• Mark Goldes

    You might enjoy another surprising alternative. See NO FUEL PISTON ENGINE at http://www.aesopinstitute.org

    • bachcole

      Is this part of Aesop’s Fables?

      • Mark Goldes

        These engines certainly seem likely to prove fabulous. Skepticism is understandable until prototypes are completed and validated by independent labs. But, see the website to learn about the science.

        • Ronzonni

          Skepticism is understandable until a SINGLE SOLITARY THING of the hundreds of insane and non-working ideas you passed off as investments over the years, works like you said it would. Why are you not simply to be viewed as a greedy, useless scam artist and crook?

          • Mark Goldes

            AESOP’s affiliate, Magnetic Power Inc. and its subsidiary Temperature Superconductors Inc. successfully completed four Small Business Innovation Research contracts with the Department of Defense on our Ultraconductors, These are polymer analogs of room temperature superconductors. They were tested by the USAF prior to awarding a highly competitive Phase II contract. Almost 1,000 samples were made for the USAF by Fractal Systems under a separate Air Force contract. A number of refereed papers have been published reflecting this remarkable breakthrough science.

  • bachcole

    I am about 90 skeptical of Randell Mills, given his dreadful record. And I am 100% certain the Rossi has demonstrated LENR+.

  • Patrick McCartney

    I’m rooting for Randy. His Millsian molecule modeling software gets better results than the quantum physics crowd. If he succeeds, his hydrino theory will advance atomic physics and cosmology.

  • Kelfin Planck

    Mark Goldes’ latest adventure in flimflam is to declare that a “FUEL-FREE TURBINE invented by a Russian scientist runs on atmospheric pressure.”

    But when we read the patent application, we find that actually the turbine does NOT run on atmospheric pressure – it requires compressed air. This is clearly indicated even in the article by Kondrashov posted by Goldes on his flimflam website. Kondrashov says:

    “To create a sample of such an engine, you can use ready-made devices, such as a load-bearing element – a low-power turbine module turboshaft turbine engine, and to compress the air… any type of compressor…”

    Kondrashov filed his patent application in 2003. No patent was awarded.

    Mark Goldes assures us in his note prefacing Kondrashov’s article that “We understand the science behind this jet engine.” But since he incorrectly describes it as an engine powered by “atmospheric pressure” – which it certainly is not – in fact he shows that he doesn’t even understand that the engine requires a supply of compressed air in order to spin at all.

    Although Kondrashov does pretend in some of his statements that the turbine will be powered by “atmospheric pressure,” in fact it is evident from his application that the proposed turbine is made to spin only by the use of compressed air.

    In his patent application, Kondrashov states:

    “To set the above engine in operation, it is necessary to create pressure of working medium (e.g. air) in pneumatic accumulator 18. The compressed air is fed through check valve 19 and/or 20.”

    Thus, Kondrashov indicates that an external compressor must be used to fill the turbine’s compressed air tank before the turbine can be started. But he tries to pretend that once the turbine starts to spin, there will be no further reliance on the external compressor – the spinning turbine itself will compress the air that is making the turbine spin. So despite his own false description of the turbine as making use of “low-grade atmospheric energy,” what Kondrashov actually presents in his patent application is a perpetual motion machine in the form of a self-powered air compressor. This is probably the reason why no patent was awarded. It is exactly analogous to trying to use a generator to power a motor to spin the generator to power the motor to spin the generator. It doesn’t work.

  • Kelfin Planck

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics rules out strictly ambient heat engines.

    Expecting an ambient heat engine to do any work, with only one heat reservoir, is exactly equivalent to expecting a teapot to boil water by absorbing heat from a block of ice.

    Both processes are ruled out by the very same law – the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    “It is impossible for any device operating on a cycle to produce net work from a single temperature reservoir; the production of net work requires flow of heat from a higher temperature reservoir to a colder reservoir.”

    In a strictly ambient heat engine there are not two heat reservoirs at different temperatures; no reservoir would be available at any temperature other than the ambient temperature. Therefore the engine would have to DECREASE the total entropy – and therefore we know for certain that the engine will disappoint us. It will never be able to do any work.

    Flow of heat from a block of ice to lukewarm water would also result in a DECREASE of the total entropy.

