There was no defining point in my life where I became a sceptic. More it was a gradual realisation that my preferred way of interacting with the world was questioning my observations and those of others, seeking out evidence to support or refute claims as they came my way. Eventually the wider sceptic movement began in earnest and I readily found myself identifying with them, reveling in the discussions that they brought forth. Thus the term sceptic became something of a positive term, one I could use to relate to like minded individuals. However those holding opinions that run contrary to the sceptical mindset have sought to take advantage of the good will the term brings with it.
The first to attempt to usurp the moniker for their own means were the climate change deniers, using the term to say that they were sceptical of the science at hand. Now that might have flown decades ago when our knowledge of the climate wasn’t as mature as it is today but the fact is that being a sceptic about this particular issue puts you against the vast majority of the scientific community. So in order for you to be a sceptic (and not just flat out wrong) you’d have to have some pretty substantial evidence that either runs contrary to the current scientific narrative or you simply believe the majority of the science community has it wrong. If you had the former then the wider scientific community would consider it in due process (as they have innumerable times before) and the latter is a faith argument, once which rapidly falls apart if you believe in anything else with a scientific base (like, I don’t know, computers maybe?).
The most recent judas to bring themselves into the “sceptic” community is the Australian Vaccination Network who, after numerous claims about their horrendously misleading name, have renamed themselves to the Australian Vaccination-Skeptics (sic) Network. The AVSN has long prided themselves on taking a reasonable approach to vaccinations, indeed even right now they have an article on their front page titled “Make an informed vaccination choice” (although it’s bereft of any actual information apart from the number of vaccinations kids will receive), so the title would seem fitting. However they have demonstrated time and time again that they are in fact not the scientific body they claim to be and do nothing to educate parents about vaccines and their effects on children.
I’ve had a go at them multiple times in the past for their absolutely unscientific stances on the effects of vaccines on children and their support of the conscientious objector exemption. Every time I make a post that mentions them I often receive multiple tirades about how wrong I was but without any evidence to back it up. I would then helpfully provide fully peer reviewed studies to substantiate my claims only to receive vitriol in return. Whilst I’m always hesitant to judge a following based on the actions of a few noisy individuals the problem is obviously not just limited to those few and anyone thinking they’re somehow promoting scientific thinking by denying a large body of evidence with nothing to back them up is causing far more harm than any benefit they claim.
So whilst this name change is hilarious it’s also symptomatic of a larger issue of people usurping the goodwill attached to the sceptic term. Far be it from me to be the final authority on what words mean what to everyone but I simply can’t stand people who pretend to ascribe to an ideal and do anything but. The now Australian Vaccination-Skeptics Network is a prime example of this, touting themselves as an informative, scientific organisation that only has parents’ interests at heart. They do not and the sooner the organisation ceases to exist, or at least exert a discernable force on anyone’s decisions, the better.
I was watching one of the latest Mythbusters episodes recently when I noticed a strange phenomenon that looked oddly familiar. The experiment in question was testing the myth that a gun won’t fire in space (I.E. a perfect vacuum) something which Hollywood has a troubled past with. Whilst the answer was somewhat obvious before they began (hint: the answer, and the reasons behind it, are the same if you fired it underwater) the result was very impressive. Unfortunately I can’t find a direct link to the video however their high speed footage was nearly identical to what the Barking Dog experiment looks like, as shown in this video:
Seeing everything in slow motion is extremely interesting because it clearly shows how the sound is produced along with the characteristic light show. The flame front bouncing off the fuel saturated area pushes out the air above it, creating the sound, and as it approaches the bottom the time between those pulses rapidly decreases changing the tone of the resultant sound. In the Mythbusters episode you could see a lot of similarities although because it wasn’t an open ended system (due to the use of a vacuum) the sound produced was more of a descending low tone as the gas created by the bullet diffused and the shock wave ricocheted around.
