Energy storage innovation from Finland

There is a new energy storage innovation from Finnish company Teraloop [1].

It is supposed to be a solution to large scale energy storage problems. They plan to store 16GWh (!!!) of energy using a large underground moving mass. Kinda enormous maglev train on circular track [1] [2].

“Put simply, the Teraloop system could be described as rotating masses which operate underground, guaranteeing a minimal environmental footprint, while staying conveniently out of sight.”
.. read more on Teraloop

Yeah, 16GWh equals the energy of an atomic bomb… whooaa. I hope they build it sturdy.

Basic physics suggests something may be wrong as shown in Finnish blog by a group of technology and physics experts [3]. The base line is, there is no technology nor material to ever build such a thing even if you wanted to.

Since I am a kind person, I sincerely hope there is an explanation that makes sense. I really hope what they are planning really can work in this universe, and is not just meant to create an ego trip for the founders.

It seems they got some money/loan from Tekes (Finnish Funding Agency for Innovation). If they did, I sure hope it is not for innovation with mentioned specifications.

That would make we very pissed off, it’s Finnish tax payers money, damn it. I hope it is not true and this is a misunderstanding.


[1] Teraloop
[2] Patent application
[3] (unfortunately in Finnish)

Silly science news – the EM-Drive is back

Roger Shawyer’s Em-Drive is back in the news, and we are seeing really funny news-lines, like The Telegraph’s super silly  ‘Impossible’ rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours [1].

Fours hours? Where did they get that part. Oh well, I guess someone used a calculator, but forgot to think.

Well, the fuss seems to be, that Martin Tajmar [2] from Dresden university has now confirmed, that E-Drive really produces thrust. Similar results, that NASA’s Eagleworks claimed last year [4].

“Our test campaign cannot confirm or refute the claims of the EM Drive but intends to independently assess possible side-effects in the measurements methods used so far,” said Prof Tajmar.

“Nevertheless, we do observe thrust close to the actual predictions after eliminating many possible error sources that should warrant further investigation into the phenomena.”

I am sure Tajmar is a nice guy, but he is also a big fan of funny and unrealistic theories. He has previously worked with for example anti-gravity [3]

So, taking into account that Em-Drive goes against everything we know about conservation of momentum and energy, and is in contradiction with both classical physics and relativity, which of the two is more probable:

  1. The Em-Dive really DOES work can take us to the Moon in 4 hours!
  2. The measurements by Tajmar and others are in error


Thinking is allowed. Bad science has always paired nicely with bad journalism.




[4] Space Kick-sledges and over-unity devices

Newton was wrong – And other scientific revolutions

When James Clerk Maxwell finished his famous equations describing electromagnetic waves, physics was ready and complete. Together with Newtons laws of motion they explained all known phenomena of the nature. Even Lord Kelvin said, that only thing to do with physics is to refine some measurements to get more accurate results.

Nothing could have been further from the truth and the great revolutions of 20th century, relativity and quantum mechanics, changed everything we know about the nature. Reality was not exact and deterministic after all, like Newton and Maxwell predicted. The reality of quantum mechanics was alien to human mind, the subatomic particles did not behave according to classical equations and you could only calculate probabilities for their properties.

But was it really a revolution, that trashed all that was before? No, it was not. Newton’s and Maxwell’s equations remain perfectly valid today and can still be used. Newton was never wrong, his model was completely correct and matched observations perfectly. Only when we started to make more sophisticated observations of reality became it obvious, that Newton’s and Maxwell’s laws were not complete in all situations.

Notion of “Scientific revolutions” is often used to argue against scientific method. Doesn’t the fact that old theories are replaced by new ones prove, that science is limited and we can not reach true knowledge of the universe. I tend to think, that it proves just the opposite.

Modern technology already enables us to utilize quantum phenomena, but this is only the beginning. Within next 50 years we start to see technologies, that have belonged to domain of science fiction only. The universe will open up to mankind in a way, that we could not even imagine a hundred years ago . Physics, evolution theory, computer technology, have all crafted our view of the reality in revolutionary ways.

But is this really a Scientific Revolution in a sense, that Thomas Kuhn meant in  his famous book? [3]

The true power of science is, that our knowledge and understanding increases progressively, not through revolutions. The power of scientific method, not a well defined term, is that science is able to fix itself. Even if Newton’s and Maxwell’s theories are known to be incomplete, they have never been wrong [4]. Who claims that they are, does not understand physics and physical models. These old theories describe the reality so well, that they are still used where they are applicable, because they are easier to use than quantum electrodynamics or theory of relativity. They still describe every day phenomena in many cases very accurately.

Often we fail to see, that physicists do not necessarily claim that the equations are the same thing than the underlying reality. The equations, are just tools to model the reality and make useful predictions. If  simple tools are good enough for the task at hand, you will use them instead of more complicated ones.

Today, we know that physics is far from complete. We cannot explain everything, maybe never can. But this does not mean we have stopped making progress or that there are no natural processes, that we do not know of. Of course there are.

But it also does not mean, when new processes are recovered, that we would have to abandon all our previous knowledge in the fires of all consuming scientific revolution.

Looking back to history of science it is easy to see, that the case will quite probably be just the opposite.