1. txt29

    txt29 Active Member

    ADGEX, an Australian geoengineering company with Russian roots, seeks investors and sells free energy products, where they claim the device harvests energy from Schumann resonances and from Earth's magnetic field.

    While debunking Steorn's Orbo free energy scam, I have shown the evidence that even if it was an ambient energy harvesting device, there is simply not enough ambient energy available to back the claims of Steorn. Free energy believers challenged me with the ADGEX free energy flashlight ELFE, using it as the "evidence" for claiming that useful energy can be harvested from the ambient fields. They posted references to the ADGEX website, and to their everlasting ELFE flashlight, that they claimed is being sold since August 2015 (Edit: first products were apparently shipped at the end of November 2015).

    While I knew little about them, I tried to collect some information before replying, to avoid compromising myself with insufficient knowledge. Now, when done, I thought it may be worthy of publishing on Metabunk, so that others may review and comment about the case of ADGEX here.

    The product page of the ELFE flashlight does not reveal much details, but information from more sources (other pages on ADGEX websites, their FB pages, and Youtube videos) is summarized on the freenergy.news website, owned by the biggest supporter of Steorn, Craig Brown (aka NewsEditor, FreeEnergyTruth, 007, etc):

    And the crucial information from that page comes from the ADGEX Accumulator description:

    Let's split it in two parts - the physics, and the background of the company. I hope the second part will not be considered an ad hominem attack by the administrator, but I believe that the information revealed may be of some importance for understanding the suspected scam, and possibly to prevent loss of investment money.

    1. Earth's Magnetic Field - I admit, that although I knew that energy cannot be harvested from a static electromagnetic field without any motion relative to it, I was not sure how much and how quickly the Earth's magnetic field fluctuates to see how much energy could be potentially available. I knew it is negligible, but have looked it up more precisely - Wikipedia tells it ranges from 25 to 65 microteslas, and typical local variations in the magnetic field at the surface are of the order of 1 nanotesla per second. I even found pages addressing this exact problem. The best one so far is probably the article at ScienceBlogs that concludes:

      "We’re interested in the time rate of change of this flux, and let’s say we have a circle with a diameter of 1 meter. The rate of change of the flux is thus (1 nanotesla/second)*(3.14 meters^2). Which is 3.14×10^-9 volts. Three one-billionths of a volt per square meter of flux-collecting surface. If you tried very hard you might be able to finagle some useful energy out of such a small potential, perhaps with very long superconducting solenoids."

      In other words - you cannot generate any non-negligible energy by harvesting the Earth's magnetic field with a device of the size of a small pocket torch.

    2. Schumann resonances - again, I did not know much about these, so had to have a look at the Wikipedia again - "[they] are a set of spectrum peaks in the extremely low frequency (ELF) portion of the Earth's electromagnetic field spectrum. Schumann resonances are global electromagnetic resonances, generated and excited by lightning discharges in the cavity formed by the Earth's surface and the ionosphere."

      Basically, we learn that the strength of both the EM and magnetic field of the Schumann resonances is far too weak:

      "The Schumann resonance electric field amplitude (~300 microvolts per meter) is much smaller than the static fair-weather electric field ... Similarly, the amplitude of the Schumann resonance magnetic field (~1 picotesla) is many orders of magnitude smaller than the Earth's magnetic field (~30–50 microteslas)." ,

      Although the field oscillates faster than the fluctuations of the Earth magnetic field, again no non-negligible energy could be harvested with a device of the size of a pocket flashlight.

    3. Neutrinos - for some reason, in context with Schumann resonances, ADGEX speaks about electron neutrinos. I did not find any link between Schumann resonances and electron neutrinos, so I guess ADGEX used "neutrino" just as a magic word, because common folk knows little about neutrinos, hence weird and unexpected effects can be attributed to them. Regardless, neutrinos interact with matter only extremely weakly:

      "Neutrinos traveling through matter, in general, undergo a process analogous to light traveling through a transparent material." [Wikipedia]

      Again, no energy at all can be exploited from neutrinos by a device of this size.
    4. Harvesting RF Noise - besides Schumann resonances, ELFE is supposed to harvest also the energy of ambient RF energy from various industrial sources (FM, TV, GSM, WiFi,...). Although such technology does exist (for example for powering low consumption battery-less sensors), the levels of available ambient energy in EM field is simply too low for this purpose where the recharging power of up to ~100 mW is needed. In urban environment (sample data shown for Tokyo and London), the ambient RF levels (all frequencies combined - FM, analogue and digital TV, wifi, ...) range between 0.2nW/cm² and 1μW/cm² (source: Ambient RF Energy-Harvesting Technologies)

    5. Shielding - the flashlight has a full metal body. Although it would not shield much against the magnetic field, it would shield EM fields, further reducing the achievable gain.

