About the Yildiz engine – Interview with Jorge Duarte

Compiled by Sterling D. Allan
for Pure Energy Systems News

The following is adapted from a Google translation of a story at kloptdatwel.nl in The Netherlands.

= = = =

About the Yildiz engine – Interview with Jorge Duarte

March 23, 2013 Posted in: Pseudoscience , skeptical inquiry , In the news , Science

Dr.. Jorge L. Duarte

Dr. Jorge L. Duarte

On 15 March I wrote here on Kloptdatwel about new developments around the magnet motor Yildiz and announced it to come back after a conversation with Dr. Jorge Duarte.

Duarte is an assistant professor at the Technical University of Eindhoven and was closely involved in the presentations of the engine at the TU / e in 2009 and 2010 at the TU Delft. Earlier, he examined another device Yildiz, a kind suitcase that would produce energy. The planned meeting in person or by telephone was not achieved, but Duarte was prepared to some questions that I put to him by e-mail. Below I have with his permission integral taken over “to the skepticals”.

1. How did you come into contact with Yildiz?

In 2005 Yildiz tried to get in touch with a Philips subsidiary company for which I was one day a week working as a consultant. His proposal was to do something with the famous “suitcase”. I was initially dismayed by the worthless patent application he peered tit and gave him the advice no further money to stop that nonsense. After some back and forth, it became clear that he hat at least something very remarkable in his hands (the exact story is too long a story to tell here). Despite a written request by the Philips company, Yildiz did not got a visa from the Dutch Consulate in Ankara  to perform controlled experiments in Eindhoven for two weeks. No, no MIB conspiracy, just immigration policy. (I can put you in touch with two involved Philips employees who will confirm this.)

A precursor of the engine, "suitcase" Yildiz

A precursor of the engine, “suitcase” Yildiz

2. You also examined an earlier device of Yildiz (the ‘trunk’). What has become of that device and why do we hear nothing more of it? Did you, at that time, come to a conclusion about the operation?

After the failed attempt of Yildiz in the Netherlands, was the “suitcase” in Dortmund eventually shown to a group of interested people (for Germany, Yildiz could get a visa). At that time, I have to Yildiz ‘request that presentation. The goal was to find a recognized laboratory prepared to certify the device. Simply: a week to work without stopping, output measurement, report in writing, with a signature and stamp, with all costs for the use of the facilities being paid by the inventor himself. A (young) employee of a renowned institute who had seen the presentation was prepared to carry out that work.A few days before the agreed start of the test, Yildiz received a fax from the Director of the Institute, who basically said that only non-controversial issues could be measured and certified. (Upon request, I can bring you in contact with the employee, and the inventor has a copy of the fax). Perhaps the Director was afraid of the reputation of his institution, if the test is positive. [Sterling's note: most likely he didn't anticipate a positive result, and didn't want to be seen as having even considered that it might have worked.]In my opinion this demonstrates why it is not easy for a laboratory to do controversial experiments for which a clear answer can be given – especially if there is any indication (the enthusiastic response of the young employee) that the claims would not immediately be invalidated.The “suitcase” had a major drawback: there was an external current pulse from a battery needed to get the process going. Because of this, the device could always be written off by skeptics, I asked the inventor if perhaps another approach would be possible. Yildiz designed a prototype that worked without a battery, only with magnets. That is the reason why you don’t hear about the “suitcase” anymore, since without external batteries, demonstrations are easier and more convincing.

3. My main question that I already stated in my first mail: why would you speculate about complicated explanations (quantum field theory etc.) as it is quite possible that it was all a scam. Is it not wiser to wait until a more convincing test is done? What is your motivation to be so forward?

You should understand that I’ve already participated in more than enough experiments with the machine; and all parts have been inspected [by me]. With this knowledge are the simple tentative explanations excluded. My insight after all these years, that scams with this invention are not possible, is obviously different from yours, because extraordinary results require extraordinary proof, with which conviction or belief play absolutely no role. It does give me a bit of pain that a fellow academic reproaches my speculation, because “In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual” (Galileo). Should I not dare to try a hypothesis (an educated guess) anymore in the company of academicians? Again, do not just take my word. “Evidence of hearsay” goes against the scientific protocol, and measurement results only count here.