    Once again: Expecting an ambient heat engine to do any work, with only one heat reservoir, is exactly equivalent to expecting a teapot to boil water by absorbing heat from a block of ice. Anyone who claims to be developing a “prototype” of such an engine is only developing a pretense, and nothing more.

    • kmarinas86

      No hydrino technology proposed has invoked the use of “ambient heat”. They do however involve the extraction of ambient potential energy, via the electrostatic potential energy between each hydrogen nucleus and its electron.

  • Kelfin Planck

    Max Planck, in his “Treatise On Thermodynamics,” explains how the Second Law of Thermodynamics “may be deduced from a single simple law of experience about which there is no doubt.” Here is the “single simple law of experience” he proposes:

    “It is impossible to construct an engine which will work in a complete cycle, and produce no effect except the raising of a weight and the cooling of a heat-reservoir.”

    This “law of experience” is very similar to a principle suggested by William Thomson (Lord Kelvin):

    “It is impossible, by means of inanimate material agency, to derive mechanical effect from any portion of matter by cooling it below the temperature of the coldest of the surrounding objects.”

    The “simple law of experience” offered by Planck is therefore commonly known as the “Kelvin-Planck statement” of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. But we see from Planck’s “Treatise” that Planck himself did not quite regard it as a statement of the Second Law, but rather as a “starting point” or postulate from which the Second Law may be deduced.

    Here is Planck’s rendition of the Second Law itself:

    “The second law of thermodynamics states that there exists in nature for each system of bodies a quantity, which by all changes of the system either remains constant (in reversible processes) or increases in value (in irreversible processes). This quantity is called, following Clausius, the entropy of the system.”

  • Kelfin Planck

    The Kelvin-Planck formulation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics may be stated as follows:

    “No cyclic process driven simply by heat can accomplish the absorption of the heat from a reservoir and the conversion of such heat into work – without any other result (such as a transfer of heat to a cooler reservoir).”

    Now, as you will see, the Clausius formulation of the Second Law may be stated with fewer words:

    “No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body.”

    In fact, we can show that the Kelvin-Planck formulation may be deduced from that of Clausius. In the words of Enrico Fermi:

    “Suppose that Kelvin’s postulate were not valid. Then we could perform a transformation whose only final result would be to transform completely into work a definite amount of heat taken from a single source at the temperature t1. By means of friction we could then transform this work into heat again and with this heat raise the temperature of a given body, regardless of what its initial temperature, t2, may have been. In particular, we could take t2 to be higher than t1. Thus, the only final result of this process would be the transfer of heat from one body (the source at temperature t1) to another body at a higher temperature, t2. This would be a violation of the Clausius postulate.”

    Can anyone make a teapot that boils water by absorbing heat from blocks of ice?

  • Kelfin Planck

    Mark Goldes’ proofless claims regarding his make-believe strictly ambient heat engine do not represent any new technology, or even a new pretense – they merely represent a rather old pretense.

    “Before the establishment of the Second Law, many people who were interested in inventing a perpetual motion machine had tried to circumvent the restrictions of First Law of Thermodynamics by extracting the massive internal energy of the environment as the power of the machine. Such a machine is called a “perpetual motion machine of the second kind”. The second law declared the impossibility of such machines.”

    “A perpetual motion machine of the second kind is a machine which spontaneously converts thermal energy into mechanical work. When the thermal energy is equivalent to the work done, this does not violate the law of conservation of energy. However it does violate the more subtle second law of thermodynamics (see also entropy). The signature of a perpetual motion machine of the second kind is that there is only one heat reservoir involved… This conversion of heat into useful work, without any side effect, is impossible, according to the second law of thermodynamics.”

    Goldes’ make-believe strictly ambient heat engine would be a perpetual motion machine of the second kind, as defined above. Goldes is not developing any such engine; he is merely developing a pretense – as usual.

  • Kelfin Planck

    In Mark Goldes’ patent application for his ludicrous “POWERGENIE” horn-powered tuning-rod engine, he described the tuning-rod as “an energy transfer and multiplier element.”

    But of course, for the tuning-rod to “multiply” energy, it would need to disprove the law of conservation of energy.

    Goldes’ use of the term “energy multiplier element” reflected his pretense that the “revolutionary breakthrough” of the amazing “POWERGENIE” could disprove the law of conservation of energy, by presenting the world with a working “energy multiplier.”