      Edit: I corrected this point, previously claiming high shielding. The shielding effect would not be significant, due to the low frequency of Schumann resonances. Due to the 'skin depth' of aluminium for efficiently shielding EM field of this frequency, the shielding would have to be very thick.

    6. Empirical evidence - besides the plentiful videos promoting ADGEX on YouTube, I manage to find a video of a Russian who managed to buy one of the ELFE flashlights and disassembled it. He had to file down the cap, because the flashlight was not made to be opened. However, he managed to do it without damaging it. If you do not understand any Russian, turn on the machine generated English subtitles in the video settings:

      Description: the guy takes apart the ADGEX ELFE flashlight, finding in the otherwise empty metallic tube of the body, three regular AA rechargeable batteries, and a cylinder with an LED in the head. Nothing else, no electronics, no antennae, no coils, or other parts. The flashlight stayed lit for 10 hours before going dark, and did not come back.

      Second video, about three weeks later, the batteries did not recharge (ADGEX claims that the flashlight storage automatically fully recharges within 7-14 days even when completely drained), though they are still able to power the LED at ~35mA (corresponding roughly to 20 lm of luminosity):

      Well, I admit, that this is an anonymous video, so it's not hard evidence, but I am aware of two other customers who reported receiving the ELFE flashlight, so more reports will likely follow. Edit: the authenticity of the video was indirectly confirmed by Mr. Muzanov of ADGEX (see post #5), and also by the presentation of Mr. Ivchenko (post #7).

    7. The construction - we can see the inner construction of the flashlight both in the videos of the Russian customer above, as well as in the presentation video of Mr. Ivchenko below (post #7). It is identical to a typical construction of a simple inexpensive LED flashlight, and does not include any atypical components. Mr. Ivchenko claims that the inner and outer tube serve as a "resonator" harvesting the ambient EM energy. When the flashlight is turned off, the resonator is supposed to charge the AA batteries through a converter in the LED holder. Mr. Ivchenko failed to explain the principle of the resonator, and did not explain how the batteries can be charged when the connection between the body and the batteries is interrupted by the switch (see post #16).

    8. Shipping - ADGEX started to ship the first known ELFE flashlights to customers in November 2015, and continues shipping non-functional flashlights now (mid March 2015) despite having been notified they did not work as advertised. Customers who complain, are told that ADGEX is aware of the problems, works on a fix and will send a new flashlight as soon as the problem is solved. Despite it, they continue shipping the same non-functional flashlights to any new customer.
    The Company
    At first glance I found similarities with the suspected scammer ring of GeoResonance (company involved in a MH370 hoax) - both are registered in Australia, but are in fact controlled by Russians or Ukrainians, both are operating in the geoengineering industry, and both appear to be part of a bigger ring of companies, in many countries worldwide, with websites in multiple versions. I did not manage to find any links between those two until now, though.

    The websites of ADGEX (i.e. http://www.adgex.com, http://trade.adgex.com.au/, http://www.adgex.eu/) try to give the impression that ADGEX is a huge important corporation with a lot of staff (for example there are 14 directors listed on the eu website), and it describes several bombastic projects (i.e. the UpRail supertrain). Until now, I have not found any references to any existing completed projects.

    Generally, finding information about ADGEX is difficult, publicly available corporate reports do not include anything besides the address. I did not search too intensively yet, and did not find any testimonials of satisfied or angry customers or investors (except of the video of the ELFE light). I only found a report by a Russian investor adviser who gave ADGEX practically the worst possible ranking, and gave very negative description of their policies, both in the text of the reports, as well as in the comments, were an employee of ADGEX attempted to contest some of the points. The website is in Russian, so you will need to run it through Google Translate, if you want to read it: http://marslanov.com/2014/09/10/audit-kompanii-adgex/

    There was apparently another website explicitly created to criticize Viktor Uzlov, the managing director of ADGEX, but it was taken down in the meantime. It is now available only in cached versions, for example here: https://web.archive.org/web/20151103115044/http://uzlovu.net/ (Russian website, hence machine translation again necessary for most people). Frankly told, I have not had the time yet to read through it, I just scanned through it quickly, but there are clear accusations of fraud, and a big number of articles especially referring to the period in Australia since 2011. I do not know whether the website was taken down because of threats, or for other reasons.

