nagging unanswered questions like this that hold back my enthusiastic support.

[Spud1k]

Ultraconductors are well proven.

Where exactly? All we have is your word for it.

Incidently, the hot fusion program, after billions of dollars of R&D has never achieved breakeven.

Consider yourself corrected. JET and JT-60U have both achieved breakeven (http://www.jet.efda.org/documents/articles/samm2.pdf). Neither were designed to be viable power generation facilities, but stepping stones to things like ITER.

However, to the surprise of skeptics and fence sitters, that ultimate test will be achieved.

Since some systems readily lend themselves to Demonstration Devices and toys, it will become clear that these systems are possible.

I'll believe it when I see it, like I said. Ever considered entering your free energy thing in the $1 million challenge on this website as a perpetual motion engine? Win that and consider my words well and truly eaten.

As with high temperature (ceramic) superconductivity, it may take a long time before there is general agreement as to why they function.

There is plenty of debate on 'why' (or more appropriately, 'how') ceramic superconductors work, but no debate on 'whether' they work. Your gizmos, on the other hand...

[Mark Goldes]

Self-sustaining devices require a large Over Unity margin. While some results have been remarkably high, repeatable OU has thus far not exceeded about 1.25. This is not sufficient to self-run.

Current designs appear capable of providing the larger margins required.

Once these are patented products, they will be readily reproduced by other parties.

Ultraconductors have been independently reproduced by the three distinguished laboratories mentioned several posts above. They have also been reproduced by a couple of private firms. However, these have not publicly released their results. Positive tests of Ultraconductor conductivity were conducted by Battelle Memorial Institute last year but these are also not available to the public. Tests were also successfully performed at Eglin AFB - a part of the Wright Laboratory - before the USAF awarded us a Phase II SBIR Contract. The papers that appear in refereed journals confirm indpendent reproduction. Those that reported the Ioffe Institute experiments were translated into English by the American Institute of Physics and should be available in any good university library.

[ben m]

By "Ultraconductors are well proven", I think Mark means "Scientists have seen funny conductivities which I can't think of any explanation for except the existence of invisible high-temperature superconducting micro-fibers". He does not mean "We have established a persistent current that lasted for time T", nor "We have directly measured the resistance straightforwardly, Kamerlingh Onnes-style, and found zero", nor "we built an functioning Ultraconductor SQUID", or anything like that.

And I suspect "Magnetic Power, Inc. has a working prototype free energy machine", similarly, would somehow not mean "the utility meter at MPI headquarters is spinning backwards", nor "we plugged a AAA battery into the input, then warmed up a George Foreman Grill and cooked hamburgers with the output". It would, similarly, mean "My $45 Fluke multimeter seems to tell me that the output voltage is higher than the input voltage, and the output current is higher than the input current if I plug in my Specially Conditioned Resistor."

[Horatius]

Self-sustaining devices require a large Over Unity margin. While some results have been remarkably high, repeatable OU has thus far not exceeded about 1.25. This is not sufficient to self-run.




Solar cell efficiencies vary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cells#Comparison_of_energy_conversion_effici encies) from 6% for amorphous silicon-based solar cells to 40.7% with multiple-junction research lab cells and 42.8% with multiple dies assembled into a hybrid package



Why is it, a solar cell that might only be 6% efficient can produce useful amounts of power that anyone can use, but your device, which allegedly produces an excess of 25%, still can't do anything useful? Why isn't this "sufficient to self-run"? Why do you need even better efficiencies to even begin to demonstrate what would be the absolutely undeniable proof of an over-unity device?

And even if you could demonstrate (rather than just assert) that this isn't enough to self-run, why isn't it enough to have already convinced every scientist in the world? Even 1% over unity, that was unambiguously reproducible, would revolutionize all of our scientific understandings. Why aren't young scientists who are looking to make a name for themselves beating a path to your door?




Once these are patented products, they will be readily reproduced by other parties.





Shouldn't your work already be "readily reproduced"? You've been claiming the exact same things for years now. Why should your claims and predictions be taken any more seriously now, after years of failure?

[sol invictus]

So you've produced a room temperature superconductor - thus solving one of the most difficult and long-standing problems in condensed matter physics and revolutionizing the world - AND invented a device that extracts energy from the vacuum, thus overturning the most basic laws of physics as we've known them for centuries and revolutionizing the world EVEN MORE.

Wow - I'm very impressed!

How much money have you made with your con, out of curiosity?