    Goldes even claimed in 2008 that the POWERGENIE had been demonstrated already in an electric car, driven 4800 miles by his energy-multiplying horn-powered tuning-rod.

    But it seems that most people, for some reason, had difficulty accepting the notion that the law of conservation of energy could be proven false.

    And Goldes no doubt noticed that the Second Law of Thermodynamics – that “the entropy of an isolated system tends to increase with time and can never decrease” – is much less clear to most people than the conservation of energy.

    So now, after leaving aside the pretense that he could somehow “multiply energy” with a magnetized tuning-rod, Goldes has chosen to focus, instead, on the pretense that he can disprove the Second Law with an engine powered only by ambient heat.

    There is no “new science” in any of Goldes’ “revolutionary breakthroughs.” There is only pseudoscience and pretense – and nothing new, at all.

  • Kelfin Planck

    Let’s look at another example of Mark Goldes’ wonderful offerings in “revolutionary new technology:”

    The amazing “POWERGENIE!”

    One of the most laughable of Mark Goldes’ many pseudotypes is his “POWERGENIE” horn-powered generator. The brilliant idea of this revolutionary breakthrough is to blow a horn at a magnetized tuning rod, designed to resonate at the frequency of the horn, and then collect the electromotive energy produced by the vibrations of the rod.

    We’re not making this up.

    POWERGENIE tuning rod engine explained – from the patent:

    [The device incorporates] “an energy transfer and multiplier element being constructed of a ferromagnetic substance… having a natural resonance, due to a physical structure whose dimensions are directly proportional to the wavelength of the resonance frequency…

    “In this resonant condition, the rod material functions as a tuned waveguide, or longitudinal resonator, for acoustic energy…

    “Ferrite rod 800 is driven to acoustic resonance at the second harmonic of its fundamental resonant frequency by acoustic horn 811…”

    – But the patent doesn’t tell us who will volunteer to blow the horn at the rod all day. Perhaps it will come with an elephant.

    Mark Goldes claimed in 2008 that this wonderful triumph of human genius would bring his company, Magnetic Power Inc, one billion dollars in annual revenue by 2012. Magnetic Power is now defunct, having never produced any “Magnetic Power Modules” – just as Goldes’ company called “Room Temperature Superconductors Inc” is also now defunct, having never produced any “room temperature superconductors.”

  • Kelfin Planck

    Mark Goldes’ “Aesop Institute” has engaged for many years in the very dishonest and unscrupulous practice of soliciting loans and donations under an endless series of false pretenses, that it is developing and even “prototyping” various “revolutionary breakthroughs,” such as “NO FUEL ENGINES” that run on ambient heat alone – or run on “Virtual Photon Flux” – or on “Collapsing Hydrogen Orbitals” – or even on the acoustic energy of sound from a horn.

    Aesop Institute’s make-believe strictly ambient heat engine is ruled out by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This has been understood by physicists for at least 180 years. There is no “new science” that has ever determined such an engine to be possible.

    Aesop Institute’s make-believe “Virtual Photon Flux” engine is based on the idea that accessible electric power “is everywhere present in unlimited quantities” – which we know to be false.

    Aesop Institute’s make-believe “Collapsing Hydrogen Orbital” engine is based on Randell Mills’ theory of “hydrino” hydrogen, which every scientist knows to be false.

    Aesop Institute’s make-believe horn-powered engine is based on the pretense that a magnetized tuning rod could somehow “multiply energy” – a ludicrous notion, which is obviously ruled out by the law of conservation of energy.

    Aesop Institute’s very latest make-believe engine is a perpetual motion machine in the form of a self-powered air compressor, which proposes to use a turbine to compress air to spin the turbine to compress air to spin the turbine.

    Aesop Institute has never offered the slightest shadow of evidence that it is actually developing or “prototyping” any of these make-believe physics-defying “revolutionary breakthroughs.” All it has ever offered are mere declarations that it is doing so – unsupported by any proof whatever, of any kind whatever.

    There are no “revolutionary breakthroughs” to be found on Goldes’ fraudulent “Aesop Institute” website. There is only pseudoscience, relentless flimflam, and empty claims of engines that are ruled out by the laws of physics.