    Another Russian website describes alleged scams in relation with the supertrain project perpetrated by Viktor Uzlov, one of the ADGEX directors: http://transnet-rus.livejournal.com/17350.html

    Note: when using Google Translate, it incorrectly translates the name of Viktor Uzlov as Victor knot or Viktor nodes (often in lowercase).

    Google or Yandex.com (Russian search engine) show numerous Russian websites associating ADGEX with scams. It is difficult to judge the legitimacy of the claims without good translation and without cross-checking the claims on the websites, but ADGEX is given as an example of pyramid scheme scams on several websites, for example this one:


    (many more websites or YT videos can be found with the terms "ADGEX афера" or "ADGEX лохотрон", which both mean ADGEX scam)

    It is claimed that the people behind ADGEX and their UPRAIL project, operated also under the name Euroasian Rail Skyway Systems Ltd in the UK. They were dissolved shortly after banks issued warnings to investors (for example Lietuvos Bankas). More details can be found in Lithuanian media - for example on the news portal 15min.lt.


    As explained in the post #19, the "recharging" effect that customers experience after purchasing and testing the flashlight, is the natural behavior of most low-power LED flashlights, due to the effect called "relaxation phenomena". Please read the post #19 for a more detailed explanation and for scientific references. The rebounces of the voltage, making the false impression of the battery been recharged, are perfectly normal, well understood, and documented in scientific literature.


    Besides the theoretical evidence provided in the Debunking and Explanation chapters, there is now also hard evidence slowly showing up, as there are more and more ELFE flashlight users testing it. Testing without any measuring devices, using just the naked eye or a simple camera, will not quickly detect the continually discharging battery, because the "rebouncing" effect creates a false impression of recharging, and the change of the brightness without a luxmeter is not truly observable. Naked eye observations are extremely subjective, as confirmed with test runs performed with a luxmeter. See the post #20 and post #21 for the data of tests measured with a luxmeter. More data will be collected by multiple users within the next days.

    Update: a detailed analysis of the data measured by several users is now available in the post #24 below, and a summary of all known tests performed by ELFE flashlight owners is available in the post #25.

    List of ADGEX websites

    ADGEX uses a wide net of websites lurking potential victims to investments into ADGEX shares, promising extremely high profits (for example 8000 multiplication of the investment in 5-8 years). Most of the websites are targeting the Russian speaking audience, but there are some with English and German content, too. Below, I will add more URL's as we continue discovering new ones.

    Last edited: Mar 18, 2016
    • Like Like x 4
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Informative Informative x 2
  2. txt29

    txt29 Active Member

    Since I cannot edit the opening post anymore, I am adding a small detail about the electron neutrinos: ADGEX seems to claim that electron neutrinos are indirectly responsible for Schumann resonances, because they cause the ionization of the atmosphere. Although some ionization effect of neutrinos on the atmosphere is possible, the main source of atmospheric ionization is the UV and short wave part of the solar radiation. So I stand behind the claim that ADGEX used the term "neutrinos" just as a magic word to persuade people about the viability of their "technology".
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2016
  3. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The practice of selling fake rechargeable flashlights is quite common, including solar rechargers, crank rechargers, and shake rechargers (and now of course, "free energy" rechargers). They rely on the fact that modern LEDs are incredibly efficient, and you can run the light for many hours on a regular battery (generally not even rechargeable). Most people's flashlight use is very limited, a few minutes or even seconds at a time, so they can seem to last "forever". I've got a small flashlight that I use every day, but only change the battery about every 2-3 months.
  4. txt29

    txt29 Active Member

    Yes, that is perfectly correct. The problem and the main focus of the suspected scam is not the flashlight and the small customers here, though. The main focus of ADGEX, similarly as at many free energy scammers, seem to be the investors. ADGEX claims in the same time that they use the same "ELFE" technology in their kW range home systems (and eventually even in bigger industrial systems), and they seek money from investors for completing the R&D and for starting the production. And since many investors unfortunately often do not search too deep, when they see ADGEX is apparently selling a "working" device, they have no problems giving them millions for their "big" projects.
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2016
  5. txt29

    txt29 Active Member

    Some more customers report receiving the ELFE flashlights, or at least tracking numbers of their shipments. One of the customers asked ADGEX a direct question about the Russian videos. The answer is amusing:

    note: emphasis added
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2016
  6. txt29

    txt29 Active Member

    Another customer obtained the ELFE flashlight and started testing it. He posted some videos and photos on YT and FB, showing the unpacking and the initial test, where he has let the flashlight on for 11 hours, before it went dark. He plans repeating it after 24 hours of "charging".

