|
| |
Holy Grail Evades Lutec 1000
Progress report on the Australian company that has claimed for years to
have a commercially-ready free-energy device.
by Sterling
D. Allan
Pure Energy Systems News
Copyright © 2005
NOTE:
The following is based on Sterling Allan's phone conversation with
Lutec co-inventor Lou Brits on April 3, 2005, and on a subsequent
radio interview about that conversation, this is an updated report.
Click
here to listen to an archive copy of the April 3 radio
interview.
(low
bandwidth) |
Also Listen to:
Today in Free Energy
> June
24, 2005 (18 min) (low)
- Lutec 1000 commercially-ready, free-energy?; ground source heat
pump savings report; Volvo fuel cell module for idle replacement;
complex hydrates for H-storage; wires in microbes; ice age repeat
pending. (OSEN) |
| See follow-up story
June 28, 2005
|
|
Editorial
CAIRNS, AUSTRALIA -- For several years, the Australian
company Lute has been capturing the imagination of energy enthusiasts around the
world with their claim to have a 1000 Watt device that will put out as much as
15 times more energy than it requires to run, the excess coming freely from the
void of space.
Since May
31, 2002, at the top of their home page Lutec has been stating:
"The Lutec 1000 is the first free energy machine to be developed to
commercial stage anywhere in the world."
Perhaps the problem lies in semantics. Just what did they mean by this
statement? Certainly in saying "free energy" Lutec does not have solar
and wind energy in mind, because mankind has been tapping that energy free
for the taking for centuries. Certainly the company does not mean that
"free energy refers to their device itself, because they do not plan on
giving that away for free. Apparently, therefore, Lutec intends "free
energy" to refer to the tapping of unseen energy from the void of space
in the spirit of Nikola Tesla and other revolutionary energy inventors.
Whether or not Lutec's device actually does tap effectively into some extra or
space-vacuum energy source is not soundly documented anywhere that we can
find. (If you know of any such documentation, please let
us know.)
Also, when they say, "developed to commercial stage," they can't mean
that it is available in the marketplace because it isn't. Neither can they mean
that they have a prototype that is ready to be manufactured, for they don't, nor
have they ever since first posting that statement. Perhaps by "commercial
stage", they mean that the prototype outputs a commercially usable amount
of energy; but inasmuch as usable commercial energy ranges from microwatts to
gigawatts, that is not a justification for the claim either.
By their own admission, Lutec engineers are still deep in research and
development, refining their prototype. Some reports extant on the Internet read
as if the Lutec 1000 prototype has been running continuously for months, if not
years, which is a fair interpretation of the statements made on the Lutec
website. However, when explicit details are requested, this turns out to not be
the case. According to Lou Brits (the 'Lu tech' of the company name), as of
April 3, 2005 the longest they've had the device running continuously has been
four weeks.
The claimed 1000-Watt output which is fifteen-fold over input is not a stable
output, but is an extrapolated maximum predicted to occur when everything is
running right -- which has not yet been achieved. The 4-week continuous run,
according to Brits, was at around 200 Watts output. The stable point is between
200 and 250 Watts, he said. That is with a rotation speed of around 200
rpm. When it gets up to between 600 and 700 rpm, where it begins to approach an
output of 1000 Watts, it becomes unstable, frying circuits and switches. Brits
said he has gone through maybe one hundred thousand circuits and switches in the
ten years of experimentation, and is still frying them routinely.
That is to be expected in any research and development of electronic gadgetry.
In and of itself, such glitches need not be a problem. The problem is that
although Lutec is still deep in an R&D stage, the company is portraying
itself on the official website as being commercially ready for production.
They may be able to argue logically that their use of the future tense on the
website covers this gap. The websites homepage actually states:
"The Lutec 1000 generator will produce up to 1000 watts
of DC electricity twenty four hours a day, every day, which will be
stored in a battery bank and then inverted to AC power and connected directly
into the home or business." (emphasis added)
However, the phrase "will produce" can also mean "is capable
of producing," though the phrase, "which will be stored" does
carry a stronger future tense. But that is confused because the context is
of a technology that is "developed to the commercial stage," so a
reader might think the future tense refers to future customers storing energy
generated by this device.
Perhaps they are just out of touch with the statements on their website, not
realizing that those statements might reflect some early exuberance that turned
out to not be warranted yet. You would think, though, with the name of
their company and their reputation associated with such exaggerated statements
being posted on their website, that they would have done something by now to
revise those statements to more closely reflect reality.
The Lutec 1000 device involves battery storage in the course of its
function. Whenever batteries are involved, the verification of
power-input-to-power-output ratios becomes extremely tricky. A brand new
battery sitting on the shelf can increase in voltage measured -- just sitting
there with no load other than the meter. Even battery experts disagree
with one another about just how batteries work, and about the energy curves that
might be expected under a given set of circumstances.
One of Brits' responses is that their device has been replicated by what he
estimates to be over 200 independent researchers. Yet none of those supposedly
positive and convincing reports have been published anywhere that we can find.