I loved Sonic the Hedgehog as a kid mostly because I could simply point myself in a single direction, mash the spin button and then watch as he flitted from one side of the screen to the other at breakneck speed. Whilst the physics of that particular game aren’t rooted in reality some of the principles were namely the forces of momentum, inertia and, most importantly centripetal force. That last one is the force responsible for keeping objects pinned down when going through loop the loops although you usually only see it in action on roller coasters or special stunt vehicles. I honestly didn’t think it’d be possible for a human to accomplish what our speedy blue friend did but it seems that, like many other things, I was wrong.
I was surprised to learn that the required speed to get around the loop safely was so low, well within the reach of anyone with a modicum of fitness. The real key here though is the technique as the way we humans generate force is vastly different to that of more traditional vehicles that can accomplish this feat. You see the force we generate isn’t in line with the surface we’re on, it’s at something of a 45 degree angle, which means that as you get to the higher parts of the loop you’ll actually be pushing yourself off it with your face heading directly towards the floor.
This becomes evident when you see the initial trial runs where he has to flip himself over at the peak of the loop. In the final, successful run you can see that when his foot hits the peak he doesn’t actually use that to generate any force. Instead he’s doing something like an upside down split kick with one foot travelling from one side of the loop to the other. It’s incredibly impressive to say the least and just goes to show that given enough practice, persistence and good old fashioned science the impossible can be achieved.
We’re a country of polluters, there’s no question about that. In terms of world ranking we seem to hover around 11th in per capita pollution, beating other big polluters like China, India and even the United States. Whilst we can lay the blame for a good chunk of that on our resources sector it doesn’t mean that we, as a country, aren’t responsible for it and are obligated to do as much as we can to reduce the amount of carbon and other pollutants that enter our atmosphere. The previous government made some headways into this however our current representatives seem intent on undoing the small amount of good they managed to get through, even if it makes absolutely no sense to do so.
Yesterday it was announced that the Renewable Energy Target (RET), which was revised under the previous government to a larger figure, was going to be reviewed. Now typically this wouldn’t be something to fret about, especially considering that reviews like this are supposed to be carried out by the Climate Change Commission, but since Abbott disbanded them it’s now being led by Dick Warburton a confessed anthropogenic climate change denier. To make matters worse it’s also going to be done in the context of an apparent oversupply of electricity in Australia, something which the current rhetoric from the Abbott government seems to pin wholly on the rapid uptake in renewables.
Are you fucking kidding me.
The Small Scale Renewable Energy Scheme (SRES) and the Large Scale Renewable Target (LRET) schemes have been responsible for a massive increase in the amount of grid connected renewable energy in Australia. Indeed it’s been so successful that we’ve even had some regions revise their own targets above what they initially planned, meaning a very healthy percentage of Australia’s energy now comes from renewable resources. The argument being made now is that the incentives provided to those renewables is costing Australia too much and is leading to a glut of energy production, driving prices lower. Whilst I’d argue that the cost of the program (~$1.6 billion according to Warburton) is worth it I can’t understand the thought process behind people complaining about lower electricity costs.
The source of this rhetoric is somewhat understandable; it’s because Warburton doesn’t believe that we’re responsible for the climate change. Thus, when you take that view, renewables get an unfair amount of treatment with their subsidies and feed in tariffs. However if you take the rational scientific view where we are responsible then the picture becomes far more clear and the paltry price we pay to have such a large percentage of renewable energy is a sound investment. Indeed should we lose both the carbon tax and the RET there’s no telling how much further up the global polluter ranks we’ll climb and I don’t think any rational Australian wants that.
We’re seeing the results of electing a government that is packed with representatives who are running with an agenda that clearly runs opposite to the facts. Whilst I’d love to believe that a review of the RET would show that everything should continue as planned I’m afraid I lost all trust in reviews commissioned in this manner after the total farce that was the NBN strategic review. With Warburton at the helm it’s guaranteed that we’ll see cuts to the RET which will have a strong, negative impact on the state of renewable energy in Australia. Unfortunately that will just be the first hit to soften us up before the real hit comes: the abolishment of the carbon price.