    This is the Facebook group (you will need to join the group for reading the posts):

    This is the unpacking video:

    And this one was taken 4 hours after the initial depletion of the batteries:

    So far nothing confirming or denying any claims. The regained intensity may be easily due to the chemical and thermal consolidation of the depleted batteries, or it could be controlled by a hidden circuit in the LED dosing the consumption. We will see how it goes on
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2016
    • Informative Informative x 1
  7. txt29

    txt29 Active Member

    Today, I have found another freshly published video featuring the ADGEX ELFE flashlight. At first glance, I thought it was made by critics, debunking it. When I started watching it, I understood that it was rather a brutal parody, and the feeling kept through all the video, hence I was quite surprised when it did not finish with any punch line or laughing at the end. It took me a while to assure myself that it really was a representative of ADGEX explaining the functioning of the technology. I am still a bit in doubts, but it really looks like they meant it seriously. Watch it for yourself, it really looks like a comedy - from the opening titles, through the music, the expressions, the drawings on the board, over the disassembling of the flashlight and the absurd explanation, till the ending conclusion.

    Unfortunately for most, the video is in Russian, but it is very simple, well audible, and very well understandable even to those with limited knowledge of the language like myself. The automatically generated English subtitles that you can turn on, may help a bit to catch up on the content, but even without the text, the video is hilarious enough. Sergey Ivchenko, one of the countless ADGEX directors, explains where the energy comes from (Schumann resonances, WiFi, radio/TV, 50/60Hz radiation,...) and then disassembles the flashlight to even smaller parts than the customers did on the videos posted above. His flashlight was clearly not glued together like the ones they ship, so it was quick. Indeed the flashlight does not include anything else than the outer aluminium body, inner metallic holder tube for the AA cells, a button switch, the reflector, the batteries and the LED. Still, the guy has no problems telling, with a poker face, that this is their advanced technology harvesting the free ambient energy. The outer and inner tube are supposed to be "resonators" and the LED holder converts the energy to the current that then charges the "special" batteries.

    He failed to explain any details how two interconnected metallic tubes may "resonate" in frequencies from ~1Hz to several GHz, neither he explained how the device is supposed to harvest energy that is simply not there (the theoretical limits are in the range of microwatts, or a few miliwatts in some cases). And of course, the "moderator" completely failed to ask any question that could be uncomfortable.
    • Funny Funny x 1
  8. Auldy

    Auldy Senior Member

    Out of interest, I tried calling the listed ADGEX contact number from within Australia, during normal trade hours (for Sydney). The call rang out without answer.

    Mind you Google lists their number as (02) 8004 5509 rather than what ADGEX list (02) 8541 8752.

    (02) 8004 5509 is listed to a company called Seed Legal and/or Seed Infra, whose number also rang out, except into an automated voice-mail without any details.
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2016
    • Informative Informative x 1
  9. Auldy

    Auldy Senior Member

  10. txt29

    txt29 Active Member

    Auldy, if you have the time for some more searching, there is a list of a dozen of their directors for example on this page: http://www.adgex.eu/attorneys.html and some others on the other websites listed above. I checked briefly just Uzlov and another one. Most of the references came from Russian web.

    So far, it looks like they employ only directors - till now I did not find any names of other types of employees. They try to make the impression of a huge company, but so far I did not find any information about them. There is still room for doing some detective work in this direction - checking their addresses, facilities, customers, corporate information, etc.

    Today I saw on one of the websites promoting them, that they have 300 shareholders with $50,000,000 in shares, and they are supposed to be worth of $300,000,000. The website claimed that the information is pubic and available through Australian corporate registers. All the business reports I found, were paid, but I just checked it briefly. There must be something available.
  11. Auldy

    Auldy Senior Member

    Got a link there mate?
  12. txt29

    txt29 Active Member

    I am trying to find it again. It was linked from one of the websites with the new video, but right now I can't see it. It is possible it was on this website of theirs: http://adgex.investments/en but I think it was yet another one (they have plenty of them). I am still looking around, so will report back later.
  13. txt29

    txt29 Active Member

    OK, I have it. It is in the description below the following YT video. You have to click "SHOW MORE" and then translate the text. I am attaching the Google translation below. I was wrong with those $300M - it was $230M only in fact. I remembered the other numbers correctly, though.

    Last edited: Feb 14, 2016
  14. txt29

    txt29 Active Member

    I've added a list of some of the ADGEX websites that I have found, to the bottom of the opening post. The list will certainly grow. I could perhaps also add a list of their projects that range from the ELFE lamp, over other free energy devices, trash-to-fuel plants, supertrains, Internet marketing, banking services, ... there seem to be hundreds of them, with practically each week another one appearing on their websites.
  15. txt29

    txt29 Active Member

    There is another video of the customer reporting on Facebook. He still seems to believe his flashlight is being "charged", and does not suspect the battery's voltage simply chemically partially recovering after some rest.

