Perpetual Motion Device Stuck in Limbo for 22 Years

Invention Promising Free Energy Has Been in Limbo for 22 Years

Multiplying force by sixteen, canceling gravity, invalidating dark matter, and transmitting information faster than light. According to its promoters, all this is possible with a mechanical device developed since at least 2002, which has spent more than two decades in limbo, as its defenders acknowledge. The starting point was ambitious: a breakthrough that would require rewriting energy, quantum mechanics, biochemistry, pharmacology, and cosmology. Reading the details is enough to understand the doubts it raises.

What Exactly Does the Device Promise?

The list of attributed properties is long. It claims that dark energy does not exist; that what is observed and interpreted as such is a consequence of the system's geometry. From this, according to this version, comes the explanation for the 95% of the universe's energy whose origin was unknown, rendering the cosmological constant and dark matter obsolete. It also argues that the apparatus emulates the force of gravity and then cancels it, breaks the second law of thermodynamics—the unidirectional arrow of time—and allows "creating energy from nothing."

Added to this is the quantum aspect: quantized energy, the formula e=hf, strings vibrating in the eleven dimensions of the multiverse, and alleged communication via quantum entanglement at speeds exceeding that of light. Applications filed with the European Patent Office are presented as documentary support. It is worth clarifying something basic: registering an application proves it was submitted, not that the physical principle works as described. And regarding entanglement, the consensus in physics maintains that it does not allow for the transmission of information.

The Pulley Argument No One Has Refuted With Measurements

The most repeated criticism dates back centuries: lifting a heavy weight with a small one has been done since Archimedes using a pulley system. Four wheels and two levers with a long arm and a short arm do not create energy; they exchange force for distance. Those who defend the invention call this a fallacy used by deniers and respond that the system works equally well with any force applied horizontally, such as the Coriolis force, and that it is more sensitive than a Foucault pendulum.

The problem is not the rebuttal. It is what is missing: a public measurement of the net energy balance. There is talk of how things descend before they ascend, of geometry with an energetic advantage, of a repulsive force born from the asymmetric interaction of bodies in gravity. In the discussion thread, the measurement that would settle these claims does not appear. That is where everything stalls.

A Senegalese Inventor, a Galician Airport, and a Prize in Switzerland

The story has a protagonist. The inventor, of Senegalese origin, arrived in Galicia (a region in northwestern Spain) and, upon getting off the plane, could not distinguish whether the people on the stairs were going up or down. This anecdote circulates as an illustration of the symmetry breaking that would be at the heart of the system. The inventor received a minor jury prize at an inventions fair in Switzerland, with coverage in the Senegalese press, and his motor is described as a reaction engine coupling fundamental forces—magnetic and gravitational—with oscillating devices to generate propulsion, with applications in spacecraft and energy production.

All of this without the invention having left limbo: 22 years, according to its defenders, during which layers have been added—wormholes, ER=EPR, the work of Maldacena and Susskind from 2013—without the demonstration appearing.

From Engine to Agenda 2030: How the Conversation Derails

Around the technical promise, another narrative has attached itself. Some argue that technological pogre is the biggest fraud since fluoridated water and that in the nineties people lived with 5% of current technology and had a better quality of life. Others speak of flying cars reserved for an elite, growing state oppression and control, AI machines impossible to disconnect, and even a general blackout of nineteen and a half hours that would have left the country at the level of Cuba. Domestic politics, the date of March 2004, and the distribution of institutional credit also enter the conversation. None of this is supported by data. It is background noise.

And yet something remains standing: the question of whether such a technology, if it existed, would change people's lives or remain in the hands of those who can afford it. It is a legitimate question. The other one, regarding the energy balance, still has no answer.