  • Kelfin Planck

    Mark Goldes, starting in the mid-seventies, engaged for several years in the pretense that his company SunWind Ltd was developing a nearly production-ready, road-worthy, wind-powered “windmobile,” based on the windmobile invented by James Amick; and that therefore SunWind would be a wonderful investment opportunity.

    After SunWind “dried up” in 1983, Goldes embarked on the long-running pretense that his company Room Temperature Superconductors Inc was developing room-temperature superconductors; and that therefore Room Temperature Superconductors Inc would be a wonderful investment opportunity. He continues the pretense that the company developed something useful, even to this day.

    And then Goldes embarked on the pretense that his company Magnetic Power Inc was developing “NO FUEL ENGINES” based on “Virtual Photon Flux;” and then, on the pretense that MPI was developing horn-powered “NO FUEL ENGINES” based on the resonance of magnetized tuning-rods; and then, on the pretense that his company Chava LLC (aka “Chava Energy”) was developing water-fueled engines based on “collapsing hydrogen orbitals” (which are ruled out by quantum physics); and then, on the pretense that he was developing strictly-ambient-heat-powered “NO FUEL ENGINES” (which are ruled out by the Second Law of Thermodynamics).

    But of course, the laws of physics always make an exception for the make-believe pretenses of Mark Goldes.

    Goldes’ forty-year career of “revolutionary breakthrough” pretense has nothing to do with science, but only with pseudoscience, pseudophysics, and relentless flimflam.

  • Kelfin Planck

    Dearest Tom:

    We already know with absolute certainty that Mills’ “hydrino” theory is false. That is why the his patent has been rejected by the Patent Office. You seem to be unaware of this. Yes Tom, Mills is a charlatan – and so is Rossi – and so is Mills’ “hydrino power” copycat, Mark Goldes, who posted an advertisement for his flimflam website in a comment below.


    • bachcole

      Who are we? I don’t know that it is absolutely false. But I do know that people who say things like that are often wrong and always arrogant.

      • Kelfin Planck

        bachcole, there is no object in the universe whose behaviour we can describe and predict with greater mathematical precision than the hydrogen atom. Of the hydrogen atom we have a completeness of knowledge we can only dream of having of anything else in the world. Not only does Mills’ theory fail to predict the known energy levels of hydrogen, it also fails to predict the existence even of hydrino states!


        You stated below that “I am 100% certain the Rossi has demonstrated LENR.”

        So it’s “arrogant” for ME to be certain about something – but of course, it wouldn’t be arrogant for YOU.

        • bachcole

          Kelfin, my son was dribbling his basketball in the kitchen earlier this afternoon. He can see it. I can see it. You can’t see the hydrogen atom. You can only see things that bounce off of things that bounce off of the hydrogen atom. Consequently I don’t find your absolutes about the hydrogen atom to be convincing enough for me to come to any conclusion concerning Mills based upon what you say.

          I will reserve judgment until I see convincing evidence one way or the other or until he asks me for money. The physics does not push me one way or the other; Mills’ behavior inclines me in the direction that he is insane and people are caught up in his delusions. He makes a lot of promises and never delivers.

          As far as Rossi is concerned, you are 100% certain about a negative, which is unprovable. I am 100% certain about a positive, because I saw it and people I trust tested it and saw it.

        • optiongeek

          So if QM does such a great job in modeling Hydrogen then it must be pretty good at explaining Helium, too, right? And Lithium? And the rest of the elements and molecules? It produces simple formulas that accurately predict how the objects bind to each other, their cross-section, etc? It doesn’t require “coupling coefficients” and “renormalizations” and all manner of fudge factors and correction terms to get even the simplest of answers for all of these, right? It’s even explained the composition of dark matter, surely? No? Well, for all of these short-comings of the QM model, Mills has proposed simple, elegant and truly beautiful models that do provide these answers. Anyone who claims to be a scientist should take the opportunity to study his theory first. He makes it quite easy, it’s all there on the BLP website. A good place to start: look for the chart that compares predict vs actual elemental binding energies between SPARTAN, one of the top QM based modeling packages, and the Millsian package. The chart for SPARTAN shows little (if any) correlation while Millsian is close to perfect.