    It is hard to estimate how long the 3 AA cells could continue to power the LED, because none of the users measure the luminosity or the power actually drawn. The only information comes from the Russian customer who measured the current of 1A @ 3.9V (3.9W) at the very beginning (fully charged batteries), and approximately 35 mA at the beginning of the second run. It was 20 mA with the analogue gauge, voltage not shown, but probably less than the initial 3.9V. It means that after the rest of 3 weeks, the batteries delivered approximately 1 watt or less, quickly dropping to lower levels.

    If the flashlight drew 1W in average (which would already deliver decent intensity of light), the batteries could last up to 15 hours (A Li-FeS2 AA cell holds 5.1 Wh). With NiMH cells it would be around 10 hours (3.4 Wh per cell). However, since the luminosity progressively drops and is very low for long periods of time (we have no data here), the average power (or the total energy drawn) can be easily much lower, and we cannot exclude multiple runs in the total length of many tens of hours.

    Update 2nd March 2016:
    I am adding videos of all four test runs performed by Ray "Greenmeresearch". Ray, former supporter of ELFE, after the last test with a 14 days long rest time ("recharging" time) came alone to the conclusion that the ELFE flashlight does not work as specified.

    Last edited: Mar 1, 2016
  16. txt29

    txt29 Active Member

    Another small but important detail was pointed out by a member with the alias Nink at Overunity.org, regarding the presentation video of Mr. Ivchenko:
    Indeed, from several videos it is clear that when the flashlight is turned off (and supposed to recharge), the circuit is interrupted, and hence no current can flow into the batteries.
  17. txt29

    txt29 Active Member

    Another quote, this time from Mr. Uzlov, the managing director of ADGEX, who appears to be the mastermind of the ADGEX group. It comes from a repost on Facebook - I did not find the original quote that was supposed to be published on PESN
    It is quite interesting, because he refers to the videos posted here in the opening post above, that were already earlier explicitly confirmed by Mr. Muzanov of ADGEX (see post #5), and yesterday also by Mr. Ivchenko in the new ADGEX promotional video, where he performs similar disassembly like the Russian customer, showing the same parts (see post #7)

    The logical conclusion is that somebody must be lying, or some of the published quotes are not authentic. The video of Mr. Ivchenko is certainly authentic, so it looks like either Alain Sterling of PESN or Mr. Uzlov are not telling the truth.
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2016
  18. txt29

    txt29 Active Member

    I tried to check the company information in Australian business registries. Several documents are available in the ASIC Registers, but the financial report for 2015 is not available yet. I have also found a report from 02 April 2015. It is on a public website, so there is no guarantee it is genuine. If I understand it correctly, on the page #4, the value "Total amount paid" in the section "Share information" shows over 75 million (it should be in Australian dollars).

    Last edited: Feb 20, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
  19. txt29

    txt29 Active Member

    From the beginning it was apparent that the alleged "charging" of the ELFE battery is most likely just a "rebouncing" effect, well know by many people using LED flashlights frequently. Although it is a commonly known that a battery regains its power after a period of rest, not everyone understands why it happens. Some people think the battery recharges itself. The reality is that due to electro-chemical and thermal processes in the electrolyte and in the electrodes, the voltage starts decreasing faster than the charge (energy). LEDs are sensitive to the input voltage, hence the small decrease in the voltage results in great reduction of luminosity, and for the user it looks like the battery is depleted, although it may be still very far from that state. When the load is removed, diffusion and reverse chemical processes lead to the increase of the voltage. And since the previous deep drop of the voltage prevented the LED draining the charge of the battery, with the voltage recovered, the LED will light at full force for significant period of time again, after the rest. This cycle may be repeated many times before the battery is discharged completely.

    The following scientific paper explains the process at Li-ion batteries in great details. There may be slight differences among different types of chemical batteries, but the principle remains the same at most of them.

    Challenges and Solutions in Battery Fuel Gauging

    Below, I am also attaching a link of two diagrams from the PDF. It shows the voltage recovery after the load is removed at a fully charged battery (top), and at a depleted battery (bottom). The ideal recovery time at Li-ion batteries is around 2 hours (that comes from another paper)

    Last edited: Feb 16, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
  20. txt29

    txt29 Active Member

    PESN (website promoting Free Energy) published yesterday an article attempting to discount the Battery Relaxation Phenomena described in the previous post. Stuart Campbell, a moderator at PESN, runs a test attempting to demonstrate that the "rebounce" effect is negligible:


    Stuart Campbell is well aware of the difference between LED and halogen bulb. He writes himself:
    Yet, he performs his "test" with a halogen bulb instead of an LED! So, he is very well aware that unlike an LED, a halogen bulb continues to draw significant current from the battery as the voltage drops, yet he decides testing with the halogen bulb! It clearly shows the bias, and reveals the true purpose of his test - not an objective verification, but a manipulation of the less educated readers into accepting his agenda.