Everyone can relate to the frustration of having a drawer full of batteries that are in an unknown state of charge. For most people the only method they have to deduce whether they’re good or not is to try them out in a device, something that inevitably leads to frustration when your spares show up dead as well. The inclusion of battery testers on the batteries themselves (or in the packaging) seemed like a great idea however it never seemed to catch on presumably due to cost factors. Whilst geeks like myself might have a voltmeter handy to get accurate readings in an instant they’re not a ubiquitous device and an effective way of testing batteries still eludes most.
That is until they see this video:
Honestly when I saw this video I was pretty sceptical as the video, whilst highly informative, is anything but scientific. Instead of having 2 batteries from the same brand (and preferably from the same batch) for comparison the effect could be explained by differences in manufacturing between the two. I didn’t take the opportunity to test it myself however, even though I do have a drawer full of batteries that are all in unknown states, but after seeing this video parroted around various life hacking sites I figured that if it was total bunk someone would’ve called shenanigans. It seems that the video is accurate and the science behind why empty batteries bounce is very interesting.
It’s not, as many have speculated, related to a reduction in weight between a full battery and a discharged one. Batteries like this are a closed system, chemically speaking, so save for a few milligrams here and there due to handling or (more catastrophically) a breach in them batteries don’t change their weight. Instead it’s a quirk of the manufacturing process and the change in densities of the various materials inside the battery, all of which result in it becoming bouncy.
In a typical alkaline battery the chemical reaction that takes place to produce charge also results in the materials shrinking. The reason for this is that as the battery discharges oxygen molecules from the cathode (negative ) manganese oxide terminal migrate to the anode (positive) zinc anode, producing zinc oxide. When this occurs the total volume decreases as the oxygen atoms are able to pack themselves much tighter on the zinc oxide terminal than they can on the manganese oxide. This results in the internals shrinking somewhat and, as a consequence, tugs on the side of the pressure seal on the bottom of the battery. This causes it to bow outwards providing a spring like structure which results in the bounce when dropped.
Now I haven’t looked at a lot of batteries recently but I can image that some other designs might make this trick fail due to the design of the cathode terminal. This also means that the trick is probably unique to the cylinder style batteries (A, C, D, etc.) as whilst other types of batteries have similar chemical reactions their construction is vastly different. So I wouldn’t recommend dropping your car or latern batteries to try and test them out, lest you want to spend some time in the chemical burn ward and paying for a large chemical spill.
Yesterday I posted the below picture to Twitter, exclaiming that showed the dire state of Australia’s health when compared to the rest of the world. Since then I’ve had several people point out the correlation between the countries suffering from high cancer incident rates: they’re nearly all developed nations who have a decent healthcare system. The theory then goes that these figures are somewhat meaningless as lower incidents of cancer typically means people aren’t living long enough to get it. Whilst I agree that this is true to some extent it’s unfortunately not as simple as that and some new research I came across today could point to something that shows why Australia’s incident rate is so high.
Now this graphic, whilst giving you a great overview, is unfortunately a rather blunt instrument for validating the theory that better health care = longer lives = higher cancer incident rate. Primarily this is because of its resolution which makes it hard to pick out the smaller countries, specifically the developed ones that have low rates of cancer. Singapore for instance has the lowest rate out of many countries with a per capita income that ranks in the top ten of the world. Similarly Japan, whilst not being the anomaly that Singapore seems to be, has a rate that’s dramatically lower than Australia (about 70 per 100,000) with a population that’s aging and is almost 6 times the size.