        • jousterusa

          The Harvard-Smithsonian Institute fior Astrophysics, through spectroscopy, proved the existence of the hydrino in tests supervised by Gen3. Seven scientists, from places like CalTech and MIT and large private corporations, have validated his theory. It sound like you made an investment in Mark Goldes and lost your shirt.

          • Kelfin Planck

            No Jouster, you can be very sure that I have never sent any money to Mark Goldes, or his fraudulent “Aesop Institute,” or any of his fraudulent companies.

            Why didn’t you provide any links for your claims regarding validation of the fabulous hydrino, or the names of any of those wonderful scientists?

  • optiongeek

    The public demo will be on Jan. 28th, not Feb. 28th as stated in the article.

  • Kelfin Planck

    “In this paper, we have considered the theoretical foundations of the
    hydrino hypothesis, both within the theoretical framework of CQM [Mills’ ‘Classical Quantum Mechanics’], in which hydrinos were originally suggested, and within standard quantum mechanics. We found that CQM is inconsistent and has several serious deficiencies. Amongst these are the failure to reproduce the energy levels of the excited states of the hydrogen atom, and the absence of Lorentz invariance. Most importantly, we found that CQM does not predict the existence of hydrino states! Also, standard quantum mechanics cannot encompass hydrino states, with the properties currently attributed to them. Hence there remains no theoretical support of the hydrino hypothesis.”


    • Patrick McCartney

      I hope you’ll report back after the demonstrations with more authoritative conclusions.

    • Barry Simon

      Kelfin, For some reason you want to convince us an up-coming demo is bogus. Your comments are longer than then Tom’s article. Towards the end of his life Albert Einstein criticized young physicists who claimed to understand light. He said he studied it all his life and wasn’t close to understanding it. Surely you do not claim to fathom quantum mechanics.

      One factor you have left out in regards to hydrogen, Blacklight and all things cold fusion is the catalyst reaction. I’m sure you have not experimented with Blacklight’s or Rossi’s catalysts because they are trade secrets.

      Perhaps they will fail, but why not wait a week when we have a chance to look at a demo. Why not wait a year or ten. There may possibly be more to the nuclear world than science claims to of already fathomed.

      • optiongeek

        Mills has hardly kept any of his findings “secret”. The patent application he filed includes extensive discussion of the materials that can be used as catalysts.

  • bachcole

    I have not yet read a lot of
    Kelfin Planck’s (he probably meant “Kelvin Planck”) comments, but I suspect that he is a skeptopath, NOT a skeptic, which I hope that we all are. As a skeptopath, Kelfin Planck is strongly motivated, perhaps even compulsively motivated, to keep himself and EVERYONE else inside of the box. Such people would have arrested Columbus before he had an opportunity to sail west.

  • jousterusa

    This ithe first coverage of these topics in one article I have seen outside of The American Reporter online newspaper. The author really is clued into the most important developments in the history of commercial power generation. However, the Feb. 28 demo he mentioned actually occurred Jan. 28. The next demo awaits the perfection of an established device called a “magnetohydrodynamic converter” that will allow the CIHT fuel cells and hydrino reactors created by Randell Mills to generate electricity from the process. That in turn will enable the cars and the large-scale electric generation he envisions. I, for one, can’t wait! Great article!

  • Kelfin Planck

    And now, back to reality:

    “Our analysis of the theory [of CQM, proposed by Mills]… has demonstrated that the theory is mathematically inconsistent in several points: the quantization condition of CQM allows only a solution for the ground state of the hydrogen atom; the radial solutions for the charge-density function of the electron, as well as the angular solutions with nonzero angular momentum, differ from those given in the literature on CQM… To uncover the latter problem, we did not resort to any physics argument but instead directly checked the alleged solution of the underlying equations of motion. Hence there is no way to cure the flaws of the theory by adding physical assumptions. CQM is obviously inconsistent, and in particular does not contain solutions that predict the existence of hydrinos.”

    “In this paper, we have considered the theoretical foundations of the hydrino hypothesis, both within the theoretical framework of CQM [Mills’ ‘Classical Quantum Mechanics’], in which hydrinos were originally suggested, and within standard quantum mechanics. We found that CQM is inconsistent and has several serious deficiencies. Amongst these are the failure to reproduce the energy levels of the excited states of the hydrogen atom, and the absence of Lorentz invariance. Most importantly, we found that CQM does not predict the existence of hydrino states! Also, standard quantum mechanics cannot encompass hydrino states, with the properties currently attributed to them. Hence there remains no theoretical support of the hydrino hypothesis.”