    Unlike at a halogen bulb, at an LED the luminosity and the current are strongly depending on the right voltage. The sharp drop of luminosity was also documented by Skywatcher (member at overunity.org) who measured the illumination of the ELFE flashlight with a luxmeter. At the first run (fully charged batteries), the measured intensity was as follows:

    18:30:00 26000 lux
    18:40:00 28800 lux
    18:50:00 28700 lux
    19:00:00 29000 lux
    19:10:00 28900 lux
    19:20:00 28800 lux
    19:30:00 28700 lux
    19:40:00 28600 lux
    19:50:00 28200 lux
    20:00:00 27500 lux
    20:10:00 26200 lux
    20:20:00 24200 lux
    20:30:00 20000 lux
    20:40:00 11400 lux

    He turned it off after 2 hours and 10 min, because the luminosity started to drop sharply. Additionally, the efficiency of a LED is not directly proportional to the current. That means that any tests, where the flashlight runs up to 12 hours at a time, will not draw considerably more energy from the battery than it happens within those 2 first hours (actually already at 1:30, the decrease of luminosity is significant, and the decrease of power would be more than proportionally higher).

    He then let the flashlight resting till the next day. The second test under the same conditions gave already a much weaker brightness, and he turned off the flashlight only 10 minutes after the start, although the light observed by naked eye was still strong. Skywatcher, although believer of the ELFE technology, confirmed that without the luxmeter he would not be able to do the test, because it is impossible to spot the change in luminosity.

    18:30:00 13800 lux
    18:35:00 10000 lux
    18:40:00 5100 lux

    The diagram below [source] demonstrates that at a relative change of the battery potential of only 15% (drop from 3.9V to 3.3V), the current drops by 80% (from 75 mA to 15mA). In this example, the power drops from ~300mW (3.9V*75mA) to ~50mW (3.3V*15mA), it means by 84% (while the voltage decreased only 15%). In other words, once the voltage drops below certain threshold, the power drain is minimized, and the flashlight may go on lighting at very low power (~6 times lower in the example) for several hours, without discharging the battery significantly.


    Last edited: Mar 9, 2016
  21. txt29

    txt29 Active Member

    Several new customers are currently testing their ELFE flashlights. Unfortunately most of them are inexperienced, have no adequate equipment, and are often strongly biased into believing that they really bought a Free Energy product. Despite it, their results are perfectly consistent with the above described, well known and well understood Battery Relaxation Phenomena (BRP). Length of their test burns and the rest times vary, but generally after each rest, the battery voltage recovers in accordance with the BRP and the flashlight starts shining stronger again. The intensity of the light, and the maximal burn times decrease with each test - this is common for all known testers. Some of the testers depleted the battery with long burns, close to the minimum, and decided to let their flashlight resting for 14-20 days. ADGEX specifies 14 days as the maximum time necessary to fully "auto-recharge" the batteries.

    Currently the only user who tests the ELFE flashlight systematically, and with a luxmeter, is a member of the Free Energy community at Overunity.com with the alias Skywatcher. I published the results of the first two days of his tests above, and now I have plotted then into the attached chart. You can see that despite that ADGEX claims that the flashlight can be used for 3-4 hours a day, and recharges itself within 24 hours, the results of Skywatcher demonstrate that it is not the case. The first day (blue line) the brightness of the flashlight starts lighting at 26000 lux, to reach the maximum of 28800 lux within 10 minutes (likely due to thermal adjustments) and Skywatcher turns off the flashlight after 2 hours and 10 minutes, when the brightness starts dropping abruptly.

    The second day (orange line), exactly 24 hours later after the first start, the illumination of the ELFE flashlight is 13800 lux, and starts decreasing very quickly. The initial brightness of 13800 lux is slightly higher, than at the end of the previous day test, which is perfectly consistent with the BRP, and definitely not a sing of any recharging. The alleged auto-recharging was supposed to recharge the batteries fully.