Initially I was going to make a point about skin cancer as Australia is a well known offender with our incident rate for melanoma around 90 per 100,000. Surprisingly New Zealand is not too far behind in this regard and the drop after that is quite incredible with the next closest competitor being Norway with an incident rate that’s almost half of anywhere else. That leads me to believe it’s somewhat cultural as whilst we like to blame the hole in the ozone layer it’s actually anything but since its reach doesn’t extend up to our continent. Since this kind of cancer is almost entirely preventable I felt the need to rant at Australians who are knowingly killing themselves but there might be an even wider issue that could have a far greater impact on this.
Obesity is a major issue for a lot of western developed countries and if you overlay the graphs from here with the one shown above it’s hard to deny the strong correlation between the two. Indeed whilst the level of healthcare and wealth might be a good predictor for the incident rate of cancer in a country obesity is a much better predictor and the links between obesity and certain types of cancer is well known. The same argument against wealth also works for obesity (people don’t get as fat in poor countries) however this is, again, a preventable risk factor for cancer. Combining these two factors together and you have a recipe for Australia being a hot bed for cancer, one that it needn’t be at all.
The good news is that, should you want to avoid the major risk factors for getting cancer in Australia, you can do that without a meaningful impact on your life. It might be time for the government to resurrect the campaigns of decades past, albeit with an additional message to watch your weight as well as your exposure to the sun. They had an impact, I can still remember the jingle like I heard it yesterday, and it’s prime time to get the next generation of Australians thinking about their long term health.
Undoubtedly black holes are one of the most intriguing phenomena in our universe. The current interpretation of them, being a point mass that’s infinitely dense, is quite modern being only formalized some time back in the 1950s although the scientific roots can be traced back a bit further than that. Still they’re far from being a solved problem space as, like all things that use the word “infinite” in some capacity, their behaviour is a little strange especially when you try to explain them using different theories for how the universe works. To us laypeople we tend to be rooted in the general relativity explanation, however once you step into the world of quantum mechanics suddenly they start behaving differently creating quite the paradox.
In the world of general relativity passing across the event horizon, the point at which nothing (not even light) can escape, would be a somewhat peaceful affair. Since you would be in complete free fall at the time you wouldn’t experience a sudden jolt or anything that would indicate to you that this had happened (which makes black holes nightmare material for someone like me who has aspirations for space travel). After a while though you’d start to feel rather uncomfortable as the difference between the gravity at your head and feet became vastly different, eventually leading to a rather untimely demise at the hands of what has been dubbed spaghettification. However if you approach the same problem from the view of quantum mechanics you might not even get a chance to experience that as the world past the black hole’s event horizon is something vastly different.
The current hypothesis say that instead of the event horizon being a peaceful transition (although usually even getting to the event horizon would be quite nasty thanks to the accretion disks they usually sport) there instead exists a violent firewall of energy, ready to tear anything apart that crosses that horizon. Whilst the mechanics of this are well above my understanding it appears to be a quirk of Hawking Radiation, the process by which black holes “evaporate” over time. This evaporation occurs via entangled particles, one which leaves the black hole and another that falls back in. However this must mean that the entanglement is broken at some point which would release a lot of energy. This has led to a paradox which means that we have to either modify or abandon certain principles in physics, something which scientists don’t really like to do unless there’s a good reason to.
Hawking has recently weighed in on the topic through a paper on ArXiv which was then famously misinterpreted as him saying that there were no black holes at all. What he was actually saying was that there were no black holes in the traditional sense that there were distinct event horizons which, when passed, would not allow anything to escape. Instead Hawking has propose apparent horizons which are temporary artefacts, shifting around the black hole. This would then allow information to escape without necessitating the quantum firewall, preserving the more peaceful theory.
The new theory hasn’t been hit with resounding approval however as it raises almost as many questions as it answers. I’ll admit its quite intriguing, definitely worthy of further research, but with so many fundamental changes to the model of how black holes operate it’s hard to take it at face value. Still the mere fact that this has caused such ripples, even outside the scientific community, shows just how important this is to the wider world of physics.
Kinematics was my least favourite part of physics, mostly because I always had a rough time wrapping my head around the various rules and principles that govern the way things move in our world. However one lesson always stuck with me in my head, the one relating to friction and it’s various forms. Whilst I’m sure the teacher delighted in tricking us all by asking us what kind of friction a rolling tire has (hint: it’s either static or kinetic and it’s not the one you’d first think it is) that example rooted the principle firmly in my head. Understanding that made further concepts a lot easier to grasp although I’d never really considered friction a powerful force until I saw this:
What you’re seeing happen here is a process called Friction Welding although in technical terms it’s actually not welding at all. Instead it’s actually a type of forging as in traditional welding two pieces of metal are joined via melting whereas in friction welding no such melt occurs. This process has a lot of advantages most notably allowing 2 dissimilar metals, say high grade aluminium and steel (a common pair in space fairing missions), to be joined together. Doing this process via other means is extremely difficult due to the different melting points of each material and would likely lead to a much weaker bond. Friction welding by comparison always creates a full strength bond without the additional weight introduced via other methods.
Interestingly enough this process can also be used with materials other than metals, specifically thermoplastics which are a type of plastic that becomes pliable under heat. Friction welding can then also be used to join said plastics onto metal surfaces, enabling cross material bonds that are far stronger than those that could be achieved via other methods.
Pretty fascinating, isn’t it?
There’s a lot of observed phenomena in the world which the only evidence we have of it occurring is from numerous first hand accounts. Whilst these can make for interesting stories, potentially leading to scientific theories to explain said phenomena, the plural of anecdote isn’t data and unfortunately that means they’re rarely the subject of rigorous study. However sometimes serendipity strikes and the right people just happen to be in the right place with the right equipment to capture solid proof of a phenomena, solidifying all those anecdotes with a solid scientific narrative.
And today we now have proof that ball lightning exists:
The video might not look like much but it’s a combination of high-speed video (the little ball on the left) and a spectrograph that details the composition of the spectra coming off the light source. This video was made possible by the fact that Chinese researches were at the Qinghai Plateau to observe regular old cloud to ground lightning and just so happened to catch a ball lightning event in action. The spectrograph allowed them to determine the composition of the ball as well and it closely matched that of soil. This is the first supporting evidence we have of the theory that ball lightning is actually vaporized silicon from the soil as the element, when heated, does seem to act an awful lot like ball lightning.
Interestingly though this only gives credence to one reported type of ball lightning as there have been reports of other types, specifically ones that move horizontally and others that don’t touch the ground at all. Considering how long it took us just to get this observation I wouldn’t be holding my breath to see the other types confirmed any time soon but this does open up the possibility of more research being done in the area. If anything it shows that some weird, random phenomena that have been reported elsewhere might be worth investigation, even if its just to confirm or deny that they exist.
I try my best to maintain some of the principles of journalistic integrity as even a writer with a small audience has sway over the opinions of others. Thus, even though this is my personal blog and I can adhere to almost any rules I choose, I try to lay my biases out on the table, reference original research when possible and, when I’m delving into the realm of opinion and hearsay, I endeavour to make you aware of it. Whilst I’ve rarely had to revisit a post based on new information there have been a precious few that have warranted further investigation in light of new evidence and one such article was my criticism of the claims Quantum Generation had made in an email to me.
For the uninitiated the whole saga began early last year when the CEO of Quantum Generation, Arthur Fahy, sent me an email making some rather extraordinary claims about a motor that he had created. I initially responded with heavy handed scepticism, figuring that it was just another elaborate free energy scam, and thought that would be as far as it would go. What followed was an email exchange whereby Arthur revealed more and more information to me, pulling me deeper into the story and made me wonder just what exactly had happened. In the end I wrote the post and figured that would be the end of it, the final nail in a conversation that had entertained me for so long.
I was utterly wrong and the truth is far more interesting than the story that Arthur first told me.
