Fraudster - Over unity- free energy - seeks investment

There's gravity induced heat in my lunchbox, and it didn't cost me a cent

This post is for someone named SuperVeg, and involves a challenge I made to invent the impossible a few days ago. Due to using all my money on better things, but mostly due to not really being into bets I cant win, the bet is for bragging rights only, and is open to all. The reality is, after I issued the challenge...

I'm going to run "over unity" through the invention engine and see what it comes up with.

As it's ultimate and final test, I bet (bragging rights only ) that it can come up with a device that you cant fault :)


I thought it might actually prove to be useful as a test of a fail condition.

For some years now I've been working on a formalised problem solving technique. It involves instructions, and processes to attempt to find a solution to a given problem. I call it "The Invention Engine". So far it's largely responsible for most of the inventions in this blog. You can see the difference between the ideas I have and the problems I pose and run through the invention engine. The invention engine ones seem to work.

But it wont this time.

The Invention Engine works like a flow chart or computer program. I put a problem in one end, and a solution falls out the other. So far the process is all in my head, but at some stage I'll publish it. Much of the invention engine itself was created by posing problems and running them through the unfinished engine. That's my favourite bit about the entire endeavour.

One problem with a system designed to find solutions to problems, is that there is no way of arriving at a position where the engine should report that something simply cant be done. I understand this will be an impossible hurdle to overcome, but thought I should put the question through the engine itself anyway.

How can I create a system that can test for "must fail" conditions?

The results of that inquiry required me to put a few different ideas through a test to see how they faired. The best test I could come up with was one that I knew would fail.

I ran a few known impossibilities like tuning water into beer and perpetual motion. I also ran free energy through the engine. Free energy and perpetual motion tend to go hand in hand, but they are not the same thing.

Perpetual motion is impossible because someone named Newton made a law against it. All the good things are illegal. There is an aspect to the universe that tends toward refusing a free lunch. But there are some ways to dodge around the system.

For instance, a hydro electric power plant uses the potential energy of a stack of water sitting high up in some mountains to generate electricity. If you had to pump the water back up the mountain after you generated some electricity from it, you would end up with an electricity bill. Electricity generating companies hate it when they get a bill at the end of the month because it makes them look incompetent. Luckily there is a convenient natural system to get all that water back up the hill for free so you can do it all again. It's kind of free energy, and its also kind of perpetual motion. If you stuck the entire system in a glass dome, it would keep working. But it uses the sun to power it. It's the sun that sticks all that water back up into the tops of the mountains. Evaporation looks free, but it comes at great expense. If I had to pay the power bill for the sun, it would really put a dent in my lifestyle.

Dents aren't free. And sometimes you just don't have a handy river sitting high up in a mountain.

So this entire free lunch electricity generating thing looks like a winner in the "things that are bound to fail if I run them through the engine" competition. I can ask the question and test the system in a hope that the methods I have identified really will let me know when something simply cant be done. I haven't actually identified a method of identifying that a given thing is impossible, but I have to start somewhere.

What I do have is some half baked ideas to test.

So I ran "I want some genuinely free renewable energy that doesn't require the sun to be there at all". That should at least give me a proven "no can do" to test my ideas against.


I got this instead.

please stay with me on this if you are someone who can string together a thought that can hold up to scientific scrutiny. I'm happy to have this fall over, but cant see where it does.

All good perpetual motion engines need a decent name so I'll call this one Bob. Or Bob 3000.

Find a 200 metre high hill.
Build a cable car system on it.
Stick five liquid refrigerant filled gas tankers on the down cable at regular intervals, and five empty gas tankers on the up cable.
Attach a few generators from the turnstile at the top of the system.
Run a gas line from the bottom of the hill to the top.
Plug a compressor into the gas line at the top of the hill.

Generally speaking, the plan is to generate electricity from the potential energy stored because some liquefied gas is sitting at the top of a hill. In this respect, Bob 3000 is a lot like a hydro electric power plant. The generators are placed on either the top or bottom pulley that carry the cable, or both as is convenient.

To get the gas back to the top of the hill, we release it into a large diameter gas line at the bottom that is already filled with gas. When it turns from a liquid into a gas, it fills the gas line. The gas line is a sealed system that allows the liquefied refrigerant barely enough freedom to only just turn gaseous. ie it remains under a great deal of pressure even when in the pipe.

As the full gas tanker moves down the hill it weighs say 100 tons.
The empty ones weigh, for the sake of mathematical ease, 20 tones.
So we have 500 tons coming down the hill and 100 going up.
Now lets call 400 tones falling from 200 metres approximately one shi?load of energy (where one shi?load is a unit of measurement known only to me)

Compressors use a stack of energy to compress gas, and tend to be not very efficient. But the plan here is to start with gas that's already almost a liquid, so we have a bit of a head start.