    Skywatcher then depleted the battery until he reached 1% of the initial light intensity (260 lux), and started a new cycle of tests, where he will turn on the light for only 90 seconds each 24 hours. This method would quickly detect any unexpected recharging effect. I will post the data later.
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
  22. txt29

    txt29 Active Member

    Another owner of the ELFE flashlight reported on the FB group today:
    Arman's results correspond very closely to the results of Skywatcher in the first two days (see the previous post), although Arman's 1st run was almost 2 hours longer. Due to the very low current after the first two hours, the difference in the consumed energy between 2 and 4 hours is minimal, so it is not at all surprising that the voltage of the battery recovers to the same level as at Skywatcher, after a day of rest - due to the Battery Relaxation Phenomena, well documented above.

    AGDEX claims the capability of full power recovery after 3-4 hours of operations each day. No recharging to the full power could be observed in these two cases (Skywatcher and Arman). The light increase in luminosity after the rest is a known phenomena, and does not indicate any recharging.

    Arman used a lightmeter application in his smartphone, and measured the light from the distance of 15 cm. Below, there is the video taken after Arman's second run, showing the luminosity dropping quickly, although the intensity observable by naked eye may still be sufficient for common use:

    EDIT 22/02/2016: updated data from Arman Gevorkyan confirm no recharging during long rest between very short burn times. There is only small increase of the brightness due to the battery relaxation effect.

    16-Feb-2016 9:45 AM 20000 lux (on)
    16-Feb-2016 12:30 AM 1300 lux (off)
    17-Feb-2016 10:00 AM 4000 lux (on)
    17-Feb-2016 10:45 AM 800 lux (off)
    20-Feb-2016 9:04 PM 4000 lux (on)
    20-Feb-2016 9:07 PM 800 lux (off)
    22-Feb-2016 00:14 AM 1000 lux (on)
    22-Feb-2016 00:20 AM 250 lux (off)

    Interpetation: we see continual discharge of the batteries. Rebounces in the illumination after the long rests are possible due to the voltage recovery known as Battery Relaxation Phenomena. The voltage and luminosity then quickly drop during the short burn period.
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
  23. txt29

    txt29 Active Member

    ELFE flashlight owner with the alias Skywatcher at Overunity.com continues testing his flashlight, measuring the light flux with a luxmeter, with 90s long burns every 24 hours. The flashlight was previously partially discharged until the luxmeter has shown ~1% of the maximum illumination (~260 lux vs ~29,000 lux). It was then let to rest during 19 hours, then the first test burn of 90s was performed, followed by 24 hours of rest, another 90s burn, 24 hours rest, and so on. Due to the above documented Battery Relaxation Phenomena, the voltage and hence the brightness partially recover each time during the long rest, but the decline can be observed already at the 3rd day.

    To visualize the data from the three days of Skywatcher's test #2, I've plotted them into a graph, too. Please note that the time scale does not include the resting times, which would take too much place. And the illumination Y axis does not scale to the maximum of 29000 lux at fully charged batteries, but rather just to the maximum reached during the 3 days of "recharging" - roughly 6% of the max.

    The average brightness during the test was only at around 4% of the maximum, drawing so only negligible currents and energy from the battery during the 90 seconds burns, while resting 24 hours between the burns (totaling to 10½ minutes during 163 hours). The small bounces of the intensity at the start of every burn are perfectly consistent with the Battery Relaxation Phenomena. Already at the 3rd day, it is clear that the voltage recovery is smaller than the day before, hence no self-recharging was observed.


    The test continues, and I will update the graph when new data is published.
    EDIT: Graph updated on 02/26/2016
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2016
    • Informative Informative x 1
  24. txt29

    txt29 Active Member

    The attached image shows the results of both ELFE flashlight tests measured by Skywatcher @ Overunity.com. The data was taken with a calibrated Voltcraft luxmeter over the period of 7 consequent days. To exclude the external influence of the ambien light, the illumination was measured in the direct contact with the frontal window of the flashlight, through two layers of translucent white plastic, so that the maximum brightness of the LED falls within the range of the luxmeter.

    This graph combines the previously published data from two tests shown in other graphs separately in posts above. Unlike at the graph of the test #2 above, this graph plots the exposure data in real time scale, including also the rest time periods.

    Description of the tests:

    The first day (blue line in the graph), at fully charged batteries of the newly arrived ELFE flashlight, the first test burn was performed. The measured illumination of the light emitted by the LED, started at 26,000 lux. 30 minutes after the start it culminated at 29,000 lux, when it started to decrease progressively, ending at only 39% of its maximum brightness at 2 hours and 10 minutes after the start of the test.

