Survey machines von Unruh and Hans Coler

Innovations, ideas or patents for sustainable development. Decrease in energy consumption, reduction of pollution, improvement of yields or processes ... Myths or reality about inventions of the past or the future: the inventions of Tesla, Newman, Perendev, Galey, Bearden, cold fusion ...
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660

Survey machines von Unruh and Hans Coler




by Exnihiloest » 16/07/15, 13:02

Preamble and digressions

Anyone interested in "borderline" energy inventions, which often seem to challenge well-established principles of physics, has surely explored newspaper cases and patents of inventions since the 19th century (and even before). Might there not be some good ideas in the past that could be brought up to date, or that technology would make it possible to implement today when it was impossible in the past?
Of course all the inventions that worked were exploited in their time. They have solid theoretical explanations but are of little interest because supplanted by modern technology much more powerful.
Many other inventions, or rather pseudo-inventions, reported in the mainstream American newspapers, perpetually or apparently perpetual movements, have never succeeded and for good reason (errors of measurement, misinterpretations, and especially frauds) .

From my exploration, only 2 cases on dozens reviewed, caught my attention.

I am just quoting the first for info, because the level of recoverable energy is low but its alleged principle is quite revolutionary: a "Maxwell's demon" therefore an energy extraction from a single source of heat, contrary to the second principle of thermodynamics. These are the batteries of Nicolae Vasilescu-Karpen (or "Vasilesco Karpen"). To find out more, read his papers published at the Academy of Sciences in the years 1923 to 1939 (we find them at the BNF, example ).

Our Story
The second case, the subject of this thread, not yet elucidated, is the one I wish to bring to the attention of potential engineers, technicians, physicists and historians who are here. It is an invention of a German engineer, Willi von Unruh, and his assistant Hans Coler. The story began in the 1920 years but mostly happened against the backdrop of the Second World War and secret services.
It is an electromagnetic generator.The English newspaper "Daily Chronicle" Speaks of it negatively in the first demonstration made in Berlin. He presents it as a scam, and Von Unruh as manipulator of the scientists who attended. Von Unruh claimed that his machine was breaking the atom, so nothing surprising. No cheating, however, was revealed; it was more the alleged principle that was suspect. Following this article, the participant of an English firm at the demonstration of Von Unruh specified that they had ruled out the possibility of a connection to an external power supply and that the machine powered more than 3h, 5 lamps up close Of 1000 candela, which was out of reach of the small Leclanché batteries included in the machine.

In 1926, Hans Coler demonstrated the "Magnetstromapparat", a small 10W model, to three teachers, including M Kloss from Berlin and WO Schumann. The details of the measurements carried out are perfectly known thanks to a Report of the British Intelligence Service Which has been declassified to 1979 (measures 11 and 18 pages). The conclusion is that there is no deception and that a new source of energy is exploited. The German Government did not act.

According to the British report, Unruh and Coler developed in 1933 the "Stromerzeuger", a more powerful machine of 70W, which Dr F Modersohn attested. Skeptical at first, then convinced, his acquaintances with Rheinmetall Borsig (majority shareholder: the Reich), which during the Second World War was in the service of Göring for the war effort, enabled him to obtain the means for Coler to build a more powerful machine in 1937 (6 KW), the supposed year of Willi von Unruh's death.

In 1943, Coler is now associated with Dr. H Frohlig. Frohlig is convinced of the merits and is interested in the principle that would be at stake. But 1945 sees the destruction of the machine by the bombing at Kolberg. Coler evacuated.
After the war, Coler was interrogated by the British. In 1947 it obtains from them the financing of a duplication of the Magnetstromapparat by a contract of 6 month, renewed end 47 for 6 month. He died of a heart attack in this period. There is no evidence that he would have succeeded in reproducing the machine, and it is presumed that Von Unruh was probably the only true head.

For those who are interested, the site "chavascience" has cleared the ground by a serious investigation (in English). I think we should start with that, and see the British report cited above, the main source of information.

The actual subject, technical
For the technical part, which we are interested in here first, there is a surely not due to chance coincidence between Unruh / Coler machines and a patent (in French here: http://tinyurl.com/pkqloyc) By Robert Norrby, a Swede of whom nothing is known, except that Sweden was involved in the Coler affair, see the British report.
The questions that can be asked are:
- if von Unruh's machines really worked, what could be the source of energy?
- if we do not evoke an exotic source, what would be the atomic energy apart?
- if it is atomic energy, could it come from materials? What was the nature of the iron used at the time for magnetic cores ("modern" attempts at duplication having failed)?
...

Thank you for avoiding generalities about perpetual movements and miracle machines, this is not the subject. The purpose of this discussion is to target the technical device, to understand whether or not there is energy production and if so where it comes from, or to invalidate history not by trivial theoretical considerations but by Factual elements.
0 x
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :




by izentrop » 17/07/15, 09:47

Hello,
A Karpen battery would run continuously from 60 years.

The invention can not be exposed because the Museum does not have enough money to buy the security system necessary for such an exhibition.
And there is not a nice patron to advance the money : Shock: :?:
Do they not seek to maintain the mystery in order to attract the curious without revealing the deceit?