[Olowkow]

As soon as I see "quantum" in a product, I read no further.


The principle energy source is the Quantum Vacuum,


At least ultraconductors are good for something:

http://www.jpslabs.com/ultraconductor.shtml

[leonAzul]

Hi all

I did a bit of searching on Mark Goldes, and came up with this link.

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=32984&



T'hell with that, I'm more interested in knowing more about this guy:

"Can it be that so many men, of various times and nations, outstanding minds among them, have devoted so much effort, and indeed fervor, to metaphysics, when this consists of nothing more than words strung together without sense?" -Rudolph Carnap

[ben m]

Self-sustaining devices require a large Over Unity margin. While some results have been remarkably high, repeatable OU has thus far not exceeded about 1.25. This is not sufficient to self-run.

Wow. You're smart enough to invent both superconductors and infinite-energy quantum ZPE machines, but for some reason you can't plug a device's output back into its input without losing 20% of the power?

If your output is electrical (arbitrary AC and/or DC) then that's something a first-year electrical engineer could do in three or four hours.

[Mark Goldes]

Existing Magnetic Over Unity mechanical prototypes have output in the form of torque and heat.

A new prototype design that appears straightforward to build holds promise of self-sustaining and powering a few low power lamps.

We have a fair number of young scientists who are interested in assisting. Funds currently under discussion should be sufficient to allow them to get hands on experience in the labs.

A self-powered device now seems so close and ends so many arguments concerning adequacy of measurement that it has become the focus.

As to achieving two "impossible" goals: I am reminded of the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland - who stated she always needed to do six impossible things before breakfast.

Given the urgency of moving beyond fossil fuels, this work is likely to gain ready acceptance in the coming months.

However, skepticism is anticipated, welcome and a sign of common sense, which after all is actually uncommon.

Real science will ultimately withstand withering as well as rude criticism.

For those who are certain of their negative opinions, I suggest you will find a good deal of egg on your faces before the year is over.

[Olowkow]

Well, rude criticism aside.

Normally when I design an electronic device, I know what the problems are with it that I am trying to solve. For example, size restrictions, power consumption, noise problems, glitches in logic, timing, etc. What are the problems with your device, specifically, that you are in the process of solving? You are stating a lot of platitudes, but no real technical information. There are a lot of bright people on this forum. I think you are underestimating their collective knowledge greatly.

And, don't ya just love it:
Existing Magnetic Over Unity mechanical prototypes have output in the form of torque and heat.

First, there is no such thing as an "existing Magnetic Over Unity mechanical prototype" since it is impossible.
Second....there is no second. Guaranteed.
It's not "egg on my face" I'm concerned about, it is the crackpots who claim that our national fuel crisis will be solved by violating the laws of physics that I am worried about.

[marting]

Existing Magnetic Over Unity mechanical prototypes have output in the form of torque and heat.

Torque is neither energy nor energy per unit time (power). So what forms and amounts of power are input and output?

[Horatius]

However, skepticism is anticipated, welcome and a sign of common sense, which after all is actually uncommon.



Hey! He thinks we're showing common sense! I'm so flattered!




Real science will ultimately withstand withering as well as rude criticism.

For those who are certain of their negative opinions, I suggest you will find a good deal of egg on your faces before the year is over.



Oh, but now he thinks we're being rude and negative, oh shucks, oh darn, whatever could we do to regain his good opinion of us?

Tell me, does this sort of pathetic attempt at blatant manipulation actually work on some people? Is that how you keep going all this time?



And as for the "egg on the face before the year is out" bit, would you care to make a bet on that?

Because I'd be willing to bet you won't have anything more to show by year's end than what you have right now: bluster and brazen bravado.

[sol invictus]

For those who are certain of their negative opinions, I suggest you will find a good deal of egg on your faces before the year is over.

Want to make a bet on that?

How much egg is there on your face after years of making the same bogus claims? Here's one from 2001: http://web.archive.org/web/20010518045249/http://www.ultraconductors.com/

[Michael C]

Self-sustaining devices require a large Over Unity margin. While some results have been remarkably high, repeatable OU has thus far not exceeded about 1.25. This is not sufficient to self-run.

What? Of course that's sufficient for a self run. For a self run all you need is a unity device: put in some energy to start it, then connect output to input. Even that doesn't exist, since there's always a bit of energy dissipated somewhere. With even the slightest value over unity, the machine would not only be self-running, it would produce power at the same time.

I'm in on the bet: produce a self-running machine before the end of the year and I'll publicly smear egg on my face, film the event and put it on Youtube. I'll expect you to do the same if you can't produce the machine before the end of the year.

[Spud1k]

Existing Magnetic Over Unity mechanical prototypes have output in the form of torque and heat.

Torque is good enough. Do you have a design for an independently verifiable device that could make a pinwheel spin ad infinatum? That won't require anything like 25% OU and would net you a cool mil off James Randi. You don't have to worry about IPR; that's protected by your patents.

As to achieving two "impossible" goals: I am reminded of the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland - who stated she always needed to do six impossible things before breakfast.

Wasn't she fictional?

Given the urgency of moving beyond fossil fuels, this work is likely to gain ready acceptance in the coming months.

...

For those who are certain of their negative opinions, I suggest you will find a good deal of egg on your faces before the year is over.

If you can, as you say, end the world's dependency on fossil fuels, I would gladly welcome such egg with open arms. But unfortunately, nothing you have said has convinced me it's coming.

[Horatius]

This thread is particularly amusing to me. Just this week, I participated in a short course for critical thinking for some advanced grade 7-9 kids, (http://www.ottawaskeptics.org/forum?func=view&id=118&catid=2) where I played the role of the crazy inventor guy who was pushing his perpetual motion machine, in order to show the kids what sorts of arguments and tactics these people use.

And we see just about everything I did on display in this thread:

1) Appeal to Emotion: We must save the Earth! Fossil Fuels are Bad, M'kay?

2) Vague hand waving about the limits of science

3) Assertions that we're "almost there"! Any day now! Just a few bugs to fix! And it worked yesterday!

4) Paranoia: They are keeping me back. I could have done it years ago if not for them.

5) Paranoia 2: Big Companies will steal my idea, that's why I've got to keep it secret!

6) And yet, I'm going to get a patent on it, which proves it works!

7) So, care to open your chequebook?

Classic example. I was afraid the kids would think everything I did was one giant strawman argument, but here's a perfect example, "In the Wild" as it were. I'll bookmark this thread in case I ever help out at this course again.

[Stout]

Mark almost had me reaching for my checkbook:D

Anyways...i talked to zero point energy guy yesterday and told him that there's no evidence that ZPE is going to replace all our household energy needs with a bucked sized generator like he was telling me where this was leading.

I attacked the idea actually, and there was a brief look of horror on his face as he heard my words, but his wife, who was present at the time, well....her eyes lit up with a look of...finally !! someone is challenging this guy. I'll have to talk to her about this when I see her again on thursday.

So ZPE guy proceeds to tell me that cold fusion is a reality ( Pons and Fleichmann got it right ) and rather than being technology that's suppressed by big oil, it's technology that's being suppressed by academia because science doesn't like ideas that deviate from the established norm.

And to top it all off...ZPE guy proceeds to tell me that since modern construction equipment can't lift any of the stones used in the construction of the pyramids....there must have bee some ( now long lost ) "levitation technology" at work.

I was blindsided by woo.

I thought this guy was just a little overly enthusiastic about a book he'd read on ZPE but now I'm convinced that his science-woo ( is that a word, like science-fiction ? ) in firmly entrenched and I'll probably take this guy as amusing rather than serious.

Damn....I was hoping it wouldn't go that way.:(

[Stout]

double post

[Cuddles]

As to achieving two "impossible" goals:

The problem isn't that you claim to have achieved two impossible goals, the problem is that you claim to have achieved two impossible goals which are two of the biggest and most prominent goals in science and yet not a single person has heard of this in the seven years you have been claiming this.

Of course, even that isn't the actual problem, since only one of them is actually impossible. Room temperature superconductors are very likely possible, they just haven't been made yet.

Incidentally, the patent that Horatius quoted stongly suggests that you don't understand superconductors at all.
Because the mechanisms and characteristic properties of new types of superconductors are presently unknown and are certainly different in essential respects from those of conventional superconductors, such new types of conductors will be called highly conductive materials in order to avoid confusion with conventional superconductors and their characteristic properties. We define a highly conductive material to be a material whose conductivity .sigma. can exceed 106 S/cm. Although all superconductors are necessarily highly conductive materials, all highly conductive materials are not necessarily superconductors in the limited sense of the word. In particular, an ideal conductor is a highly conductive material but not a superconductor.

