Sterling has stepped down  and Aaron Willis has stepped in to take the reins at PESN.  Aaron has done something that I support (and I've written to him about my support) -- it is a metric for evaluating claims. Not hyping (as we've seen in the past), but a list of criteria and then an evaluation. And he is open for critiques/suggestions regarding his "Credibility Metric" also, and I have given him some feedback. Here's an example (posted yesterday at PESN) of his balanced (IMO) approach to reporting a big claim, from a guy seeking funding on Indiegogo: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:GraviGen_by_John_Michael_MoltionCompiled by Aaron Willis..
Pure Energy Systems News
January 30, 2015
Several of our readers have emailed me links to the GraviGen indiegogo campaign. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/gravigen-free-electricity-forever/x/9645655#home I have reached out to the inventor and wait for his response. It is a brave inventor to take on a gravity powered machine. These have failed to prove viable over and over again often due to measurement errors or outright fraud. However, there is always hope that some clever inventor might discover some ingenious way to skirt around all of the obstacles and tame the ever elusive beast called gravity.
Here is what we know so far:
The inventor, John Michael Moltion, claims that he has invented a machine that uses a clever assortment of gears, chains, pulleys and weights to produce 385 watts for 35 seconds as the mass drops at which point the contraption resets itself in 4 seconds using only 12-15 watts. The excess energy is stored in a battery. Here are the words directly from the patent application. (US20140054900)
A system for generating electrical power includes a weight assembly coupled to a drive chain that is coupled to a drive mechanism, which is coupled to a rotational mechanism. When the weight assembly is lowered from an elevated position by the force of gravity, the drive chain rotates the drive mechanism, which rotates the rotational mechanism, which rotates the shafts of a power generator mechanism to produce electrical power. After the weight assembly is lowered, a lifting mechanism raises the weight assembly to the elevated position, resetting the system for generating electrical power.
A 37 second video on the Indiegogo site shows a machine with an assortment of said gears, but it is an up close video that leaves the whole operation obfuscated, probably on purpose – either to hide the proprietary mechanism or perhaps the gimmick that would reveal the whole thing as a hoax. However we see gears spinning and a lifting arm return back to a start position. A rough idea of how the machine might function is all we get from the video.
(YouTube; December 2, 2014)
The inventor pleads in his campaign for community funding. All pledges will go to development, and he offers a variety of perks for donating from having your last name on donation list ($25) to a laptop computer ($10,000). Interestingly enough, it seems no amount of money can get you a gravity machine installed at your house just yet, but towards that end, the inventor says that once ready for production, his device will cost less than three years of utility bills.
The skeptic’s take:
A gravity wheel or generator has never worked outside of myth and legend. Yes, gravity is powerful, but it is also a one way trip down. If you want to go back up, you pay full price for the lift ticket. There is no way to trick or cheat your way around this problem. Add all the gears, pulleys, levers and chains you want, it is just more resistance to overcome.
The optimist’s take:
Nature has accomplished a gravity power source. We call it hydroelectric and it resets itself continuously. Of course it also relies on a big, glowing outside power source to keep the turbines spinning. I want to believe an inventor could figure out how to reset a falling weight to its original height using the power produced in its fall, but with only an obfuscated video to go on, it would be hard for me to hold my breath just yet. However, I am certainly interested enough to want to know more.
Credibility Metric: A score of 50 is highly credible. A score around 25 is a maybe. Below 20 is dubious.
Widely replicable or tested by a qualified and independent 3rd party. (0-15 pts)
4 pt. Inventor claims that it has been verified by qualified persons. We don’t know by whom or how.
Inventor(s) identity and skills verified. (0-10 pts)
3pts. A device that appears to be well made is shown in the video. No contact yet from inventor.
Claim explained within the mainstream understanding of physics/science. (0-10 pts)
2 pts. The falling weight can certainly generate a burst of power in a well understood manner.
Claim explained with unconventional, but plausible theories. (0-5 pts)
1 pt. However the weight gets back to where it fell from is certainly unconventional, but little explanation is offered explaining this phenomenon.
Preponderance of evidence, witness testimony (0-5 pts)
1 pt. An obfuscated video and a patent are all that holds up the claim.
Are they selling something? (0-5 pts)
2 pt. Inventor is seeking public funding for development but it will be difficult without public evidence.
Trump Card Bonus Points.(A supposed working device, accessible for input/output verification) (0-50 pts)
0 pts. Untested by anybody we know and currently inaccessible.
Total points
13/50
While this is a low score, it does not automatically mean we believe this inventor is a fraud. It simply means that a claim has been made, but the publically available evidence to support the claim is severely lacking. We invite the inventor to contact us. We will re-evaluate the score as more evidence is offered to substantiate the claim. This metric is a new feature and is a work in progress. It will probably change significantly as it is refined in the coming months. The metric does not cover other aspects of an invention such as practicality or “green-ness.” A more concise graphical representation of the metric is also in the works. Contents
[hide]
1 Official Websites
2 Patents
3 Correspondence
4 In the News
5 Contact
6 See also
Official Websites
No dedicated site yet?
Mike Molton's YouTube Channel
Patents
US20140054900
WO2014031775A1
Correspondence
slightly edited
From: John Moltion Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 9:54 AM [MST] Subject: John Michael Moltion - Gravigen
Hello Mr. Allan Sterling. [inverted]
I have read your [Aaron's] article on the Gravigen. I want to thank you for your interest and honest grading system.
In the article, you had mentioned that part of the video had been excluded, either to hide the key reason my invention is able to successfully operate, or to hide the fact that it may be a hoax. That is a fair summation. The fact is, you were correct on the first assumption: I was hiding one of the most important factors in having the invention perform successfully.
In the inventors' shoes, after working long hours, days, months, years on something we believe in, I certainly did not want to place my entire design and concept in front of the entire world.
Many people have already written to me and stated that perpetual motion machines do not work. At this point in time I tend to agree! My invention is not a perpetual motion machine! So these statements from non believers do not apply.
My patent lawyer was also an electrical engineer. When I first contacted him in person and explained my design, he said that I am about to climb a very large mountain, as I was wanting to patent my idea and concept. He said, First you need to build a working prototype, or the chances of receiving a patent are very low.
For the next three years I was building this machine and was determined to prove my concept. After many hours of building, welding and looking for and making the parts that I needed, I finally had completed the Gravigen and was ready for the test.
In my eyes, and with the experience that I had collected over the years, my invention appeared to work. Even though I had seen this with my own eyes, I was even totally not convinced. I wanted to bring in a few people that had many years of experience in testing D.C. and A.C electrical current.
I brought in an Electrician who had about 35 yrs experience. I brought in another electrician who was an expert in testing and trouble shooting the mechanics of wind energy and solar energy. This guy was trained in this type of electrical work.
I invited these men in separately so that one would not influence the other. Both men stayed an extended amount of time. They both came up with the same readings. They both said that this is impossible but is producing more energy than it was using to reset.
I now have been asked by a college administrator who has personally witnessed the Gravigen working, to allow the physics and engineering departments to possibly transport the Gravigen to an Isolation chamber, to prove there is no outside power source involved in making the Gravigen operate.
I smiled, and said, "Its all yours to study". My point is, the people who have contacted me and witnessed the Gravigen working know much more about physics and engineering than I ever will.
So I believe in the Gravigen with all my heart.
I wanted to make this work to help control pollution, save energy, help people who are secluded from any type of energy supply.
To me it is real and it works, until it is proven otherwise.
Now, I will tell you that all 21 claims out of the 21 claims that were submitted in my patent application were accepted.
That being said, I would like to reveal to you how I made this machine work. I am telling you this because I believe in the same ideal as you. "Knowledge is power", and I never want this machine shelved.
I used today's technology to create a machine that, yes, uses gravity, physics and a mechanical concept to operate and produce more energy than it uses to reset.
Imagine using the following technology applied in a certain way to make this machine. I used a very powerful, small lifting mechanism that uses only the 12-15 watts to operated (which is drawn from the battery cell that the machine is charging), which resets the machine in only 4 seconds (lifts the weight). Then, as the weight drops (35 seconds), a chain rotates several earth magnet alternators (made for a windmill system, slow turning and high producing), alternators that I then used as D.C. generators, in which the D.C. current produced flows to the battery cell and charges our batteries. There are many other steps and parts used to turn the D.C. into A.C., but I'm sure you get the Idea.
The Machine uses 12-15 watts of energy for four seconds and charges the same Batteries with 385 watts for 35 seconds. Simple.
I have since created a way to make energy as the machine resets also. So how much energy am I using if the machine creates more power than it uses while resetting? This working prototype is what I call the Dinosaur, but it has proven my concept, at least to everyone that has witnessed it working.
I have since redesigned this prototype, so it is much smaller and should produce much more power for a longer period of time. It is the same type of process but re configured to be much more efficient.
My Patent attorney said that the new configuration will not change the patent. This machine produces no real pollution (unless the sealed, deep cell batteries give off some pollutant that I am not aware of).
The Gravigen uses no external power to operate. The Gravigen can be made from recycled metals and barely any maintenance. The [projected] mass production [cost] of this machine is approximately $4200.00, so is very affordable to manufacture. (This amount is my best guess. [It] could be even less cost).
The reason that I am trying to raise funding is to complete the second prototype.
I would be thrilled if we did not have to rely on our natural resources for our energy needs. No oil leverage, autos you can plug into your garage to charge for free! Free heat. Third world countries having access to medical machinery such as a nebulizer for children and adults with asthma, [and] being able to reach out using PCs for learning and information.
You are right, [Aaron], there is no rock hard public evidence that the Gravigen concept works. But I did my very best to try and better the world with the knowledge I have in hoping this concept and scalable machine could help.
After this is proven publicly, let's just hope that the powers to be do not make this vanish.
Sincerely,
John M. Moltion
In the News
(The hyperlink is missing because this points to the present page)
Featured: Gravity Motors >
GraviGen by John Michael Moltion - Moltion claims that he has invented a machine that uses a clever assortment of gears, chains, pulleys and weights to produce 385 watts for 35 seconds as the mass drops at which point the contraption resets itself in 4 seconds using only 12-15 watts. The excess energy is stored in a battery. (Email from Moltion) (PESWiki; January 30, 2015)
Crowdfunding: Free Power, Forever, From Gravity and Gears - John Michael Moltion, of LaFayette, New York, has just floated his Gravigen project for crowdfunding on Indiegogo. Described as a “self-sustaining machine that produces enough electricity to power your home forever,” Gravigen uses gravity along with complex gearing to create a perpetual motion system that generates electricity. (VentureCapNews; January 4, 2015)
Contact
Listed on the Indiegogo page. John Moltion
Lafayette, New York, United States
Alternative website: http://toolontigers.com
See also
GRAVITY MOTORS FOOTER
Directory:Gravity Motors
News:Gravity Motors
PowerPedia:Gravity motor
Directory:Secondary Oscillations - a primary pendulum swinging creates a secondary lever force that appears to be greater than the force required to keep the pendulum swinging.
Directory:Propulsion
KEY COMPANIES
Directory:RAR Energia Ltda Gravity Motor
Zeero Power
Directory:Alpha Omega Galaxy Freefall Generator (AOGFG)
Directory:Milkovic Two-Stage Mechanical Oscillator
OS: F. M. Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Directory:Mikhail Dmitriev Gravity Wheel
« Last Edit: 2015-01-31, 17:24:50 by PhysicsProf »
|
Author
Topic: Aaron Willis takes PESN reins; uses "METRIC" to evaluate FE claims e.g. Moltion (Read 4542 times)
