Interview with a
correspondent from the Spektr-Plus agency (copy)
German Treshalov
An
engineer from Tashkent is convinced that he has discovered a physical process
which is not compatible with some aspects of physics, and whose development and
application will help humanity resolve for itself the pressing energy crisis.
There
have been quite a few gifted and world famous scientific pioneers in the history
of Uzbekistan who have made an indisputable contribution to the development of
science, and perhaps history is repeating itself. Our hero, German Treshalov, a
power engineer by profession, has already applied to the local and
international patent agencies and created the prototype of a device working
according to the principle of the scientific discovery. In the words of the
inventor, this physical effect was predicted by the English scientist James
Maxwell back in the 19th century, but had not been substantiated or confirmed
by anyone until now. Treshalov states that he and his colleagues have managed
to substantiate this physical process for individual branches of physics.
However, the inventor says, despite the fact that we are living in the 21st
century, he is encountering that same rule in official science acknowledging
scientific discoveries that many scientists who laid the basis of contemporary
science encountered. German says he has approached many scientific
publications, but, also observing this rule, they do not yet want to
acknowledge this discovery.
Reports
about the discovery by our compatriot from Tashkent are appearing on the
Internet more and more frequently. As a result we could not fail to take an
interest in this subject, and we present for your attention an interview by our
correspondent with the inventor.
[Correspondent] Could you comment on these rumours about
your invention?
[Treshalov] By rumours on the Internet,
evidently what is meant is the interview I gave to a correspondent from the
“Zerkalo-21” newspaper. Despite the fact that some misprints found their way in
there, including of the name of the Irish firm Steorn, and some sentences were
altered in places, in which connection the meaning was altered, as a whole this
interview reflects reality and what I wanted to say. Anyone who wants to get
acquainted with it can find the interview at the link I will give you (here is the link).
I will try not to repeat myself as far as possible, so as not to duplicate it.
Furthermore,
although we gave the “Zerkalo” editorial team the link to our site, where it is
possible to become acquainted in brief with our findings, they did not put it
in the text. Without that, the interview looks a bit like a sandwich without
butter, if you’ll forgive the metaphor.
The articles are written in the maximum
possible popular scientific style, so as to be understandable to the ordinary
reader. Incidentally, that partly explains such a skeptical reaction from some
academics with whom we have had the opportunity to be in contact both over the
Internet and face to face, who call this simply “nonsense and balderdash” –
excuse the expression, but believe me it’s not ours.
At this link you
can learn about our findings. Despite the fact that this was written for the ordinary person, some
grounding in physics, including in hydrodynamics, is still necessary for a
better understanding.
Our
hypothesis is set out here for explaining an interesting phenomenon that is
inexplicable from the point of view of existing theories but easily explicable
by our theory (link).
Here you can read some useful articles by other popular scientific publications
(link).
Perpetual Motion Machine of the Second Kind
[Correspondent] What exactly have you invented? Can you explain it in simple terms and briefly?
[Treshalov] We’ve discovered a physical effect that
contradicts existing physics theories. Many call our invention a perpetual
motion machine of the second kind.
However, realizing what reaction these words provoke among academics, we try
not to call it this. But often in conversations and in Internet forums people
call our invention a “perpetual motion machine” and then they themselves accuse
us of having invented a machine by this name. So far none has been able to
disprove this convincingly. The only argument against our invention is that it
allegedly contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics and therefore cannot be.
The words “perpetual motion machine” and
“against the Second Law of Thermodynamics” have the same effect on representatives
of official science as a red cloth has on a bull. The words “The Earth is round
and it rotates around the Sun” had the same effect on the inquisition in the
Middle Ages. Now everyone knows what shape the Earth is. But, possibly, if in
those times Galileo, Bruno and Copernicus had not defended their opinions,
maybe we still would have believed that the Earth is flat.
[Correspondent]
What is the contradiction? Can you remind us what the Second Law of
Thermodynamics is and what does it have to do with your invention?
[Treshalov] We need to go back into history first. Most
main scientific discoveries were made in the 19th century. It was when the
Second Law of Thermodynamics was formulated. To begin with, it is phrased in
such a complicated way that it is hard to understand. The simple fact that it
has more than 10 different formulations should already make you wonder. When
I’m asked to explain it, I use the most widely used formulation: “Entropy
always increases.” Immediately one wants to know what entropy is. I begin to
explain that it is a measure of chaos. But it does not make much sense either.