  • Roger Bird

    I’m still waiting for a BLP demo in my future. I still haven’t gotten one worth an Ess Ache Eye Tee.

  • WillliamJohnsonn

    For five years, Hagen Ruff allowed Mark Goldes, a Co-founder as well
    as a Chief Officer of Chava Energy, not only to use his mgoldes @ chavaenergy.com
    email address to solicit loans to Goldes’ so-called “Aesop Institute,”
    but simultaneously to solicit loans to Aesop Institute and investments
    in Chava Energy in the course of discussions and communications with
    prospects who had reached Goldes by way of aesopinstitute. In effect,
    Ruff allowed Aesop Institute to become a fund-raising extension of Chava
    Energy. Starting in 2009, if not before, Goldes posted thousands of
    fraudulent comments advertising the aesopinstitute website and promoting
    the Goldes-Ruff fraudcraftings on dozens of different
    websites. On Huffington Post alone, as the user “Overtone,” he posted
    over three thousand such comments. When people contacted Goldes after
    visiting the aesopinstitute website, they would learn from Goldes not
    only about Aesop Institute but also about Chava Energy, and Goldes would
    solicit loans to Aesop Institute or investment in Chava Energy,
    whichever the prospect preferred, at the same time. This was his
    standard practice for years. By allowing this entangling of Aesop
    Institute with Chava Energy LLC, Ruff has incurred responsibility not
    only for the false and fraudulent pretenses of Chava Energy, but for
    those of Mark Goldes’ “Aesop Institute” as well. For this reason,
    although neither the Kenneth Rauen strictly ambient heat engine pretense
    nor the Boris Kondrashov self-powered turbine pretense have been
    directly used or presented by Chava Energy, as they have by Aesop
    Institute, they still deserve full recognition within the ensemble of
    Goldes-Ruff fraudcraftings.
    For five years since it was founded, Chava Energy LLC tried to
    promote itself chiefly by means of false and fraudulent claims and
    pretenses, that it was developing “revolutionary energy breakthroughs,”
    including “Fractional Hydrogen” engines utilizing nonexistent states of
    hydrogen, magical Ambient Temperature Thermionic Converters, and
    magnetic generators supposedly harnessing Zero Point Energy.

    If Chava Energy’s claims regarding their pretended Revolutionary
    Breakthrough development of “Fractional Hydrogen” “SPICE” engines,
    Ambient Temperature Thermionic Converters, “Ultraconductor” wire,
    “Ultraconductor Energy Storage Systems,” and Zero Point Energy
    harvesting “MagGen” generators were not false and fraudulent, why did
    Hagen Ruff suddenly remove those claims from Chava’s website?

    In fact, all of those fraudulent claims came originally from the very same source: Chava Energy Co-founder and Chief Market Research Officer Mark Goldes, and Goldes’ previous company, Magnetic Power Inc.

    We do find and state that Hagen Ruff’s Chava Energy LLC has made a
    great many utterly false and fraudulent claims and statements, showing
    very unscrupulous dishonesty, on the matters of “Fractional Hydrogen”
    engines, Ambient Temperature Thermionic Converters, and “MagGen”
    generators that supposedly harness Zero Point Energy. Chava Energy’s
    claims and statements regarding “Ultraconductor” wire and
    “Ultraconductor Energy Storage Systems” were also false and dishonest to
    some degree, in various ways.

    The relentless and pervasive dishonesty, fraudulence, and
    unscrupulousness, that characterized Mark Goldes’ use of his company
    Magnetic Power Inc for over twenty years prior to the founding of Chava
    LLC and Chava Energy LLC, has also characterized Mark Goldes’ and Hagen
    Ruff’s use of Chava Energy LLC and Aesop Institute since 2009.


  • http://kelvinplanck.blogspot.com Kelfin Planck

    Learn the truth about Chava Energy LLC Co-Founder Mark Goldes And His Fraudulent “AESOP Institute”


Back to top
mobile desktop