Supercondutctors are not "highly conductive", they are infinitely conductive. That's the definition of a superconductor - a material with exactly zero resistivity. Not low. Zero. In fact, your definition is even more bizzare given that 106 S/cm (105 S/m) isn't high at all, with metals often having conductivity in excess of 107 S/m.

Edit: I have to apologise for that last sentence. I read that from Horatius' quote which said 106 S/cm, but this appears to have been a problem with copying and pasting and actually reads 106 S/cm in the oringinal. This is higher than the conductivity of any metal at room temperature (although not by much), and so would be interesting, although certainly nowhere near as revolutuionary as is being claimed here.

[Horatius]

Incidentally, the patent that Horatius quoted stongly suggests that you don't understand superconductors at all.


Supercondutctors are not "highly conductive", they are infinitely conductive. That's the definition of a superconductor - a material with exactly zero resistivity. Not low. Zero. In fact, your definition is even more bizzare given that 106 S/cm (105 S/m) isn't high at all, with metals often having conductivity in excess of 107 S/m.



I was playing nice when I posted that, but this is a good example of how such people engineer their patent applications to avoid possible rejection. An outright claim to actual superconductivity would probably bring about an objection based on lack of utility - the examiner doesn't think it can do that, and the applicant has to prove it can.

So they weasel out of it, "Oh, we're not sure if it's really superconducting - it might just be reallygoodconducting, after all." A nice vague assertion that is much harder to refute, as hey, these films do seem to show some anomalous behaviours, even if it isn't superconductivity. Thus, it's much harder for the examiner to reject the application. It's been well established by the courts that in cases where there is an open question as to the utility of a claimed invention, the default bias is in favour of the applicant. If it later proves to be non-fuctional, the patent will be worthless, and would likely be thrown out if it ever ended up in court.

[Mark Goldes]

The paper reporting independent reproduction of the polymers we call Ultraconductors, at the Ioffe Institute, concludes these materials have zero resistance.

At Los Alamos National Laboratory, we ran 120 amperes through a single 1-2 micron diameter channel.

The USAF did their own tests prior to awarding MPI a Phase II SBIR contract.

Current density thus far appears to be at least as high as that of any known superconductor.

The low conductivity figure quoted was simply employed to avoid an argument with the USPTO as to a claim of superconductivity. That would have made the patent process needlessly long and complex.

Since we are busy, this will be my last post for awhile. Anyone interested in these materials has enough information at this point to know how to learn more from refereed journals.

When products reach the market they will speak for themselves.

[Mister Earl]

Why not just take the JREF challenge? You'd net a million towards R&D. Will you, or will you not take the challenge?

[Horatius]

The low conductivity figure quoted was simply employed to avoid an argument with the USPTO as to a claim of superconductivity. That would have made the patent process needlessly long and complex.




Damn I'm good.


ETA: So, you think you have actual, independently produced evidence for actual superconductivity, and yet, you're not even willing to have that proof evaluated by the USPTO (or any other patent office in the world), in order to clearly establish that your patented materials are superconductors? Does this amazing demonstration of your lack of confidence in your "Evidence" concern you at all?

Or is it that you know the USPTO would not accept the vague references you've made here, and would actually require you to show the work you describe, rather than just talking about it?

ETA2: And while I'm at it: you have at least 3 patents on this same general class of materials. Why haven't you been willing to defend your assertions of superconductivity in at least one of those cases? You'd already have at least one patent in hand for your "not-quite-superconductors", so the "long and complex" process wouldn't cause you to lose to much in the way of patent protection, but in the end, you'd have a clear and unambiguous patent on the superconducting materials. Why didn't you even try this?

[Cuddles]

Damn I'm good.

Yep.:)

ETA: So, you think you have actual, independently produced evidence for actual superconductivity, and yet, you're not even willing to have that proof evaluated by the USPTO (or any other patent office in the world), in order to clearly establish that your patented materials are superconductors? Does this amazing demonstration of your lack of confidence in your "Evidence" concern you at all?

Or is it that you know the USPTO would not accept the vague references you've made here, and would actually require you to show the work you describe, rather than just talking about it?

ETA2: And while I'm at it: you have at least 3 patents on this same general class of materials. Why haven't you been willing to defend your assertions of superconductivity in at least one of those cases? You'd already have at least one patent in hand for your "not-quite-superconductors", so the "long and complex" process wouldn't cause you to lose to much in the way of patent protection, but in the end, you'd have a clear and unambiguous patent on the superconducting materials. Why didn't you even try this?