Below is a 14 point response from Arthur Fahy in regards to my blog post:
In reply to your comments on your blog
1. I acknowledge and accept that neither of the university reports makes any reference to free energy or over unity. This was not discussed with either university or the Tech voucher Program. As previously stated the motor unofficially recorded an efficiency of 148%, as it only ran at that efficiency for approximately five minutes before it collapsed, the reading could not be made official. An efficiency of 148% is extremely high so the test would need to be repeated to reaffirm the reading. Since the collapsed motor could not be re started, the reading could not be included in the official report.
All associated UNSW testing equipment was checked for faults and none could be found. So I believe it is very feasible that the 148% was correct though under the circumstance still unofficial.
Graphs and data from both universities along with results from years of R&D show positive unique characteristics and I strongly believe it is possible to replicate the 148% or similar, hence the need to raise further funds to build and test a new motor based on all our data at hand.
The present motor under test is already achieving results that make it stand out.
2. Full detailed reports are not publicly available as the technology is still in development and confidential at this stage. It’s quite normal for a company researching new technology to protect its intellectual property.
Furthermore, the terms and conditions of the report clearly state, in part “Any use of this report, in part or in its entirety or use of names of entities or consultants, in direct or indirect advertising or publicity, is forbidden”. So again, the reports are confidential as per the terms and conditions of the report itself.
3. I have attached a photo of a Quantum Generation motor under test in a laboratory at the UNSW.
4. I have attached an edited copy of the Wollongong University report cover and first page, validating both that the testing was in fact carried out and that the work was conducted through the NSW Government Trade and Investment Tech Voucher program as I have previously stated.
5. I have also included photographs of a letter from Professor Vic Ramsden (UTS,CSIRO) showing when it all started. Unfortunately Vic passed away. I wish he was still around for he was brave, not many academics will get involved in this sort of research because they are fearful that their reputation will be blemished. I can understand that.
6. The illustration of patent drawings of a generator shown in the patent office document that you have shown on your blog bears no resemblance whatsoever to the motor that we are working on today.
7. We have no web presence because we are just concentrating on R&D, not really marketing anything.
8. The company Quantum Generation Pty. Ltd. has an ACN number (Australian Company Number). This nomenclature was later changed by ASIC to ABN (Australian Business Number) for all subsequently registered companies.
9. The de registration notice for the company was posted because a late lodgement fee was not paid on time. Since the company fundamentally does not trade this was a small oversight. The fee was paid and it is registered again.
10. Puthoff mentioned $billions when the motor ran at over unity and not before.
11. I appreciate that NASA are using photons to pull a vehicle through the vacuum and that they put power into the device. They are extracting energy (photons) from the vacuum which says that there is energy in the vacuum that can be extracted. The efficiency of extraction is the key. There are also magnetic waves in the vacuum. The reference merely makes the link that energy can be drawn from the air around us that we live in.
12. Cole and Puthoff (1993) verified that (generic) energy extraction schemes are not contradictory to the laws of thermodynamics. Perlmutter and Schmidt received a Nobel prize in 2011 for discovering that ubiquitous Dark Energy (vacuum) is causing the accelerating expansion of the universe. One of the members of the Nobel prize winning team Prof. Tamara Davis stated “one day we may be able to harness this energy on earth for the benefit of mankind”.
13. CP813,Space Technology and Applications International Forum STAIF 2006, American Institute of Physics 0-7354-0305-035
14. We are carrying out legitimate research and have purposely chosen to use the facilities of a number of Universities for testing the motor so as to optimize the accuracy of test results.
I’ll leave most of these points up to consideration for the reader however in response to a couple:
Above is the picture referenced in point 3 and I can confirm that from the EXIF data it was taken somewhat recently. It definitely looks like a motor although I’ll admit I’m not terribly familiar with the testing apparatus that it’s connected to. Suffice to say based on this I was convinced that Arthur had indeed created something (the image didn’t appear in any reverse image searches) but whether or not it was what he was claiming it to be was still up in the air at this point.