A simply way to put it would be to say that in nature energy can only disperse
and cannot concentrate by itself.
This is a simple postulate, i.e. an axiom, a conclusion
made on the basis of many observations. The experimental facilities of those
times allowed such a conclusion. There were not many educated people in those
times and what scientists said was taken as the ultimate truth. Gradually that
postulate was accepted as a law, and then simply as a dogma. But, however
clever those scientists were, no one is insured against mistakes. Probably, the
Second Law of Thermodynamics was a mistake.
With time, facilities for scientific experiments have improved, and it is time
now to review some theories that were developed in the 19th century. One such
theory is the Second Law of Thermodynamics because it contradicts some very
obvious things.
For example, everyone knows that temperature
drops as you go higher, in the mountains, for instance. I won’t go too far into
scientific details, and will only say that this contradicts the Second Law of
Thermodynamics.
However, the supporters of this law could not
admit anything that contradicted it, and to prove their point they’ve come up
with complicated mathematical computations with a mass of long formulas in
which most parameters and factors are empiric, and others are taken as variable
indexes. And it does not perplex them that their calculations clash with the
undeniable fact that the higher you go the lower the temperature gets.
Tsiolkovskiy pointed this out in his time, however his arguments were not found
convincing enough. This is only one example, and there are plenty more.
What does this law have to do with our invention? One may ask: your invention
is about hydrodynamics so what does it have to do with thermodynamics?
This is where we find its second contradiction.
It was initially set as a law of thermodynamics and then the supporters of this
postulate for some reason without any explanation and grounds began to apply it
in all other fields of physics in general.
For instance, in every branch of physics every
law has its grounding with certain formulas. Take the Law of the Conservation
of Energy. In mechanics it is the
balance of kinetic and potential energies, i.e. the “mgh” and “mv2/2” formulas
that we remember from school. In electrical engineering, it is the Law of Kirchhoff. In aerodynamics and hydraulics, it is the formula of Bernoulli. And in thermodynamics, it is the
First Law of Thermodynamics.
Only the Second Law of Thermodynamics has only
one name and for some reason is accepted in all fields of physics without
attempts to formulate it individually for each one.
There are many theoretical and experimental
facts that overturn this postulate. However over its 100 years of existence and
unquestionable acceptance, it has become so deeply rooted in people’s minds, as
sometimes happened with religious dogmas in their time, and attempts to prove
otherwise are met with fierce resistance from its supporters.
I’m sure that what I’m saying here, if
published, will provoke a negative and maybe even an aggressive reaction among
the orthodox supporters of the Second Law, even though among them there are
many respected scholars with works of their own.
Conflict with official science
[Correspondent] But if your theory or invention contradicts the known theories and laws, mayn’t you be accused of ignoring basic laws of nature?
[Treshalov]
Undoubtedly. The ideas of Galileo and Giordano Bruno were once received
the same way. Most likely we will be accused of ignorance and trying to win
cheap popularity and fame. And that has already been happening in some Internet
chat rooms. Some even threaten to publish articles that would “crush” our
invention.
It’s a
paradoxical situation. If you invent something that cannot be explained by the
existing theories and to some degree overturns or contradicts them, then not a
single official scientific journal will write about it. However, priority in an
invention is deemed to date only from when that invention first appears in some
official publication. This is absurd. As long as it’s not published anywhere it
does not exist, and if does not exist there is nothing to write about. It’s a
vicious circle.
Many newly discovered physical effects and phenomena that have not been
explained so far have come up against the same absurd situation and are still
coming up against it. And it’s not just a local problem in our post-Soviet
territory. We often say that no idea can be pushed through here. Partially,
it’s true. However, we are talking about a global paradox. And every invention
has come up against it no matter where it was invented or by whom. Many now
famous people have faced the same problem. There is a hidden danger: there are
some not very scrupulous scholars (science has its fair share of them) who have
some authority and who can have their articles published in scientific
journals. They can get information about your invention and there is a
possibility that they may publish it under their own name before you can
publish it under yours and so priority in it goes to them. Such things have
happened before.