As noted in my last post, I made an error about the conductivity he claims to have measured. However, what is very interesting is that Mark not only didn't correct me, he actually tried making excuses for it. There is a very big difference between conductivity higher than any metal and conductivity 100 times lower than metal. If someone accused me of the latter when I'd invented the former, I'd be sure to set them straight rather than making exactly the same excuse as if they hadn't mentioned it at all. Which again makes me wonder if Mark actually understands anything about superconductivity.

[Spud1k]

The paper reporting independent reproduction of the polymers we call Ultraconductors, at the Ioffe Institute, concludes these materials have zero resistance.

Is that the 1990 paper? Are you suggesting that mainstream science has simply overlooked this for 18 years?

The USAF did their own tests prior to awarding MPI a Phase II SBIR contract.

So you've got a phase 2 SBIR grant and you still can't demonstrate a workable prototype? Is there any reason why they haven't awarded phase 3 yet?

Since we are busy, this will be my last post for awhile. Anyone interested in these materials has enough information at this point to know how to learn more from refereed journals.

And then hopefully reach for the chequebook I guess. Can't speak for everyone, but I'm not impressed personally. Maybe you should try Dragon's Den.

[marting]

The paper reporting independent reproduction of the polymers we call Ultraconductors, at the Ioffe Institute, concludes these materials have zero resistance.

At Los Alamos National Laboratory, we ran 120 amperes through a single 1-2 micron diameter channel.


And how long was this channel?

120 amps into a 1-2 micron diameter channel? Musta been a bit of a trick to connect the channel ends to a conventional conductor. 120 amps across a 1um cube of silver dissipates several watts.

[The Man]

Existing Magnetic Over Unity mechanical prototypes have output in the form of torque and heat.

Existing electric generators have outputs (other then electricity) in the form of torque and heat. It is just that the heat impedes electrical conductivity and the torque produced (back EMF) acts against the driving torque. Can you show how those factors benefit your device or should we just conclude that your math is appallingly bad?

[Horatius]

Existing electric generators have outputs (other then electricity) in the form of torque and heat. It is just that the heat impedes electrical conductivity and the torque produced (back EMF) acts against the driving torque. Can you show how those factors benefit your device or should we just conclude that your math is appallingly bad?



Alas, Mr. Goldes seems to be "too busy" to answer such plebeian questions from the likes of us.





I just assume he means, "Too busy avoiding questions".





Which is really too bad, as I was enjoying this.....

[The Man]

Apparently, nice cat (in your avatar)

[Horatius]

The USAF did their own tests prior to awarding MPI a Phase II SBIR contract.





I've just discovered that this is simply an amazingly deceptive statement, without actually being a lie. It's actually quite impressive.


I was wondering what a "SBIR Phase II contract" actually was, and if they had ever gotten one. I found a nice little DOD site that lets you search SBIR contracts:

http://www.dodsbir.net/Awards/Default.asp

To get a Phase II contract, you have to have shown some positive results from a Phase I contract. I searched on "superconductor", and there were two Phase I contracts granted to "ROOM TEMPERATURE SUPERCONDUCTORS, INC.", which is the owner of the patent linked earlier.

There doesn't seem to be any Phase II contracts, though! And the two contracts I did find are from 1997 and 1998 - about the same time the first patent issued.

So, guess what? The USAF probably did do their own testing "prior to awarding MPI a Phase II SBIR contract", but found it didn't work, and didn't actually award the contract!


Not technically a lie, but not really the whole truth, either, is it?


Of course, Mr. Goldes could link us to the actual Phase II contract, and prove me wrong in all of this. But that would require some actual evidence, which he seems quite unwilling to provide.....





I said it before, and I'll say it again: Damn, I'm good.....

;)

[Horatius]

Apparently, nice cat (in your avatar)



Thanks! He was a good cat, but in no way a "nice" cat. In fact, he inspired a cartoon character who is actually quite sociopathic!
(http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2555685#post2555685)



I still miss him. :(


But hey, I'm still kicking woo butt, which he would have liked. Dogs == Woo!

[Stout]

I said it before, and I'll say it again: Damn, I'm good.....

;)

Yes, you are.

I like many others I'm sure, naturally assumed he actually got the contract.

[sol invictus]

Not technically a lie, but not really the whole truth, either, is it?


Assuming MPI was not awared an SBIR phase II contract, it was a statement intended to deceive - which is technically a lie by at least some definitions.

So, Mr. Goldes - did MPI receive an SBIR phase II contract?

