@Fred
What always amazes me about these old patents is that no follow-up has been given to an invention that seems revolutionary.
If commercially a heater was given for "2 KW of heat for only 1.5 KW of power supply", I'm sure it would be successful. And don't tell me that this is because of a "dogma" of energy conservation, when we see much worse in commercial advertisements, and here a simple measurement by a certification body would show that this is true.
If this was not done, would it not be that the inventor's interpretation of his measurements was not correct?
Yes, it is surprising, isn't it? In this case the device was replicated and tested with professional calorimetric gear and the results were as the inventor said-- although the gain was more like 8% over unity as I recall.
The decision was made by those on high not to pursue the technology. There were several projects competing for funding at that time, and the CEO went for a glamorous 'free energy generator' which is now patented (I worked on the patent), but has not gone anywhere. The company no longer exists. Far from being the dogma of energy conservation, what killed this project was the confluence of the bright shiny object, the easily distracted and non technical CEO, and the charismatic inventor who's going to revolutionize society and make the CEO a billion bucks.
In all three companies I was involved in, the myths of the glamorous free energy machine and the lone wolf genius effectively killed the development of genuine technologies. If we in the lab had something with a COP of 1.02, the CEO would instead spend all the money on a Russian anti-gravity machine (true story).
In the larger sense, unless the inventor works under the aegis of a corporation, or has a lot of money to do their own development, it's not likely that anyone would notice their invention in the sea of data. It takes enormous drive and self-marketing ability to get funding in a world of (often meaningless but profitable) competing inventions.
And of course, if the inventor claims some sort of unconventional effect or unusual performance, it will often stall in the patent office. And even when companies actively search for patents to develop or buy (not often) they hire professionals to do the searching, and the searches are strictly focused on very specific subclasses of patents. My searches cover many classes--for instance, all solar energy converters-- and work laterally across seemingly unrelated lines of technology, looking for anomalies and general principles. Otherwise things like Bice would never see the light of day. They are forgotten by everyone except the inventor from the moment the patent is filed.
There are two devices that have documented anomalous performance which have broken through and had some minor commercial success. The Griggs Hydrosonic Pump, now renamed the Shockwave Reactor, and the Cobb Energy Trimmer previously mentioned.
https://www.hydrodynamics.com/products/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn_NhUq3k-I(the video is long and tedious, but toward the end shows the inventor preparing to install the Energy Trimmer in an LA public library).
Although both have been tested and shown to have energy gains not fully accounted for, neither was marketed as a 'free energy device', which of course is the kiss of death for commercial development.
Fred
Author
Topic: Alexander Graham Bell's Free Energy Device (Read 5206 times)