Otherwise, a perpetual system that works, there is the drinking bird that exploits the energy of the evaporation of water. Is that not the same kind of thing?
0 x
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660




by Exnihiloest » 17/07/15, 10:43

Hello,

izentrop wrote:...
Do they not seek to maintain the mystery in order to attract the curious without revealing the deceit?

I do not think: the stack is not exposed.

Otherwise, a perpetual system that works, there is the drinking bird that exploits the energy of the evaporation of water. Is that not the same kind of thing?

I do not believe either: Karpen had anticipated the objection of the energy contribution by the environment, and placed his demo-stack in a sealed glass bulb.

I tried to duplicate the stack of Karpen, but it is impossible to rule out artifacts of the experiment (electrochemical reactions, reactions with oxygen in the air ...) so it was not inconclusive.
0 x
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :




by izentrop » 17/07/15, 11:25

Exnihiloest wrote:Hello,

izentrop wrote:...
Do they not seek to maintain the mystery in order to attract the curious without revealing the deceit?

I do not think: the stack is not exposed.
Precisely, it is not serious enough to be, or behind an armored door like the machine of Reidar Finsrud
0 x
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660




by Exnihiloest » 17/07/15, 14:02

izentrop wrote:
Exnihiloest wrote:Hello,

izentrop wrote:...
Do they not seek to maintain the mystery in order to attract the curious without revealing the deceit?

I do not think: the stack is not exposed.
Precisely, it is not serious enough to be, or behind an armored door like the machine of Reidar Finsrud

Reidar Finsrud has never published a scientific publication, the two cases can not be amalgamated or the intention of the director of the Romanian museum can not be ascertained (especially since the story of this stack is not credible, Attraction of the general public).

On the other hand, Karpen's theory holds ground. Indeed, closing the circuit leads to a current due to the potential difference of the electrodes, and the solution polarizes. When the circuit is opened, the solution depolarizes naturally, because of the molecular agitation, therefore, of the heat, restoring the initial state.
The electrodes do not react and the medium is closed, and Subject to possible experimental defects as this current is very low, It would be a demon of Maxwell.
As scientists regularly publish similar experiences ( http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.0161 , http://fr.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0311104 , http://fr.arxiv.org/abs/0912.4818 ...), the Karpen device can not be rejected so easily.
0 x
Christophe68
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 29
Registration: 27/06/15, 12:55
Location: Alsace

Re: Survey machines von Unruh and Coler




by Christophe68 » 22/07/15, 11:08

Exnihiloest wrote:I am just quoting the first for info, because the level of recoverable energy is low but its alleged principle is quite revolutionary: a "Maxwell's demon" therefore an energy extraction from a single source of heat, contrary to the second principle of thermodynamics.

There is no theoretical impossibility to directly convert heat (infrared radiation) into electricity. There is an inexhaustible source there. Several experiments have been carried out in this direction with very low powers.
The photovoltaic sensor is an example.
Silicon sensors do not capture infrared rays at ambient temperature (about 10 microns) because of their too low energy, about 0,1 electronvolt, because of the silicon's too high valence band.
A low-valence belt semiconductor should be used to capture them. It exists, but there is little or no research in this direction, it is a pity.
The sensors could be stacked on themselves. It would be enough to circulate air between them to keep them at room temperature.
Placed in a closed medium, they would cool, until their temperature falls below the threshold defined by the valence band of the material used.
There would potentially be a way to have air conditioning while injecting electricity into the network.


Exnihiloest wrote:I tried to duplicate the stack of Karpen, but it is impossible to rule out artifacts of the experiment (electrochemical reactions, reactions with oxygen in the air ...) so it was not inconclusive.


It's an interesting experience. An idea for voltage and current obtained?
For oxygen, why not place the battery in a closed bottle?
0 x
raymon
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 901
Registration: 03/12/07, 19:21
Location: vaucluse
x 9




by raymon » 22/07/15, 11:47

Challenge the well-established principles of physics,

Why established?
0 x
moinsdewatt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5111
Registration: 28/09/09, 17:35
Location: Isére
x 554

Re: Survey machines von Unruh and Coler




by moinsdewatt » 22/07/15, 18:55

Christophe68 wrote: ..... There is no theoretical impossibility to directly convert heat (infrared radiation) into electricity. There is an inexhaustible source there. Several experiments have been carried out in this direction with very low powers.


Simply because a photon of infrared radiation transports less power than a photo of visible radiation which itself carries less power than an X-ray photo etc .....
0 x
Christophe68
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 29
Registration: 27/06/15, 12:55
Location: Alsace

Re: Survey machines von Unruh and Coler




by Christophe68 » 23/07/15, 18:23

moinsdewatt wrote:Simply because a photon of infrared radiation transports less power than a photo of visible radiation which itself carries less power than an X-ray photo etc .....

Yes the photons are less energy, but with equal power they are more numerous, it compensates.
In the end the important thing is the price per unit of power.
As an indication the average power available by an ideal IR sensor of one m² is about 500w against 200w for an ideal photovoltaic sensor in the visible, well oriented, in France.
0 x
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :




by izentrop » 24/07/15, 00:13

Hello,
Christophe68, do you have something concrete to provide, because until then ??
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Go back to "Innovations, inventions, patents and ideas for sustainable development"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 105 guests