[Horatius]

Assuming MPI was not awared an SBIR phase II contract, it was a statement intended to deceive - which is technically a lie by at least some definitions.




Yes, but at that point, we're arguing semantics, which would allow him to weasel his way away from the issue of whether or not he'd gotten the Phase II contract - which is exactly what he'd want.


Whatever else Mr. Goldes is, he's pretty slick.

[Mark Goldes]

During the Clinton Administration, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy sought to avoid publicity regarding the fact this country was working with ambient temperature superconductors. That office decided to surpress announcement of the contracts with the polymers we now call Ultraconductors. Consequently, the first two contracts were awarded through Magnetic Power Inc., the parent firm. Both the Phase I and Phase II were awarded by the Air Force.

Somebody goofed and an abstract of the second contract appeared on the web. Following that mistake, contracts were awarded directly to Room Temperature Superconductors Inc. These were both Phase I contracts with what is now called the Missile Defense Agency.

We were invited, but declined, to apply for additional Phase II funding. The reason was the so called "walk-in clause" - where if you invent on a federal contract, the government has a royalty free right to produce the product without paying royalties for the life of any resulting patent.

Since we would have been affected by that clause, we chose not to accept further federal funding of the Ultraconductor work.

[Spud1k]

We were invited, but declined, to apply for additional Phase II funding. The reason was the so called "walk-in clause" - where if you invent on a federal contract, the government has a royalty free right to produce the product without paying royalties for the life of any resulting patent.

So what happened to all the noble talk of 'ending dependency on fossil fuels'?

I don't know the ins and outs of the USAF contracts but a company I've collaborated with has done rather well developing scientific instrumentation off SBIR grants and they've never complained about the government stealing their products or anything.

[Mark Goldes]

In February 2001, the late Sir Arthur C. Clarke was asked to predict future technology. He stated: "No one can see into the future. What I try to do is outline possible 'futures' - although totally unexpected inventions or events can render predictions absurd after only a few years. The classic example is the statement, made in the late 1940s, by the then chairman of IBM that the world market for computers was five. I have more than that in my own office.

I take pride in the fact that communications satellites are placed exactly where I suggested in 1945, and the name 'Clarke Orbit' is often used (if only because it's easier to say than 'geostationary orbit').

...2009 The first quantum generators (tapping space energy) are developed. Available in portable and household units, from a few kilowatts upwards, they can produce electricity indefinitely. Central power stations close down: the age of pylons ends. "

As will soon become common knowledge, he was precisely correct!

An innovative young scientist, after 17 years of research, has demonstrated to stunned professors and engineers in Bangladesh, that what every reader of these threads likely considers impossible, has been accomplished. Giasuddin Kachi has displayed an invention that produces power without fuel. The Power Development Board, as well as large firms in that country have witnessed demonstrations. He claims to have produced prototypes to 10 kW, and sees no reason that with further development up to 50 mW cannot be achieved.

It is pointless for me to say more about his achievement, or ours, in this forum.

The world scientific community will undoubtedly not believe it - until generators are commonly available, as I am sure they will be - from his work, ours, and that of a great many others.

There are likely to be debates and discussions, lasting for years, as to where the energy comes from. I personally think Sir Arthur probably had it right.

Since human life on this planet might not long continue, without such inventors and their improbable innovations, we cheer them all on!

[Prometheus]

From the comments after this story (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=4532.msg90879)

Here we go with yet another perpetual motion machine based on "new", but totally undisclosed, "science". I am sorry, but a refrigerator sized box demonstrating the same function for a few minutes as an ordinary toaster sized UPS is hardly convincing. We can now start the timer for several events:

*How many milliseconds before MPI's Mark Goldes latches onto that news piece from Bangladesh and tries to use it to legitimize his tired claims of OU.
*The eternity that will pass before this device is subjected to any objective testing.
*Publication of conspiracy theories that the device is being supressed.

From the time the comment was logged, I make that just over 33,420,000 milliseconds.

[Spud1k]

OK, if it featured in an Arthur C. Clarke prophesy, it must be true.

Wake me up if it ever gets independently verified.

[Gravy]

Dear Mark Goldes,

No one cares about your :words:.

Put up or shut up. Fair enough? Then do it.

[Olowkow]

And how long was this channel?

120 amps into a 1-2 micron diameter channel? Musta been a bit of a trick to connect the channel ends to a conventional conductor. 120 amps across a 1um cube of silver dissipates several watts.

