RE: [Vo]:Over unity - Joseph Yater

[Mark Goldes]

Jones,

Yater produced Proof of Concept devices.

As far as I am aware, he felt that practical systems were only limited by the 
lack of finance for such controversial work.

Mark

Mark Goldes
Co-founder, Chava Energy
CEO, Aesop Institute
301A North Main Street
Sebastopol, CA 95472

www.chavaenergy.com
www.aesopinstitute.org

707 861-9070
707 497-3551 fax

From: Jones Beene [jone...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 10:26 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Over unity - Joseph Yater

-Original Message-
From: Mark Goldes

Joseph Yater did substantial work in the diode conversion arena.

See:  http://www.rexresearch.com/yater/yater.htm

See also what I believe was his last Patent: US 5,889,287

Unfortunately, he was unable to raise sufficient funds to commercialize his
work and has passed on.

I believe his daughters tried to continue the effort but it seems to have
been to no avail.


Mark,

Interesting in several ways. The contrast between Yater and Brown would make
a good case study for a patent lawyer.

Brown had the earliest filing date of the two, but he bases the active
elements in his array on "diodes" while Yater carefully avoids that
designation. Yater in his recent work is labeling this active element as a
"quantum well" - but it is a functional diode. In both cases the concept is
to find a small effect and then to etch billions (later over a trillion) of
identical devices onto a chip.

Yates is also successful at getting a brand new patent in 1999 which is
almost identical to the old patent in 1965, except for the addition of then
QM lingo and particularly the so-called "quantum well".

It is no wonder that a deep pockets company, which performed thorough due
diligence on this string of patents would reject Yater's IP coverage as
inadequate. If the concept worked at all, then there is probably little
protection to be had, given the long string of prior art.

More likely is that Yater's device may not have worked as planned for the
same reason that Brown's (apparently) did not work - which gets us back to
the issue of "disturbance". I find it very troubling from a theoretical
perspective that a device can be robust when completely isolated, but almost
dead when "disturbed".

Anyway, both of these devices seem to be so brilliant on first viewing, and
given that we know that samples were made - and yet a PoC was never proved,
we are left with the worry: does conservation of energy always win out in
the end in thermoelectric devices, and for such an unsatisfying rationale?

Jones

RE: [Vo]:Over unity - Joseph Yater

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-
From: Mark Goldes 

Joseph Yater did substantial work in the diode conversion arena.

See:  http://www.rexresearch.com/yater/yater.htm

See also what I believe was his last Patent: US 5,889,287

Unfortunately, he was unable to raise sufficient funds to commercialize his
work and has passed on.

I believe his daughters tried to continue the effort but it seems to have
been to no avail.


Mark,

Interesting in several ways. The contrast between Yater and Brown would make
a good case study for a patent lawyer. 

Brown had the earliest filing date of the two, but he bases the active
elements in his array on "diodes" while Yater carefully avoids that
designation. Yater in his recent work is labeling this active element as a
"quantum well" - but it is a functional diode. In both cases the concept is
to find a small effect and then to etch billions (later over a trillion) of
identical devices onto a chip.

Yates is also successful at getting a brand new patent in 1999 which is
almost identical to the old patent in 1965, except for the addition of then
QM lingo and particularly the so-called "quantum well".

It is no wonder that a deep pockets company, which performed thorough due
diligence on this string of patents would reject Yater's IP coverage as
inadequate. If the concept worked at all, then there is probably little
protection to be had, given the long string of prior art. 

More likely is that Yater's device may not have worked as planned for the
same reason that Brown's (apparently) did not work - which gets us back to
the issue of "disturbance". I find it very troubling from a theoretical
perspective that a device can be robust when completely isolated, but almost
dead when "disturbed".

Anyway, both of these devices seem to be so brilliant on first viewing, and
given that we know that samples were made - and yet a PoC was never proved,
we are left with the worry: does conservation of energy always win out in
the end in thermoelectric devices, and for such an unsatisfying rationale?

Jones

RE: [Vo]:Over unity - Joseph Yater

[Mark Goldes]

Joseph Yater did substantial work in the diode conversion arena.

See:  http://www.rexresearch.com/yater/yater.htm

See also what I believe was his last Patent: US 5,889,287

Unfortunately, he was unable to raise sufficient funds to commercialize his 
work and has passed on.

I believe his daughters tried to continue the effort but it seems to have been 
to no avail.

Mark

Mark Goldes
Co-founder, Chava Energy
CEO, Aesop Institute
301A North Main Street
Sebastopol, CA 95472

www.chavaenergy.com
www.aesopinstitute.org

707 861-9070
707 497-3551 fax

From: Jones Beene [jone...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 8:47 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT

Did you ever think you would hear MIT bragging about overunity?

Thermoelectrically Pumped Light-Emitting Diodes Operating above Unity 
Efficiency
Parthiban Santhanam, Dodd Joseph Gray, Jr., and Rajeev J. Ram
Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 097403 
(2012) Published 
February 27, 2012

Physicists have known for decades that, in principle, a semiconductor device 
can emit more light power than it consumes electrically. Experiments published 
in Physical Review Letters finally demonstrate this in practice, though at a 
small scale.

It is clear that the “Joule thief” and “Joule ringer” experiments that pepper 
the internet can produce more light from LEDs than should be available from the 
electrical input. The best I have seen is 50 uwatts going in to light an LED 
(that’s micro- not milli-). This is 1000 times lower than the DC rating.

If you have been around Vortex for a while you may remember 5-6 years ago there 
was a vocal proponent of using Silicon chip-making equipment (microlithography) 
to fabricate a dedicated ambient-to-electric converter – the so-called 
giga-diode TEG array. A interesting fellow named Charles M. Brown, from Hawaii, 
was the major proponent of this.

He seems to have faded from view around 2007 but he claimed to have a “fab” 
lined up to produce such an array. His patent goes pack 37 years. In his last 
postings, he said this was to be GaAs or GaSb and have several billion diodes. 
He was going to enter this device in the Virgin alternative energy competition 
and according to this message – he did arrange to have a few produced. This is 
an interesting thread but the output is low. Apparently this is Paul Lowrance’s 
site (former vortician)

http://www.globalfreeenergy.info/2009/06/18/new-diode-setup-plans/

There is old info up on Sterling Allan’s site (with Brown’s patent reference), 
but it seems to have not been updated in a while:

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Charles_M._Brown%27s_Thermal_Electric_Chip

Jones


BTW- Lowrance adds, “Low leakage *undisturbed* diodes typically produce 0.2 to 
0.5 volts DC. Piezos typically produce 1 to 7 volts DC. The key is in not 
disturbing the diode. The effect is extremely sensitive. Once disturbed, the 
passive component can take weeks to months to recover.

[why should “undisturbed” matter? Does making a connection to ZPE require some 
kind of local stability?]

The effect has baffled some of the best academic scientists. The unknown effect 
appears to be based on E-fields, and nothing to do with diode rectification. 
Within the diode is an intense E-field at the junction. Passive piezo elements 
have an intense internal E-field. Tests replicated by numerous academic 
scientists clearly show that highly shielded (both electrical and thermal) and 
undisturbed piezos produce DC voltage, and current when loaded.

This effect is seen in various types of diodes and piezo elements. Low leakage 
components are recommended for best results. Experiments were conducted in 
rural areas, under-ground, up to three layers of metal shielding, in oil baths, 
up to 2 feet of thermal insulation. Dozens of different types of meters were 
used, including 100% passive tests void of all power & active components.