The only reports that we have seen published are by Walter Rosenthal and Park
Cole (ref),
who conclude based on their data that the Lutec 1000 was grossly inefficient in
terms of energy in versus energy out. Brits asserts that these two individuals
are probably employed by the CIA. He does not supply any evidence to
support that charge other than his own suspicion.
On June 20, 2005, physicist Jacco van der Worp was interviewed by Lutec
apologist Marshall Masters. Van der Worp has spent months investigating
the Lutec 1000, and is clearly a supporter of the device as an energy solution
in general. Early in the interview he states very clearly that the device
is not an over-unity mechanism, and that it does not produce more energy than it
consumes. Rather, he states that it is a highly efficient machine.
Ironically, in the course of interviewing van der Worp, Marshall Masters
lambasted me, calling me a wolf in sheep's clothing in the employ of the oil
interests. This completely false statement is an attempt to deflect the
criticisms I made in my April 3 radio interview, when I questioned whether or
not the Lutec generator is putting out as much energy as their website claims.
Yet the guest Masters interviewed on June 20 went much further than I did, in
stating that the device is not over-unity at all, and that it is not tapping
some mysterious or cosmic external energy source.
In my radio interview on April 3, one of the points I made was that in support
of their claims, all Lutec gives us is their word -- no data -- and because the
statements on their home page have been shown to be misrepresentations of how
far along they are, their honor is called into question by their own words. This
has been pointed out to them, and yet they have not revised those statements in
any way. Three months have now gone by since I pointed out to Lou Brits the
discrepancies between what he was telling me and what he has posted on his
website.
Another point I made in the April 3 show is that even if Lutec did have what
they claim on their home page to have -- a device that taps free energy -- the
materials cost that Brits cited puts the device into a cost-per-kilowatt-hour
comparable to that of solar energy technology. Sure, future improvements could
improve that ratio of energy derived to device cost, but their technology is not
likely to rock the geopolitical structure of the planet. Solar power certainly
hasn't. Not until energy unit costs begin to be competitive with the
existing-paradigm energy technologies will we see a new horizon in the field of
energy independence and efficiency. Wind power is presently touching on
that vista.
Just because a technology taps "free energy" does not magically make
it a holy-grail solution for mankind. Wind and Solar and Geothermal and other
mainstream technologies have been doing that for a long time. They are making a
difference -- more each day. But for a device to be competitive and to make even
more of a difference, it needs to be able tap that free energy inexpensively and
reliably as well as cleanly.
My assessment is that Lutec is years away from beginning to make a dent in the
world's energy needs, if they are to make a difference at all. The integrity
quotient of a company that makes significantly exaggerated claims on its
website, and does not correct them after years of such misrepresentation, is
seriously low. That, in and of itself, renders the company much less fit to make
a difference for humanity.
# # #
SOURCES:
- 1.5-hour phone interview with Lou Brits by Sterling Allan April 3, 2005
- http://www.lutec.com.au - Lutec
1000 official website. This shows exact wording use which we are
questioning.
- Cut to the Chase with Marshall Masters, 20-June-2005:
"Physicist Jacco van der Worp Presents LUTEC 1000 Findings -- 'It Works
-- They Pinned it Down!' " (temporarily at yowusa.com/Audio/audio.html)
- Cut to the Chase with Marshall Masters, 29-March-2005: "Lutec
1000 Inventor Lu Brits - Tesla Energy Overunity Prototype Works for 3 Years;
Affordable Production Models Soon"
- http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/Lutec1000/
- includes Rosenthal/Cole report and data synopsis.
INCIDENTALLY
Feedback
Advantages of a 24/7/365 Device
From: "PL" <email >
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 11:36 AM
Subject: Lutec
Sterling,
There is a huge difference between solar and a 24/7 365 days a year free-energy
machine. Solar only works during the day and during a sunny day. Additionally
you have keep the solar panels clean otherwise the dirt and dust blocks the
sunrays. How can you compare that to a machine that would generate energy all
day and night any place on the planet? Solar has not taken the world by storm
for very very obvious reasons. The public is totally reliant on an energy
company such as Edison to spend billions on solar cells and land, and for
*what*? So they can make less money and so we can save more money? That's not
going to happen and it hasn't yet. Few people are going to spend tons of $ to
have energy that only works during daytime and on sunny days and that requires
periodic cleaning. I've told you many times the only way free-energy is going to
take the world by storm is by a machine that is affordable, say less than $1000,
or easy to build, that works any place, in the dark or light, 24/7/365.
Paul
Subsequent Coverage
- Lutec
Demo Video Alleges Over Unity - Video shows 4.25 Watts
rectified DC going into the spinning device, which meanwhile is
producing 15.4 Watts AC, for an efficiency of 362%. (PESN;
Sept. 10, 2005)
|
 |
 What
Lutec, GMCC, Bedini, and Bearden Technologies May Have in Common -
Sterling Allan wonders if they key to each of these varying electromagnetic
technologies is that they include permanent magnets that transiently flip in
polarity when confronted with a properly pulsed coil, opening a gate to some
kind of yet-to-be defined energy. (PESN; June 28, 2005)
See also
Page commenced by Sterling
D. Allan April 3, 2005; completed June 24, 2005
Last updated July 26, 2008
| |
|
Feed