TALES OF WOE-THE PLOT THICKENS

In my previously published hub I described the situation I found myself in trying to help an old friend. I sent an email to EBM Technologies on February 28, 2010 asking for more information on their astounding scientific discovery.

On Tuesday, March 2,2010 I received a reply from EBM Technologies to my email. The reply was from someone calling themselves Krisztina Sulyok M.Sc., B.Sc.Econ., General manager. The body of the email is below under response 3/2/2010.

I wanted to make sure they were scammers so I responded to their email asking for clarification. That email is below under MY RESPONSE. Today March, 4,2010 I received a response to my inquiry which is listed below under RESPONSE 3/4/2010.

My conclusion is after that response.

THE EMAILS

MY ORIGINAL EMAIL

To: EBM Technologies

Dear Sir,

As a graduate electrical engineer I am interested in the generator shown on the Internet. I am particularly interested in how you claim to overcome the Law of conservation of mass/energy. Please forward me all pertinent information on this revolutionary scientific discovery. Having practiced for over 40 years I am astounded by your claims!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tom Whitworth

BSEE WVU,1968

By late the next day when I had received no reply I emailed X the email below.

X,

I have conducted a search on EBM technologies, and have come to the conclusion that their claims are scams. I have found nothing in their claims to refute the laws of physics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass

Tom W.

EBM TECHNOLOGIES RESPONSE 3/2/2010

Dear Mr. Whitworth:

I attached hereto our Table I/B and the "Measuring Usable Excesss..." material for your information.

With best wishes,

Krisztina Sulyok M.Sc., B.Sc.Econ.,

General manager

ATTACHMENTS

PAGES BELOW

A Measuring Usable Excess “Over Unity” Shaft Power of the EBM E-720 Unit in Budapest, using Joule’s Method in Checking his 1^st “Chief” Law of Thermodynamics;

-and-

the Increase of such Sellable Energy Due to Increased Iron Weight

By Professor L. I. Szabó

Introduction

To numerically test his 1^st “Chief” Law of Thermodynamics, Joule used in his experiment the device shown in Figure 1. as follows:

1. In a well sealed container the water inside is stirred (agitated) by the rotating blades and the temperature rise due to the friction between the blades and the fluid is measured.

2. The blades are rotated through the shaft by the two (2) Q [kg] weights as they descend over a distance of h [metre];

3. Since the container is well sealed (“adiabatic container”), no heating energy produced by the rising temperature could escape from the container and thus the increased “inner energy” increase of the water “A” can be simply measured as:

EQ (I) A=m*c(t₂-t₁), where:

(a) m = mass of water,

(b) c = specific heat of water,

(c) t₂ = increased temperature of water, and

(d) t₁= temperature of water before the agitation of the fluid began;

The shaft energy “M” being provided (“transmitted”) by the two (2) Q [kg] weights to increase the inner energy of the water can also be easily measured as:

EQ (II) M = 2*Q*h [metre kilogram], where

(a) Q [kg] = weight,

(b) h[metre] = distance,

(c) M [metre-kilogram] = torque = shaft energy;

Since no energy can escape from the container and only shaft energy “M” is being provided/transmitted to increase the inner energy “A” of the water, Joule concluded, based on his 1^st (Chief) Law of Thermodynamics (being the Law of Energy Conservation) that the following must be true:

EQ (III) A = M, or

EQ (IV) 2Qh = m*c (t₂-t₁), or

EQ (V) M [metre-kg] = m*c(t₂-t₁) [calorie]

Based on Joule’s tests and measurements dividing by the right hand side of EQ (V) to obtain:

EQ (VI) 1 calorie =

4. By accurate measurements, the following were obtained:

(a) 1 calorie = 0.427 mkg

(b) 1 kilocalorie = 427 mkg

(c) 1 calorie = 4,186 x 10⁷ ERG = 4,186 Joule

(d) joule = 1 Wattsecundum = 0,239 calorie

(e) 1 mkg = 2,34 calorie

(f) 1 kilowatthour = 860 kilocalorie

(g) 1 HorsePower = 632,4 kilocalorie/sec

5. Our main observation relative to Joule’s experiment is not the “conservation of Energy” as he stipulated, but that the “shaft energy” or torque can be measured by the generated heating energy, as will be seen in the next section, using actual measured test data for the EBM E-720 unit.

MY RESPONSE 3/2/2010

Dear Krisztina Sulyok M.Sc., B.Sc.Econ.

I am in receipt of your email of March 2,2010 and I require some clarification. I have attached the data from you web site please verify the data and elaborate where possible.

Tom Whitworth

BSEE, Attachment

ATTACHMENT

This is revised exhibit “A” attached to the Statutory Declaration Dated August 16,

2006.

REVISED EXHIBIT A

We the undersigned examined, operated and tested Electro ERG Ltd. (EEL) so called

E-720 Excess Power Producing Equipment (the EBM units) in the testing station of

EEL at Budapest, Hungary, and found the following for the largest E-720 Midget Power

Plant.

A: Open N2 Coil Test (Production Of heat Only)

1. Total Inputted Power (Average of Several Tests) 24.90 KW
2. Total Outputted Power ( Average of Several Tests) 32.29 KW
3. Excess Output Power (2-1) 7.39KW

B. Closed Coil Test (Production Of Electrical Power and Heat)

1. Total Inputted Power ( Average of Several Tests) 101.80 KW
2. Total Outputted Power ( Average of Several Tests) 108.06 KW
3. Excess Output Power ( 2-1 ) 6.26KW

Based on the above findings and data provided to us for other size smaller

EBM units, the EBM units in scaled up versions have the potential to produce

Increasing excess power.

Signed, sealed, and delivered in Budapest, Hungary, on August 16, 2006

Professor Dr. R. K. Varma Mr. Bruno Ciccotelli

V.P. Engineering and Operations

Norfolk Power

EBM TECHNOLOGIES RESPONSE 3/4/2010

Dear Mr. Whitworth:

It means that the efficiency of the EBM prototype units were 130 % and 106 % based of the test series of August 16,2006.

With best wishes,

Krisztina Sulyok

CONCLUSION

I now know it is a scam. No one can obtain efficiencies of 130% or even 106% on a driven-generator set. Losses are always present.