# 250% efficiency?

"The concept that efficiencies cannot be greater than 100% is due to an incomplete understanding of the properties of space. The second law of thermodynamics must be modified to account for the fact that space is not empty, as has been taught for the last 150 years. "

I call bogus. What do you think?

Note by John M.
5 years, 12 months ago

This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.

When posting on Brilliant:

• Use the emojis to react to an explanation, whether you're congratulating a job well done , or just really confused .
• Ask specific questions about the challenge or the steps in somebody's explanation. Well-posed questions can add a lot to the discussion, but posting "I don't understand!" doesn't help anyone.
• Try to contribute something new to the discussion, whether it is an extension, generalization or other idea related to the challenge.

MarkdownAppears as
*italics* or _italics_ italics
**bold** or __bold__ bold
- bulleted- list
• bulleted
• list
1. numbered2. list
1. numbered
2. list
Note: you must add a full line of space before and after lists for them to show up correctly
paragraph 1paragraph 2

paragraph 1

paragraph 2

[example link](https://brilliant.org)example link
> This is a quote
This is a quote
    # I indented these lines
# 4 spaces, and now they show
# up as a code block.

print "hello world"
# I indented these lines
# 4 spaces, and now they show
# up as a code block.

print "hello world"
MathAppears as
Remember to wrap math in $$ ... $$ or $ ... $ to ensure proper formatting.
2 \times 3 $2 \times 3$
2^{34} $2^{34}$
a_{i-1} $a_{i-1}$
\frac{2}{3} $\frac{2}{3}$
\sqrt{2} $\sqrt{2}$
\sum_{i=1}^3 $\sum_{i=1}^3$
\sin \theta $\sin \theta$
\boxed{123} $\boxed{123}$

Sort by:

guys, it's not impossible, well think of the subject again. you will notice that here we are amplifying electrical energy alone, not the total energy. total energy can never be more than 100%, but the part of it, is electrical energy, electrical energy due to a part of total energy, can be amplified by reducing the other energy from any point of space, this total energy at any point of space will never drain out as its energy density per unit volume is infinity, well the thing is it is being at rest, we are making the energy move by causing a potential to move it, its like we are converting a part of energy into another, where in the total energy present is infinite value per unit volume. so law abiding occurs.

- 3 years, 2 months ago

Well I am just a teen who study in class 12 and not a professor so speaking honestly i did not get much from the article . Any how the energy conservation cannot be violated in the entire univers which i know . An efficiency of more than 100 percent means violation of Conservation of energy.

- 5 years, 4 months ago

My head hurts from trying to try to understand the material given in the link.

- 5 years, 12 months ago

What's the "over-unity efficiency" of a nuclear chain reaction? We only speak of energy being extracted from nuclear forces in nuclei, it is meaningless to speak of "efficiencies of over 100%". If Tewari is promoting his device as having "250% efficiency", why stop there? Putting two of his devices in tandem will thereby have 625% efficiency, three will have 1562% efficiency, four will have 3906% efficiency, etc. Why does he stop at 250%? Because he knows that saying his device has 953674% efficiency sounds just too absurd, and investors won't listen to him.

The idea of thermodynamic efficiency comes from the days where early steam engines required a lot of fuel to get very little mechanical work done. It didn't take long for physicists to realize that the Carnot cycle delivers the greatest possible conversion from heat energy into mechanical work, but notice that it starts with a certain quantity of heat energy to be converted into useful mechanical work. In this context, Tewari, having "identified a new source of energy" (much like nuclear power), should explain how much of it can be converted into useful mechanical work. The fact that his new-found source of energy is inexhaustible is irrelevant to the matter of efficiency. Furthermore, neither Thermodynamics nor physics in general makes the claim that there cannot exist such sources of energy that we don't know about, that we could take advantage of. The sources of energy that we do know about today are not necessarily all there is or can be.

- 5 years, 12 months ago

I think they're trying to imply that the device can harness energy from virtual particles or something. Either way, I think you got 'em. Personally, I realized they're not coming from legit science when the article quoted

“The universal matter is created out of prana since prana is aakaash in motion, and aakaash is the primordial superfluid substratum of the universe.”

My brain rolls inside my skull when I hear such pompous spiritual phrases, lol. Buuut... what do you think of the device? I don't get much from the article, to be honest. Is it a promise or just a lavish attempt at the market?

- 5 years, 12 months ago

AFAIK, Prana means soul and aakash means sky/air. So yeah. Probably fake.

- 5 years, 12 months ago

What's wrong with many of these "over-unity generator" inventions (Tewari's invention is hardly the first nor will be the last) is that the matter of extracting energy from a new source and the possibility that it is the generator itself that creates energy out of nothing are conflated. Even in reading Tewari's tedious papers on his invention throws no illumination at all on this distinction. He speaks of this universal matter out of parana, and then goes to claim that his generator is able to take the energy going into it and somehow amplify it. Is he using some source of energy in which to augment the initial incoming energy, or is he using some new source of energy, which is then somehow amplified just by the genius of his own design? Then, if the latter, why not simply use ordinary electricity from the grid and "amplify" it, without looking for more energy from strange new places like the prana?

In the immortal words of physicist Wolfgang Pauli, "This isn't even wrong!" Tewari's works offer no real means to either verify or falsify his claims.

- 5 years, 12 months ago

@John Muradeli what do they mean?? ....... how is it possible? .... I really couldn't understand the post!!

- 5 years, 12 months ago

They're basically implying they can harness more energy than they invest - essentially "creating energy." But that's not the case. See Mr. Mendrin's post.

- 5 years, 12 months ago