Incidentally, even without the machines fully open, its surprising observations made ​​by third parties confirmed: no heat, aluminum parts that rotate around magnets without braking torque is developed, the lack of brushes, an abnormally large air gap, no expertise of the inventor of electronic circuits (so tricks in that area be ruled out).

4. Do you get comments from colleagues regarding your involvement with Yildiz ‘engine? And what kind are they? Ward van der Houwen told me that he received almost angry reactions from various sides and got the warning that he as his academic career may be jeopardized. Do you have similar experiences?

Since I do not aspire to academic careers (I am and remain a regular UD (university assistant professor) at heart, fortunately with a fixed appointment), his warnings in that area [present] no problem [for me]. Academic freedom to talk and write about hypotheses, I certainly [can] do. Angry reactions occur mainly via the internet, but after a few emails back and forth, we ultimately always reach the stage of a constructive discussion. It is a wonderful game to argue about observations and results, [and] to discuss with people genuinely interested. And when I have the opportunity to talk with colleagues (even the cynical, it’s still a sense of humor), usually, the bias quickly disappears (which does not mean that I readily get a budget to allow research with the possibilities of the machines).

5. Do you have an idea how much has already been invested in all those prototypes Yildiz made? And who is that money raised?

These are matters of Mr Yildiz.

How much energy the fan question, is not so clear

[Actually, at the typical speed he runs it, the value is around 380 Watts.]

6. Does Yildiz ever ask you for advice? For example, how to do the demonstrations (in Geneva?) in such a way that they can be convincing to the skeptics, but without revealing his secrets. I can imagine that [I] could by thinking about the load of the engine, which could be clearer than the rotating fan.

Yes, we have become good friends. Geneva is an exciting situation because the first aim was to test the university with the machines to perform and confirm. That’s probably [fizzled due] to the same kind of reason as I already mentioned above under 2. Therefore, now in Geneva, everything is happening simultaneously. The Expo Hall is not suitable for scientific experiments to be carried out, and inevitably there remains sufficient reason to doubt the skeptics who are not fan lovers. (Incidentally, the fan method is completely wireless and there are no (electronic) instruments in need. Tampering with the movement is directly observable, and that there really is mechanical energy generated is visually, and audibly even seemed clear. The only downside is that the quantitative amount of energy generated will not be intuitively obvious, and that has to be explained by willing experts.

7. If we take the scenario that it turns out to a scam after all: you can not be construed to be so commitment that you have given credibility to the whole story. Do you think you have enough of a neutral stance? From the vantage point of the investors, keep the potential claims of your account in your direction, if it turns out that this is some kind of technically clever trick.

When potential investors contact me, I always emphatically tell them that they must get a qualified expert (and I mean a techie, not a lawyer), and first witness the machine working in a closed chamber for at least one week should. In my experience, rich investors try to be exceptionally well-informed about everything, especially in a field where a scam could be possible.

So much for now. There are many more questions that may come again later. I think that until the demonstration in Geneva, there will not be much new to report.

Here the trailer of the documentary Ward van der Houwen with Rene van der Woude is making:

Further Reading:

  • On the site Pure Energy Systems News (PESN) is much about Yildiz . It is a handy collection of videos and news about the engine. Duarte also gave an interview to Sterling Allan. And here is also the speculative piece in my eyes which Duarte seeks a possible explanation for the operation of the engine: Modeling the Yildiz Engine .
  • About the “suitcase” of Yildiz.
  • An interesting thread in a forum, where a sound analysis of the demonstration in Delft is discussed. From this analysis, one might conclude that the motor during the demonstration run was already slightly slower, which could indicate the presence of a battery, which gradually less power. Maybe someone can do that analysis.


# # #

See also: