Free Energy Device from Dr. Claus W. Turtur in Germany

[Grumpy]

link to his site:
http://www.ostfalia.de/cms/de/pws/turtur/FundE/English/


Link to paper:
http://www.gsjournal.net/old/physics/turtur1e.pdf

[Peterae]

I thought i would save some of that page incase it vanishes off the web.

Although I verified the practical utilization of free energy in the laboratory, I had to stop my research work completely. This is not very nice, because "Free and Clean Energy" would be important for mankind.

The zero-point oscillations of Quantum Electrodynamics do contain a huge amount of energy, which is known on the one hand from Cosmological measurements and on the other hand from measurements on the well known Casimir-effect.

The question is now, whether mankind can get benefit of this energy, which would be of serious practical importance, because this energy is understood without any connection to visible matter. Thus a conversion of this energy into a usable form of energy will be free from any pollution of our environment by principle.

The following links introduce into a theoretical understanding of this energy and furthermore they demonstrate a successful conversion of this energy into classical mechanical energy, as it was already performed in the Laboratory. Up to now, some knowledge of the fundamental principles of Physics is developed, but the technical maturity of this energy conversion is in far future, because in the experiment done up to now, only 150 NanoWatts of machine power had been gained.

[Peterae]

Continued because of size - Had to split pages

[Peterae]

http://www.philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=233

With regard to this aspect, our ZPE-motor shows completely different behaviour than a classical electrical motor. If we for instance decide to use good bearings in order to minimise friction and to avoid mechanical load to the shaft, we will even not be able to get any electrical power of the engine. But already if we begin to enhance mechanical friction in the bearings, this would help to enhance the amount of electrical power which can be extracted.

Of course, the application of bad bearings with much friction is not, what we recommend. Preferable is the well-controlled extraction of beneficial mechanical power from the rotating shaft. In the ideal case, we could have some active control, to influence the mechanical power extraction in such a way, that the "beneficial phase-shift" will always be regulated most close to its optimum value of 45°.

omg this really could have explained how Romero and a long time ago user HMM window motor could have really work.

In Romero's motor i measured the magnetic advance and lag degree's and under normall operation there was none, with the way Romero built his motor being radial, he would have needed pulse acceleration and then loaded deceleration to maintain the optimum 45 Degree magnetic lag to couple with the ZPE, when i replicated Romer's motor i worked out that really one driver coil was braking and one driving, this could indeed under the correct load conditions give him a mostly 45 Degree Lag and advance for potentially long enough to extract resonant ZPE energy.

In user HMM window motor he had exactly the configuration used by Turtur so therefore all he needed was to load it exactly right to get a 45 Degree magnetic shift or use bad bearings as Turtur puts it.

Look at the picture of Turturs generator and then think Window Motor

[EMdevices]

Obviously, this energy is not zero. This means that the charge (which is the field source)
indeed emits energy permanently. By the way, this is a mathematical reproduction of the
first paradox.

I'm reading one of Prof Turtur's papers, and from the quote above I'm getting a feeling he is making some wrong assumptions on some of his calculations, because his problem setup is not physical, but highly theoretical and speculative.  The profesor certainly has the math behind him, but something hints that he is not an "expert" in this domain, because I took a lot of electromagnetic course work in college and saw a lot of derivation and his calculations are dubious.    For example he say's that electrostatic fields CONSTANTLY emit power (see quote above), which is not correct.  If charge was miraculously created UNBALANCED meaning a cluster of (+) charge just apeared out of nowhere without the balanced (-) charges created at the same instant,  than perhaps yes, the fields would be "propagating" outwardly forever and hence field power density would be "propagating" outwardly, but this is not physical, only a theoretical excercise.    Moreover, in electrodyanamic theory, it is shown that his setup does NOT RADIATE, becasue there is no END FIRE mechanism from the theory of electromagnetics.   EM radiation only occurs sideways from an oscillating current element (from >0 to <180 deg, with 90 degrees being the strongest, but not at 0, or 180, which is called "end fire", and in turn when integration occurs over a sphere like his, we get zero energy radiating.   So that's why I'm skeptical, at first glance only.

However, I concur that there is a lot of energy all around us, weather it is called ZPE or otherwise.   The fact that we are not living at absolute zero, tells us that we are bathing in a lot of thermal energy, which in it's fundamental form is nothing more than electromagnetic energy at the atomic level, but of very high FREQUENCY.    So my theory of a possible extraction mechanism of this energy, is to use the well known "RF mixer" principle and frequency downconvert this energy to a frequency range that we can more easily deal with and resonate tank circuits, etc..    Just a wild hairbrained idea with no hint at how to even acomplish it.

The solution of this discrepancy is rather simple: It is just necessary to dissolve the
misunderstanding, which is behind this discrepancy, namely the rigid fixation of the field to
the field-source with immediate infinite expansion of the field. This point of few is simply
erroneous (because of the reasons explained above). In reality the field is not fixed rigidly to
the electron, and thus we do not have to move the complete field, when we want to move the
electron. In reality, the electron emits its electromagnetic field, and as soon as the field is
emitted, it is released from the electron. So the field propagates through the universe,
following the way how it was emitted, not knowing what is happening to the electron, after
the field has left its source. The field propagates into the space with the speed of light, without
being coupled to the field-source. There is no interaction between the field source and the
field being emitted before the moment of observation, so that the field does not give any
action back to the electron from which it originates.

I don't agree with the underlined text.  


EM

[Grumpy]

I have not had time to even read this other than a quick glance and looked legitimate so worth further study.  (I never could find why he had to stop his work.)

We might look at electrical aspects rather than a direct mechanical conversion.

[Grumpy]

The solution of this discrepancy is rather simple: It is just necessary to dissolve the
misunderstanding, which is behind this discrepancy, namely the rigid fixation of the field to
the field-source with immediate infinite expansion of the field. This point of few is simply
erroneous (because of the reasons explained above). In reality the field is not fixed rigidly to
the electron, and thus we do not have to move the complete field, when we want to move the
electron. In reality, the electron emits its electromagnetic field, and as soon as the field is
emitted, it is released from the electron. So the field propagates through the universe,
following the way how it was emitted, not knowing what is happening to the electron, after
the field has left its source. The field propagates into the space with the speed of light, without
being coupled to the field-source. There is no interaction between the field source and the
field being emitted before the moment of observation, so that the field does not give any
action back to the electron from which it originates.

I don't agree with the underlined text.  

EM

Sounds right to me.  Why don't you agree with it?

Also, I note that he says the self-correction start around 1kv

[GibbsHelmholtz]

Wait the minute,

So if I'm the electron oscillating thus emitting EM waves (I throw a rock).  If someone from a distance away catch the rock, I instantly feel a force? 

[ion]

How does this reasoning apply to purely magnetic fields, where there is a connection between the distant object and the magnet?

Electron spins create the dipole and unpaired spins presumably allow the magnetic field thus created to reach far beyond the magnet.

An distant chunk of ferrous metal will indeed have a reaction force on the magnet, thus a mechanical connection between the two.

A rock analogy may be too simplistic.

Of course EM waves are a different kind of "field" so all fields are not the same....

[Grumpy]

from page 32 of turtur1e.pdf :

In the notation of particle physics, the zero point oscillations are bosonic Quantum field
fluctuations (because they are electromagnetic waves), and events of vacuum polarisation are
fermionic Quantum field fluctuations (because they consist of particles like virtual electrons
and positrons) [She 01], [She 03]. Their conversion (which is necessary for vacuum polari-
sation) consists of processes like virtual pair production and annihilation. Especially in
electric and magnetic fields, the probability amplitudes for the conversion of those both types
of Quantum field fluctuations depend on external field strength. Thus the distance to the field
source has an influence on the number of such processes occurring in a given time interval. 

He states earlier on page 31 that he does not know how this conversion occurs.  Interesting.

Back in section 2.2 of same paper he comments:
(taken out of context)

The volume of the space filled with this field increases permanently during time and with it
the total energy of the field. But from where does this "new energy" originate ? For the
charged particle does not alter its mass (and thus its energy), the "new energy" can not
originate from the particle itself. This means: The charged particle has to be permanently
supplied with energy from somewhere. The situation is also possible for particles, which are
in contact with nothing else but only with the vacuum. The consequence is obvious: The
particle can be supplied with energy only from the vacuum.

As for the magnet question, the ferrous metal creates it's own magnetic field which reacts with the electron and its magnetic field.  Takes two to "couple" - pun intended!

[exnihiloest]

I have read several times papers from Turtur. He is interesting, nevertheless his theory has a flaw that he hides.
He considers that there is permanently a flow of energy spreading from a static charge. His idea came from the fact that a change of a field propagates at a constant speed c. For instance, if a charge accelerates, its field at a distance d will be "updated" only after a time t=d/c. This is perfectly correct. But this is not the proof that a static charge radiates energy. We must remind that there is no creation of a single charge from nothing. A charge always exist, meaning that its field aready filled all the space around it. When charges are created, they are created only by pairs of each sign. This implies that the electric field in space which was zero, remains zero until the two charges are sufficiently separated so that more field from one than from the other is felt at a particular location. Therefore this doesn't imply the tremendous flow of energy that Turtur speaks. Only the "field update" implies energy flow, not the static form.
So his theory seems unlikely. Now we must consider his experiments. Static electric fields are very difficult to handle. The environment is easily a source of perturbation. So the tiny effect in his experiment is very interesting but doesn't show yet a new effect beyond any doubt.

[exnihiloest]

...
So my theory of a possible extraction mechanism of this energy, is to use the well known "RF mixer" principle and frequency downconvert this energy to a frequency range that we can more easily deal with and resonate tank circuits, etc..  
...

A RF mixer implies nonlinearities. The same exact principle is done much more simply with a single diode rectifying the thermal electrical noise. Nevertheless those who tried real setups faced the problem of the threshold of the diode, far above the thermal noise. A passive RF mixer is built with 4 diodes, so the problem would be worth than with a single diode. The second problem is that the thermal noise is spread over very large bands of frequencies and a downconverter can't change all the frequencies to a narrow band that we could deal with. Even if you had 100 Thz +/-1Thz and a downconverter to minus 100 Thz, you would be left with a not at all usefull 1 Thz band.

[GibbsHelmholtz]

My view is just simply speculate there is a delay time when a change occur.  Suppose we have two magnets a distance apart.  They are link to each other via the magnetic field, but if one magnet is jiggled, the other one would not instantly react.  Action and reaction, therefore, takes time to carry out.  The case for static field is the same in my opinion.  A charge is jiggling with the universe.  They pass action and reaction back and forth.  Suppose if the universe does not return the action from the charge, the electron loose its field.  It's like you throw a ball at your friend, he catches and throws it back.  You still have the ball.  If he catches and keep it, you loose the ball and have to regain it from something else. 

[ion]

My view is just simply speculate there is a delay time when a change occur.  Suppose we have two magnets a distance apart.  They are link to each other via the magnetic field, but if one magnet is jiggled, the other one would not instantly react.  Action and reaction, therefore, takes time to carry out.  The case for static field is the same in my opinion.  A charge is jiggling with the universe.  They pass action and reaction back and forth.  Suppose if the universe does not return the action from the charge, the electron loose its field.  It's like you throw a ball at your friend, he catches and throws it back.  You still have the ball.  If he catches and keep it, you loose the ball and have to regain it from something else. 

To expand on this thought, the magnetic field does not react instantly because it has a compressibility or springiness, as such it can store energy. The distant object has mass so it will take time to react to the slightly compressed field. If it had no mass, would it react instantly?

Has anyone ever successfully measured the propagation speed of a purely magnetic field? It seems this would be a difficult experiment to carry out.

Or am I revealing my ignorance of the subject matter?

[Peterae]

I read in one of Tesla's books he tried to determine if the flux had direction, he used an iron rod which had a coil wound on it, and a brass disc placed near the rod, his thoughts were that eddy currents setup in the brass disc would rotate it more in one direction than other if there was an imbalance to the direction of the flux, something like that anyway.


I managed to record the magnetic lag/advance during my tests on the Romero generator, i used a hall sensor directly over a coil on the rotor and the mag field moves during Acceleration and declaration.

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=862.msg15738#msg15738

[Grumpy]

There is a relaxation effect that they talk about in magnetic particle imaging.

[GibbsHelmholtz]

To expand on this thought, the magnetic field does not react instantly because it has a compressibility or springiness, as such it can store energy. The distant object has mass so it will take time to react to the slightly compressed field. If it had no mass, would it react instantly?

Has anyone ever successfully measured the propagation speed of a purely magnetic field? It seems this would be a difficult experiment to carry out.

Or am I revealing my ignorance of the subject matter?

Hi ION,

It does makes sense that the delay cause by compressibility or springiness.  I also think it is just a propagation speed and does not depends on the distance object mass.  Let's say we disturb the pond.  Waves travel to a distance object.  The object would not be "updated" until the waves arrive sometimes later. 

This lead me thinking about Lenz and the reason generator drag.  Drag is cause by I^2R losses and nothing else.  If we do not have resistance losses, then there is no reason for drag.  It is my view that we should not load generator directly with resistance but rather store them in capacitors. 

[ion]

Hi ION,

It does makes sense that the delay cause by compressibility or springiness.  I also think it is just a propagation speed and does not depends on the distance object mass.  Let's say we disturb the pond.  Waves travel to a distance object.  The object would not be "updated" until the waves arrive sometimes later. 

This lead me thinking about Lenz and the reason generator drag.  Drag is cause by I^2R losses and nothing else.  If we do not have resistance losses, then there is no reason for drag.  It is my view that we should not load generator directly with resistance but rather store them in capacitors. 

Hi GH

A static magnetic field is not a wave in that there are no reversals of polarity or changes in amplitude vs. time. Most on the web seem to be comparing static fields to EM waves but they are quite different IMHO.

I thought it was well known that Lenz's law pertains to the linkage between fields and in the ideal sense does not need to consider coil resistance to be apparent. It would still be present in a permanent magnet generator that utilized superconducting windings. It represents the mirror magnetic field induced in the winding cut by flux lines due to voltage induced into the windings but only when the current is allowed to flow due to either a short circuit on the generator output or a suitable load. When the generator is open circuit, there is no current and no drag.

With a capacitor load on an AC machine, current will lead voltage by 90 degrees.

Cheers