[Reverend Blair]

Cool. Will it be affordable though?

[Calumny]

This sounds a lot like your run of the mill web stock scams. <br /> <br />Of course, I'd invest but I lost all my money after 9/11 in companies developing anthrax protection. <br /> <br />Besides, thought this had already be done <a href="http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/qmmv11.htm">Newman Machine</a>, <br /> <br />Or...has it? <br /> <br /> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/twisted.gif' alt='Twisted Evil'>

[Mr.Can-Euro]

This new way of generating energy sounds wonderful! I hope it is for real aswell! Good job to GM if it is because they would help lead the world in cleaning up the planet's atmosphere!

[oost_oneiric]

Yeah I kind of get the feeling it's some kind of scam too. More proof needed. <br /> <br />However, if it's real...

[gaulois]

12 years of R&D? Well guess what: the problem is normally in deploying these technologies. Ask the Ballard fuel cell people. What infrastructure is required by this new super-dooper technology? And GMC is quite different from GM. Do they have land for sales in Florida too? Hmmmm. Extremely sceptical.

[arc628]

To quote Homer Simpson "In this house we obey the laws of Thermo-dynamics!" I hope it is real. But the videos are very inconclusive

[Kory Yamashita]

Bah, this isn't going to solve any problems. It's good for efficiency, but nothing new or particularly innovative. <br /> <br />I've designed machines like that before. It's highly efficient, which means there is less energy WASTED, but it's got limited applications and still needs energy to be input. <br /> <br />I mean, all it does is turn DC power into mechanical energy. Any motor can do that. All they've done is reduced the friction losses. Not much of a solution to our energy problems, in my opinion.

[oost_oneiric]

Well, they're actually claiming it doesn't require fossil fuels to operate.. so if (and it's a big if) this is true, how does this not solve some substantial energy problems? <br /> <br />"The technology provides substantial mechanical power and/or electricity without the use of fossil fuels, hydrogen or hydrogen fuel cells, substantial batteries or any other outside recharging source (independent of the grid system)." <br /> <br />They also claim that the technology is integratable with existing internal combustion engine machines. Pull the old motor out, throw this new one in. It's all a big "if" as to if this is actually true though. It would seem to me that something like this should be all over the news. Then again, I'm sure the old oil barons would have a vested interest in keeping a technology like this suppressed. <br /> <br />Still, the website is pretty low tech, the company seems shady. It's not GMC as in General Motors. It's some Global something or other. Reeks of a stock market scam (not that I'm an expert on stock market scams <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'>). <br /> <br />Either way, if the tech is real this is outstanding. If this is all a big scam, still interesting. Shouldn't the perpertrators be held resposible? Is this kind of thing common? I guess I shouldn't be suprised. <br />

[Kory Yamashita]

Well there are a lot of websites out there claiming to have invented the perpetual motion machine, a physical impossibility. I'll just give a quick physics lesson to try to explain why this can't work. <br /> <br />The Law of Conservation of Energy states that the energy output by a closed system must equal the energy input into that system. <br /> <br />This invention doesn't have a source of energy. There IS no energy input. It's a ridiculous farce. At best, it's a highly efficient DC motor. I could build an inefficient DC motor for a few bucks (definitely under $50). And this one just happens to have some bells and whistles on it. <br /> <br />But it's NOT a SOURCE of energy. It's simply a highly efficient motor. <br /> <br />And it did NOT take 12 years of R&D to design. I could design the same thing in a month and I'm not even specializing in electro-magnetics.

[Dr Caleb]

I don't think this as far fetched as it seems. I've heard about this technology before. No, it's not perpetual motion. <br />[quote] <br />Theory of Operation <br /> <br />GMCC states that the motor is designed on the known principals set forth by Nikola Tesla. The operation is based on the collapsing and subsequent expanding of the permanent magnetic field. This produces two effects: the first is tremendous repulsion and torque, as is true in all DC motors; the second effect is that of a back electromagnetic force (Ke). It is this Ke energy that is used in a regenerative fashion to increase the motor's efficiency to extremely high levels. Another effect of the rapid pulsing of the electromagnetic field is the phenomenon of "cold running". Unlike conventional motors which produce tremendous heat, this motor exhibits very little temperature rise during operation. <br />[/quote] <br /> <br />Basically, it uses a controlled magnetic field to turn a stator, connected to an electric generator. By varying the magnetic field, the stator turns, and generated electricity. By varying the magnetic field at the right time, permanent magnets on the stator are attracted towards or repelled away from the electromagnets. <br /> <br />Yet another practical application of the under valued genius, Nikola Tesla. (most of his work is incorrectly attributed to Edison.) <br /> <br /><a href='http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2004/11/18/6900053GMC_Holdings_Fuel-less_Motor/video/'>Here</a> are some videos of it in action. <br /> <br />Some guys and I played with this when I was in Engineering, but we could never get it to work right. The microprocessor needed wasn't fast enough to time the magnetic field correctly to achieve proper rotation. Processors have come a long way since then. <br /> <br />An electric car built with one of these generators would go practically forever. You could have an all electric train, or mass transit with zero environmental impact. <br />

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= Kory Yamashita] <br />But it's NOT a SOURCE of energy. It's simply a highly efficient motor. <br />[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />If you watch the videos in my link above, in order, they put 100w on the input side, and get 300w out of the generator. <br /> <br />Assuming we can believe these tests - what do you think? <br />

[Jesse]

As Doc pointed out, this is not gigantic, revolutionary, or a miracle. At least they're not claiming to get better than 100% efficiency (aka perpetual motion).

Any motor that requires this sort of additional complexity is going to cost more and break more. often. The thing might be 99% efficient, but if it breaks every 5 minutes and costs $10000, you're never going to see it in practical applications because regular motors are hugely more cost effective.

It is hardly going to revolutionise anything; they are not mass producing these, nor do they have any actual deals lined up. They are listed as a "pink sheet" stock, which means there are NO rules regulating what they can or can't do. Anyone who invests in this is foolish; most stock scams are pink sheet stocks.

[Marcarc]

This sounds 'similar' to the seebeck effect, where you can get power from gradient temperature fluctuations. At lee valley you can buy an ecofan which runs on such power. You just put it on top of a wood stove and the speed of the fan increases depending on the variation in temperature between the stove top and the surrounding air-the colder the air the faster it turns. <br /> Just as an aside though before you jump to conclusions from a press release, my wife is a molecular biologist for a research company and she is constantly mortified by how her employers twist her results in press releases. She's heard her boss make claims almost to the effect that they'd found the magic formula for curing cancer (which of course may work on some people but just makes others sceptical). She's taken me through their website and the conversation sounds like this...."that's wrong, that's wrong, that's not the results show..." etc. There'a big difference between the scientists who come up with the results and those trying to hype it. That being said, there's no doubt that the idea of nuclear power as little as 80 years ago would have been treated with far more scepticism.

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] This sounds 'similar' to the seebeck effect, where you can get power from gradient temperature fluctuations. [/QUOTE] <br /> <br />A similar technology that's been around for many years is a 'thermocouple'. Two metals are bonded together, and in the presence of heat, generate electricity. The opposite is true as well, called a Peltier Cooler. Add electricity, one side gets hot, the other very cool (near freezing is possible). <br />

[Dr Caleb]

BTW Oost - since you posted this story here, I'm not going to post it on the front page <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'> <br />