History Repeated
It’s quite
possible that Grigoriy Perelman, a mathematician from St Petersburg who is now
known throughout the world, faced a similar situation. Not so long ago he found
a solution to the Poincare conjecture that was formulated at the beginning of
the 20th century. I don’t know all the details, but I can guess that
Perelman initially tried to publish his discovery in some journals. However the
official mathematics community was very skeptical and ignored it. He published
his discovery on the Internet and someone pulled it from the website, added
something insignificant and tried to present that work as his own. We know what
is happening now: Perelman has taken umbrage at the scientific community that
once snubbed him and is refusing to accept a prize, which is almost one million
dollars (something like a Nobel Prize for mathematicians).
The same
thing happened to Einstein who while an ordinary clerk at a patent agency tried
for four years to push through his famous formula, bombarding with his letters
the Academy of Sciences and scientific journals. Mendeleyev had to defend his
table for six years before it was recognized. The telephone invented by Bell
was initially regarded as a useless toy. The engineer Marconi who patented the
wireless way of transmitting radio waves was nearly put into a mental hospital.
There is an interesting example with Fahrenheit. When he demonstrated to a
scientific council a way of using his thermometer he was laughed at. What do we
see now? No one remembers those pseudo-scientists, but Fahrenheit’s name has
gone down in history.
So our invention will not be recognized to begin with because it overturns the
Second Law of Thermodynamics. We won’t be able to publish our work in official
scientific journals and therefore we won’t be able to win priority in the
formulas we have put forward.
However, I
believe, we have already managed to get round this problem, at least partially.
We have managed to register our discovery as a patent application on an
invention, with all the formulas and diagrams that any patent agency must
accept and register. We first filed with the Uzbek patent agency and then the
international patent agency in Switzerland. Thus in any case we have already
staked the priority on our invention in the name of citizens of Uzbekistan. And
we think this is very important.
Here I
would like to mention an interesting historical fact of the early 20th
century regarding the first manned airplane flight by the Wright brothers.
Because they were Americans, they first turned to the US government for support
in making the first airplane. However, the US government did not want to listen
to them. But the French turned out to be smarter and now France is recognized
as the country that introduced to the world the first heavier-than-air flying
apparatus.
Military uses
[Correspondent] How are things going now? Are you getting any support?
[Treshalov] Everything is going quite slowly. But I would
like to mention something here. However sad it may be, history shows that
humankind’s most significant inventions got noticed and developed only because
they served some military purposes. If an invention or a discovery was of no
interest (or did not seem to be at first glance) for the military, no one
noticed it, no one developed it and no one gave it any funding.
For example:
- Archimedes’ levers and blocs were
used for defence against Roman conquerors;
- ships were built for the
colonization and conquest of new lands;
- gun powder was used for explosives and
fire arms;
- airplanes began to be developed only because of World War I. You
cannot but feel amazed and proud when you see achievements of the aircraft
industry at air shows. But then you think: what is all this for? At best, to
protect and preserve existing material wealth, but mostly for destruction. It
all depends into whose hands it all falls. And then, despite all the positive
feelings that I mentioned above, you begin to feel sad.
- Atomic energy is a special case. Hitler was the first to begin to develop it.
Do you think he wanted to build atomic power stations to meet mankind’s need
for energy? Thank God, he didn’t manage to carry out plans in the atomic field.
However, then the Americans took up the baton. What were their aims? Everyone
knows what happened in 1945. And it’s hard to blame the scientists who were the
first to develop nuclear energy - they were engaged in pure science. Later on,
things got out of their control and everything was in the hands of the military
that have their own priorities. The question is: were any of these experiments
ever under the control of the scientists, given that all the money came from
the state that from the outset pursued different goals. Then it was too late
and the nuclear race was joined by the Soviet Union. What do we have now? We
have this Sword of Damocles hanging over humankind – nuclear power. Who can say
now whether the discovery of nuclear power is doing more good or harm to the
development of mankind? It’s rather a rhetorical question.
The smartest and most far-sighted of all in this respect was Nikola Tesla.