Good old Fahnestock clips? :D
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/Fahnestock_clip_designs.png/180px-Fahnestock_clip_designs.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fahnestock_clip_designs.png)
120 amps is a lot of current. The junction from 1-2 microns, to whatever, would be problematic and resistive in itself. I would like to know just how this was done also. I was involved in designing the equipment for growing 4-5 atom wide gold junctions, but the currents were quite small.

[TjW]

The Wright Brothers, who we all know flew in 1903, were not believed to have flown by most scientists until 1908, when Teddy Roosevelt appointed someone to find out if they had really achieved heavier than air flight. When he confirmed that fact, overnight the Smithsonian, Scientific American and the NY Times, changed their disparaging remarks to recognition of the achievement.



It might also have had a little something to do with the fact that in 1908 the Wrights were demonstrating a salable product to customers in view of thousands of people.

[The Man]

OK, if it featured in an Arthur C. Clarke prophesy, it must be true.


Next thing you know we’ll have sentient computers killing people (but just on clandestine missions to Jupiter).



It is pointless for me to say more about his achievement, or ours, in this forum.


Naturally, if those achievements were in fact pointless.



There are likely to be debates and discussions, lasting for years, as to where the energy comes from. I personally think Sir Arthur probably had it right.



Ah yes, of course, the ubiquitous and infinitely available “space energy”, that explains where the energy comes from. Sorry, I’ll put my money on energy form more definitive sources in space, say like the Sun.

[Mark Goldes]

The samples at that time were typically 10 micron thin films with the channels normal to the film, i.e. in the thin dimension.

Making contact is quite difficult, as such narrow conductors, of ordinary metals cannot be used.

It has been estimated that since the electron chains, we call channels, cluster themselves into groups of perhaps 100,000 or more in a 1 or 2 micron region, and always leave 10 microns of the polymer as a minimum between themselves, that ultimately up to 1 million channels may be grown per square cm.

This opens a potential application as an interposer, between the board and a chip, replacing the ball grid array of solder bumps often used today. As the chips get smaller, the solder bumps tend to touch causing short circuits, while Ultraconductors offer an alternative that can handle very high current if needed. They never fail to have the 10 micron region between them.

[marting]

Mark,

The following quoted section is from what purports to be your Mission back in early 2006.

The Company forecasts rapidly growing revenues and profits, with
revenues beginning in 2006. Positive impacts on global social, economic,
and environmental conditions are anticipated.

After establishing the commercial viability of Magnetic Power Modules in
proprietary labs operated by the Company, MPI will implement a global
partnering, patenting and licensing strategy - analogous to Genentech in
the biotech industry - to catalyze worldwide adoption of the technology.

This strategy maximizes chances of ongoing success by:
1) generating early contract revenues and investment through key strategic alliances;
2) protecting MPI™s proprietary technology with a formidable patent
portfolio;
3) building a foundation to support worldwide market adoption of MPI
technology.

Revenues from licenses of Magnetic Power Modules are conservatively
projected to exceed $500 million annually by 2010:
2006: $10 million;
2007: $25 million;
2008: $75 million;
2009: $225 million;
2010: $550 million.
If market conditions are right, the Company will consider an Initial
Public Offering within two or three years, providing investors with an
attractive exit strategy.


I'm just curious what your definition of "conservatively" is?

[Penny Gruber]

The samples at that time were typically 10 micron thin films with the channels normal to the film, i.e. in the thin dimension.

Making contact is quite difficult, as such narrow conductors, of ordinary metals cannot be used.

It has been estimated that since the electron chains, we call channels, cluster themselves into groups of perhaps 100,000 or more in a 1 or 2 micron region, and always leave 10 microns of the polymer as a minimum between themselves, that ultimately up to 1 million channels may be grown per square cm.

This opens a potential application as an interposer, between the board and a chip, replacing the ball grid array of solder bumps often used today. As the chips get smaller, the solder bumps tend to touch causing short circuits, while Ultraconductors offer an alternative that can handle very high current if needed. They never fail to have the 10 micron region between them.
There's not much potential there. 1% area is a miserable contact patch that results in a plethora of problems at the contact interface.

The plumbing analogy would be a 1" diameter pipe that always has a funnel on either end down to a tenth of an inch.

[Horatius]

During the Clinton Administration, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy sought to avoid publicity regarding the fact this country was working with ambient temperature superconductors. That office decided to surpress announcement of the contracts with the polymers we now call Ultraconductors. Consequently, the first two contracts were awarded through Magnetic Power Inc., the parent firm. Both the Phase I and Phase II were awarded by the Air Force.