I sat on this information for a while, mostly because I wanted to dedicate a decent amount of time to this write up. A couple weeks after receiving this response from Arthur I received another email from someone identifying themselves as Darell wanting to speak to me regarding Quantum Generation. I was intrigued, figuring it might be an interested party or an investor Arthur had approached, so I called him on the number provided. As it turns out Darell was in fact an investor in Quantum Generation and had been for quite some time.
As it turns out Quantum Generation, whilst being the brain child of Arthur Fahy, does in fact have quite the number of investors. Darell mentioned that they were mostly friends and family of Arthur who were funding his idea due to the potential applications it might have. Now that my curiosity was piqued I went to ASIC and bought the company’s share register and verified that there are dozens of investors, Darell being among them. Arthur, as the CEO, holds the majority of the stock however.
The story I was able to get from Darell was in a similar vein to that of Arthur however he was a little bit more level headed about the motor and what its potential capabilities were. He was able to confirm that it had been tested at a couple different universities using the Tech Voucher program and that work had been under way on it for several years. I pressed him several times for contacts at the universities in question and, during that phone conversation, he echoed Arthur’s points about no one wanting to publicly put their name against it. A few weeks later though I received a contact name from him for a research fellow at the University of Wollongong and I approached them with a few questions regarding Quantum Generation.
Below are my questions and his responses:
1. Did Quantum Generation provide you with a motor for testing? If so what kind of testing did they contract you to do?
Quantum Generation provided only their motor to UOW for testing. The nature of the testing involved UOW implementing a computer controlled current source to energise the motor and to test the efficiency of the motor under various operating conditions.
2. What was the outcome of the testing you conducted?
The outcome of the testing resulted in an efficiency curve over a wide speed and load range, where the maximum efficiency reached 78%. The efficiency curve remained close to this value over a wide speed range, which is different to regular types of motors where their efficiency tends to significantly drop as the speed changes. It should be noted that the motor was not tested in the most optimal configuration due to a limitation of the drive system. It was concluded to re-test the motor with a suitable system.
3. Arthur Fahy had made some claims about the performance of the motor (specifically its efficiency), would your observations support the notion that it’s capable of efficiencies exceeding 100%?
The measurements and observations of the efficiency (of the motor in its current state whilst being tested at the University of Wollongong) did not exceed 78%. Therefore, the conclusions from our testing can only support a maximum efficiency of 78%.
4. Does the motor operate through a method of action that’s novel or unlike other motors?
The motor requires only DC current to operate, so quite standard from a “blackbox” point of view. However, I do believe there are aspects of novelty in the design unlike standard commercially available motors.
5. Was the device unusable after testing was completed?
The motor was not damaged during the testing at UOW and maintained full functionality at the conclusion of the tests.
Of note here is the notion that the motor maintains a similar efficiency across a wide range of speeds, something that is indeed a novel characteristic that you won’t find in typical DC motors. Arthur had alluded to this previously and Darell re-iterated it over the phone, something which got lost in the over-zealous excitement of achieving over-unity efficiency. Indeed had Arthur approached me with this I would have been genuinely interested in the technology as a motor with those kinds of specifications would have applications in many areas. Whilst I highly doubt that there will ever be a verified over-unity reading (even though in Darell’s last email to me he mentioned that the University had agreed to build a proper controller to test a new motor thoroughly) there’s definitely something novel about this particular motor and Arthur should focus on those characteristics rather than attempting to create a free energy machine.
Have I changed my mind on investing with Quantum Generation? Well for what it’s worth there’s likely something marketable in there in the form of another DC engine that has a specific use case but it is most certainly not going to be a free energy machine. Whilst Arthur’s response to my initial post still shows his interest in pursuing that idea he’d be much better focused on improving the underlying mechanism of action and marketing the technology’s strengths rather than its spurious readings. I’m sure there’s even more information that I’m not privy to that would speak volumes to investors and so I’d recommend pressing hard for said information so you can make the right choice.