Seeing that mankind was not ready yet for his inventions and that in certain
circumstances someone might use them for non-peaceful purposes (which, he knew,
could be lethal for all of humanity) he destroyed all the documents on his
inventions.
However, mankind is finally paying less
attention to militaristic aims now that the energy shortage has become a
burning issue. This problem should have been solved yesterday. But conflict
arises even in this peaceful field. Energy, fuel, oil, gas and nuclear fuel
have fanned the flames of most wars and conflicts. Take the conflict between
Iran and the USA. The root cause of this conflict is access to energy
resources.
Currently, the priority in the energy industry
is given to controlled thermonuclear synthesis. All technological, intellectual
and financial resources are focused on that, primarily. It started off in the
1950s and mainly not for generating energy, but for prestige, who would be the
first, the United States or the Soviet Union (as with putting a man on the
Moon). However, mankind has been trying to solve the problem of controlled
thermonuclear synthesis for fifty years now. The best brains have been working
on it. There is no breakthrough yet and no one knows when there will be. Vast
sums of money are still being put into continuing research. Recently they
concluded a 10 billion US dollar multilateral contract on the ITER reactor
project.
We believe that our invention is entirely neutral in terms of military use. It
is quite hard to use it directly for military purposes. Moreover, it will
possibly help resolve conflicts that emerge because of attempts to dominate the
energy market.
Scientific publications' reaction
We’ve received a huge number of letters
supporting our invention. Some Web sites have been reprinting our articles.
However, official journals to which we’ve
repeatedly sent our articles either do not reply at all or say that our
conclusions are not well grounded. One journal told us after a long exchange of
letters that “unfortunately, today we are not ready to publish your articles.”
This “we are not ready” says a lot!
But, one official journal, I cannot name it for
now, wrote to us saying that our invention would be seriously considered by
their editorial board. They’ve attached comments by two experts who cautiously
admit that we have indeed uncovered some specific physical effect. The journal
has not given us the names of these experts saying that they do not want to be
publicly named (which at this moment I find logical.) But they think it is
premature to publish the article itself for now.
Prototype
[Correspondent] You’ve mentioned that you have a working apparatus.
[Treshalov] Yes, we have several drafts for constructing
turbines operating on the principle which we have developed. One of these has
already been built and we are improving it as far as we can. We’ve been told
already that our machine doesn’t look very appealing. I
agree with this.
But it cannot nor should it
look pretty now for it is the prototype built literally in the garage from the
first materials that came to hand. It’s
not the machine that’s important as these machines can be built in different
ways. What matters is the principle on which it operates.
The first airplane assembled by the Wright
brothers at the turn of the last century makes you smile when you look at the
modern “Airbuses”, “Boeings” and “Tupolevs”. The first PC built by Vozniak and
Jobs in a garage now looks funny compared with the modern, powerful computers
that everyone has on his desk now.
Mendeleyev’s table when he first drew it also looked like an ordinary
piece of paper with something scribbled on it, with corrections and ink stains.
I saw a photo of it in some scientific journal. But we admire and respect all
these men because they were pioneers.
We are not planning any large scale tests of our apparatus as yet. Firstly, it
is quite a laborious process requiring heavy resources, including
subcontractors and specialists. And there would be little point in doing it as
long as the theory and concept are not recognized. Take the example of the
“Steorn” company, which I’ve mentioned before. And it is not the apparatus and
its testing which are at issue. For example, when presenting his formula,
Einstein did not drag along a nuclear reactor. Tsiolkovskiy while working on
his theory of jet propulsion did not have a working Proton rocket carrier. And
Mendeleyev in the beginning had only two or three dozen elements in his table -
it’s only now the table is complete and no one doubts the correctness of the
laws that he established. Sorry for repeating myself. We are presenting our
theory and formulas for public judgment now - let the scientific community
either disprove them or recognize them officially first.
As for the argument that “this cannot be because it can never be” I have
another good example from history. Lord Kelvin (after whom the unit increment
of temperature is called and one of the founders of the Second Law) said
skeptically that “flying machines that are heavier than air are not possible.”
He said this at the end of the 19th century when many were trying to
build a flying machine. If everyone had agreed with him then, and he at the
time had huge authority in science, we would still be traveling on foot today.
