Ian Coker

Thanks very much....There is no danger of me attempting to make his idea and for the reasons you give!

I run a small R&D consultancy in the UK. I research and build mainly proof-of-concept devices for inventors and small businesses (but I'm not myself an electronics or electrical engineer). Many of my clients have no technical background so sometimes I get enquiries about perpetual motion type ideas. I presently have an enquiry from a person who I'm in dispute with regarding the purpose and function of alternator generators. My prospective client believes that 'self excitation' means that the alternator can create energy. I have been trying my best to convince him that the electricity is generated by converting mechanical rotation into electrical energy. But nothng I can say will convince him: He writes: "....My assessment .....is that: a) Mechanical energy is not responsible for producing electrical energy in a generator. The process by which this is done is called excitation and by taking advantage of a principle of amplification whereby a small amount of electric power controls a large amount of power. b) The principle of amplification works because the output voltage is proportional to the magnetic field which is proportional to the excitation current in a small=big relationship. c) Your claim that my system will not work is stupid......" (etc) His innovation seems to hinge on the belief that it is possible to create energy in an alternator generator. I have now given up on trying to explain the law of conservation of energy. I thought he might listen to one or two more qualified voices. Any comments gratefuly received. Thanks.