But there's no such thing as a free lunch, so lets say it takes two shi?loads of energy to compress the gas back into a liquid at the top of the hill to make the system keep moving, and it produces only one shi?load of power.

1S - 2S = (grumpy shareholders)

But here's the bit that the invention engine spat out on the third pass...

Just triple the height of the hill.

Normally if you were, say, pumping water back up hill to use for hydroelectricity, if you double the height of the hill, you double the energy costs to the system, but in this system the additional costs almost amount to not very much at all. A bit of friction at each end of the cables, and some in the pipes is about all. The gas in the pipes almost finds its own way to the top of the hill. The compressor still uses almost the same amount of energy. The only real difference is the weight of the cable. And the additional weight on the upside is counteracted by the additional weight on the downside. The result is thrice the power generated, but with only a tiny additional energy cost.

Our shareholders now see 3S - 2S = (happy shareholders + that Nobel prize I've always wanted, and some serious karmic credit for giving away a multi-trillion dollar invention and saving the world)

Now as I said, I'm happy for this impossible invention to be knocked over, and fully expect it to be. To this end I have invited a few people to do so. But I personally cant figure out where the problem is. I'm actually really keen to learn where it lies.

Even the invention engine cant find a problem.

It will be the invention engine's first failure, but as stated the final solution was supposed to be impossible, so please, I invite everyone to find where it falls over. Even if all you have is a vague feeling, drop in  comment or send me an email so I can explore it a bit.

You'll have to guess my gmail account as your first test.

120 things in 20 years - taking fraud into the realm of honesty with "Fraudster - Over unity- free energy - seeks investment" posts.


  1. You have 200 tons of gas coming down the hill but only 100 tons going back up the hill.

    If you had 1000 tons at the top, after one cycle you now have 900 tons at the top and 100 tons at the bottom.

  2. The problem arises with the weight of the gas going back up the hill. To be precise it is with the statement "The gas in the pipes almost finds its own way to the top of the hill."
    The 'almost' will require the same amount of potential energy that is dissipated by having the liquid gas coming down the hill.
    There is no loss of gas, since this is a closed system, so the weight going up will have to be the same as the weight coming down. It doesn't matter whether the substance is gas of liquid: it still weighs the same, just takes up a different amount of space in the universe.
    It's that pesky Newton fella giving you headaches again...
    Tripling the height of the hill will triple the amount of 'almost'...

  3. No doubt you're correct.

    But isn't that different amount of space it takes up, the thing that gets it back to the top of the hill. The expansion of the gas fills the pipe with pressurised gas.

    If you had a 300ft high BBQ, would gas still exit the burner when fed from the gas bottle at ground level?

    How tall a BBQ could you make before the gas didn't reach the burner?

    Perhaps I'm just over estimating the pressure stored in a liquefied gas when it turns back to a gaseous state.

    I wish the invention engine had given me something to work with that I understood better than gas :)

    Perhaps I'll run it again with a "no gas" clause :)

  4. yes a 300 ft high BBQ would be fed at a different pressure than one at sea level. That is why the pressure on top of Mt Everest is different than at sea level.

    Also, tripling the height of the hill will probably not lead to 3x the power, the friction in the system will lead to diminishing returns.

    Often even when the invention doesnt seem to have a fundamental flaw, the devil shows up in the details.

    Consider almost the reverse (someone proposed this to me):

    a balloon, tied to a generator at the bottom of the sea. The balloon is given a little air from a top side compressor. At the bottom of the sea the air is at tremendous pressure, so it gets a small volume. at the balloon rises, the volume greatly expands increasing its bouyancy and generating more power. Every 33 feet, the balloon is doubling in size!

    It "seems" like this could work, but the reality is it will end up being that the compressor will require too much energy to make the small initial bubble, the balloon generator system has losses, and the bouyancy of the balloon will not keep expanding as the balloon gets tighter and the resistance gets larger.

    if everything was ideal, Hey!

  5. Thanks Shandor, nice balloon thing.

    That explains it so even I can understand it :)

  6. Hang on...

    If we used the up force generated by the rising balloon to generate power and compressed some air into a tank, the tank would sink under it's own weight adding to the electricity generated. We open the tank at depth to let out the tiny bubble. The amount of potential energy stored in the compressed air at sea level is obviously less than the energy required to compress t e to losses n heat and friction, but doping it inst a 7 mile deep ocean adds to the potential energy because it weighs something on the way down, and is capable of lifting on the way up.

    Sujre we end up with an air tank at the bottom of the ocean, but it doesn't take a lot of expanded gas to lift an air tank. All you need to do is tie a 100 ft cable to it, and connect it to the balloon. having read that, it's possible that that 100 ft represents the loss in the system, but I don't think so. You can generate a lot of energy on the way down, AND on the way back up to the surface.

    Why am I reading this again when I know it cant work :)


Popular Posts