But luckily, there are dedicated enthusiasts who always lead mankind forward.
It is understandable that it looks a bit fantastic now. Just remember Julies
Verne’s novels about the incredible submarine, the “Nautilus”. Or take Alexei
Tolstoy’s novel called “The hyperboloid of engineer Garin” in which he
describes a ray of light of an incredibly destructive power. It was written in
the 1920s and scientists received it very skeptically, saying it was even
beyond the bounds of fantasy. However, some several decades later real
submarines appeared. And we do not now consider them incredible and impossible.
Some time later, in the 1960s, a group of scientists got the Nobel Prize for
inventing the laser. Telling facts, aren’t they?
Rules of science
[Correspondent]
What are your prospects and how will things develop further?
[Treshalov] We have studied closely historical precedents,
which, we think, may be applied to us. We discovered clear rules in similar
historical facts.
The first rule is that all inventors or
founders of something unusual and something which is beyond the bounds of
present theories were in the beginning labeled in absolutely the same terms,
namely, either as “unknown to anyone” or “someone who has no academic status”
or “an ordinary clerk” or “an engineer”.
Secondly, all their ideas were rejected
vehemently and vigorously criticized or simply ignored.
Thirdly, each of these inventors was a very
obstinate person and expended quite a lot of effort and time proving his
theory.
Lastly, after they were recognized, these
theories set the standard in science and technology, and those who initially
had refused to recognize them and had stymied them in every way, subsequently
tried to get closer to the discovery in order to snatch their big share of the
pie and said that they always had believed and supported these theories and
their inventors.
I have already mentioned some of these
circumstances and precedents, and taking account of all these nuances, we, of
course, do not harbor any illusions for ourselves that our discovery will
escape all this and that everyone will rush now to study it and to put it into
practice immediately. Time is needed to reassess firmly embedded stereotypes
and we are ready for this.
This discovery was in the air and it would have
had to have been made one day. It was a matter of luck that it was made by us –
most of us engineers and programmers without scientific degrees or posts in
scientific research institutions.
I will recall one more precedent relating to thermonuclear synthesis. Oleg
Lavrentyev was the first to propose the idea of confining plasma by an electrical
field in 1949. He was neither a
scientist nor an engineer and his education was simply seven years of secondary
school and at that time he lived in the Far East. When he came up with this
idea, he immediately wrote to Stalin but got no reply and he wrote again. After
that people got interested in his idea. Despite the fact that a magnetic field
replaced an electrical field to confine plasma the idea itself was very
interesting and it was put forward not by a high-ranking scholar or a doctor of
sciences but by an ordinary person, a keen amateur. This idea is applied
worldwide nowadays.
However, I don’t lay claim to be the first to
express such ideas. Similar thoughts and opinions have been on the minds of
many people. You can find lots of similar and quite well-grounded discoveries
in the Internet. The Internet encouraged this since it did not restrict the
exchange of opinions and it promoted the free flow of information. Perhaps, a
critical point has come, as they in dialectics, when quantity should become
quality.
Also, in the past when there was no Internet a
discoverer had only one way to publicize his invention – by having it printed
in a journal. If he had no such opportunity, his invention remained unknown.
This probably happened to many interesting discoveries and hypotheses. Now any
inventor can easily introduce his invention to a wide number of readers and he
now does not depend on capricious publishers.
In the Internet you can find a huge number of interesting inventions. But most
of them are either very effective devices without substantiation of the
principle of operation or just hypotheses which are difficult to prove or which
require costly experiments to prove them. Compared to other similar
developments, we think that we have one trump card – our formula and the graphs
based on the formula. This formula has been developed precisely from the Law of
the Conservation of Energy and no one yet has been able to refute it. All that
was needed to develop the formula was to put Bernoulli’s equation into the
formula expressing the free flow continuity of fluid.
The question may arise: if this is so simple, why has no one done it
before now? The answer is also simple: first, one had to look at the problem
from a non-typical point of view, not under the pressure of the Second Law of
Thermodynamics or from those positions prescribed by the established laws which
we are used to. Many inventions do often lie on the surface. We just need to
see them and shout “Eureka!” as Archimedes once did.
10 February 2008.
"Äåìîí Ìàêñâåëëà"