Somebody goofed and an abstract of the second contract appeared on the web. Following that mistake, contracts were awarded directly to Room Temperature Superconductors Inc. These were both Phase I contracts with what is now called the Missile Defense Agency.

We were invited, but declined, to apply for additional Phase II funding. The reason was the so called "walk-in clause" - where if you invent on a federal contract, the government has a royalty free right to produce the product without paying royalties for the life of any resulting patent.

Since we would have been affected by that clause, we chose not to accept further federal funding of the Ultraconductor work.


Odd that they would worry about "suppressing" word of your contracts, but not those of companies working on, say, improved ICBM performance (http://www.dodsbir.net/Awards/SrchResultsDtlsForm.asp?RanNo=8&bookmark=29578&page=30).


And didn't you know about this "walk-in clause" before you started accepting their money? If you didn't, what does that say about your competence to run a business?

And I have to wonder why you weren't up front with us about not having a Phase II contract. You wouldn't have been tying to deceive us, right? You wouldn't be just making stuff up in a desperate attempt to deflect attention from an analysis of your statements, right? You wouldn't be sweating bullets because someone finally bothered to check up on your little song-and-dance number, right?

Because that would be a really naughty way for the Saviour of the Earth to act, you know.

But hey, any day now, I'll be eating my words, right? Right? Any day now? Soon?

[Mark Goldes]

Contact for interposers can involve two or three Ultraconductor channels, if the density achieved is as high as mentioned. That is why it is a promising potential for thin film.

The "walk-in" clause was of no concern on our Phase II Contract with the USAF, or on any of the three Phase I Contracts completed, as we could see we would not be inventing on any of those contracts.

[The Man]

Contact for interposers can involve two or three Ultraconductor channels, if the density achieved is as high as mentioned. That is why it is a promising potential for thin film.

The "walk-in" clause was of no concern on our Phase II Contract with the USAF, or on any of the three Phase I Contracts completed, as we could see we would not be inventing on any of those contracts.


An interesting solution, not only ‘do not invent anything’, but also ‘do not expect to invent anything’. Where can I sign up, I am great at taking money and not inventing things?

[Horatius]

The "walk-in" clause was of no concern on our Phase II Contract with the USAF, or on any of the three Phase I Contracts completed, as we could see we would not be inventing on any of those contracts.


Uhmmm....




We were invited, but declined, to apply for additional Phase II funding. The reason was the so called "walk-in clause" - where if you invent on a federal contract, the government has a royalty free right to produce the product without paying royalties for the life of any resulting patent.

Since we would have been affected by that clause, we chose not to accept further federal funding of the Ultraconductor work.



Losing track of your spin, are we?

This is almost too easy.....

[Penny Gruber]

Whoever thinks that a material with sparse conducting channels is suitable as an interposer for IC applications, does not know their craft. An ideal material has a conducting channel density approaching 100% while maintaining a high dielectric strength and low dielectric constant between the conducting channels. Material with tiny sparse channels forces current to crowd in the conventional contact materials on either side of the interposer. This:

*Raises the effective resistance and heating in the contacts.
*Lowers the current threshold for electromigration in the contacts.
*Raises the effective inductance in the contacts and the interposer.

The first two issues make your sparse channel material bad for power connections. The third issue makes your sparse channel material bad for both power and fast signal connections.

As to your nonsense about the walk-in clause, Horatius has already cited your direct self-contradiction.

If your materials had any significant commercial value then either you are the world's worst business manager, or in the decade that you have been hawking this stuff, you would have made a sale.


Contact for interposers can involve two or three Ultraconductor channels, if the density achieved is as high as mentioned. That is why it is a promising potential for thin film.

The "walk-in" clause was of no concern on our Phase II Contract with the USAF, or on any of the three Phase I Contracts completed, as we could see we would not be inventing on any of those contracts.

[Spud1k]

If your materials had any significant commercial value then either you are the world's worst business manager, or in the decade that you have been hawking this stuff, you would have made a sale.

Based on his previous posts, he seems to be claiming he has trouble finding investors with enough 'vision'. Trouble is, gambling money on a project with nothing more than a promise of a product is, if anything, telling of a lack of vision, as evidenced by the dotcom experience.

[shadron]

It's junk. the first claim on the page is for room-temperature superconductors, which would have been a major industrial breakthrough all on its own.