    The second day (orange line in the graph), 24 hours after the start of the first test burn, the second one was measured. It started with 13,800 lux, 2,400 lux (or 8% of the maximum value) higher than at the end of the 1st test, but the brightness of the light very sharply dropped to the level of just 1,450 lux

    The flashlight was then let discharging during 5 hours (green line in the graph) till the intensity of the measure light reached approximately 1% of the initial brightness - 260 lux. Please note that no values were taken during the discharging, so the linear form of the discharging curve as show in green on the graph does not correspond to the reality, which was not linear. It is unimportant though, for the interpretation of the results.

    After 19 hours of rest (second red dashed curve), a short burn of 90 seconds was measured (red dot at the end of the red voltage relaxation curve). The light reached 1,280 lux, 1020 lux (or 3.5% of the maximum) more than before the rest, and within the 90 seconds it dropped to 963 lux.

    The next day, 24 hours after the previous 90s burn (or 5 hours more rest than previously), a slightly higher increase of brightness was measured - 1770 lux, 807 lux (or 2.8% of the maximum) more than at the end of the previous cycle (purple dot in the graph).

    The next two days, the same 90s burns (brown and pink dots in the graph), each after a 24hr rest, show already the decreasing tendency. There is still a small recovery of the initial brightness, but smaller with each repetition.


    Interpretation of the results:

    All measured data perfectly match the values predicted by the theory. It was clearly, and beyond any doubt, demonstrated that the flashlight does not show any sign of self-recharging at all. The energy consumed by the LED during those test burn falls within the estimated capacity of the batteries (3 AA batteries, presumably NiMH, 2600mA each, total energy of approximately 10Wh). The measured discharge and illumination curves are perfectly consistent with the total burn times of several tens of hours as observed by other users - the energy consumed during longer burns is negligible, because of the sharply declining current drawn by the LED at low luminosity. The difference of luminosity is difficult to observe by the naked eye, which was confirmed by testers using luxmeters for taking objective data.

    The increase of brightness of the LED after a longer rest time is caused by a slight voltage recovery of the battery during the rest, which is know, well understood, and well documented in the scientific literature usually under the name Battery Relaxation Phenomena (BRP, see post #19). Due to the very steep I/V characteristics of LEDs (see the right top graph in the image above), a tiny change of the battery voltage due to the BRP leads to the disproportionally high increase of the brigthness of the emitted light. This disproportionality is the highest in the LED Operating Area (marked red in the graph), while inverse at low voltages. It explains why the increase of luminosity was much better visible after the first burn.

    Independent confirmation: the data measured by Skywatcher (who, btw, was a firm believer of the ELFE technology, hence biased in the opposite way than the final outcome), were independently confirmed by Arman Gevorkyan, who used simpler measurement by a luxmeter application in a smartphone. The same results demonstrating very long burn times and the BRP-induced rebounces of brightness afeter rest, confirming the theory were also reported by several persons using standard LED torches, including the most aggressive supporter of the hoax - Stuart Campbell at PESN, who was able to run an ordinary $10 for many tens of hours. He was very surprised, and suspects now some unnatural forces being involved in his case too.

    The results of the Russian customer (see Youtube videos in the opening post) confirm our conclusions too. The initial test has shown the expected high brightness and the consumption of about 3W (measured 1A at ~3V), while only considerably lower brightness and only quickly sinking 30mA of current (~90mW) after 10 hours of load and 3 weeks of rest.

    Observations by users testing the flashlights subjectively without measuring the light flux, are also consistent with our conclusions. We only need to wait a few days longer until they can report the lack of recharging even after 2 weeks of rest.

    Edit 02/23/2016: Overunity.com user with the alias TheCell (former believer of ELFE), reported the complete failure of the flashlight to self-recharge after 2 weeks of rest in his post today.

    Please note that these long exposure times and BRP-induced bounces will be most visible at cheap LED lamps not using any current or voltage regulator. More expensive LED flashlights with stabilized current or voltage (and hence also with stable luminosity and power consumption) will drain batteries much quicker and deeper, resulting in only a short burn time, and negligible brightness rebounces.
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2016
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  25. txt29

    txt29 Active Member

    Known Results of ELFE Owners' Testing

    Successful Tests (0% - 0 of 12 completed)
    - None known.
    The only positive report I am aware of, comes from a second-hand claim by Alan Whicker (an ELFE supporter in the ELFE Owners Group on Facebook) telling "I know of 2 people, who are not here, who are very happy with the torches. They are simply just using them, not doing tests of any kind". When asked about the happy users, links to videos of Ray "Greenmeresearch" were posted. Ray is another member of the FB group, who came to the conclusion that the ELFE flashlight does not work as specified, after 3 weeks of testing (see below).

    Unsuccessful Tests (100% - 12 of 12 completed):
    - DEDcolorado (YouTube, 17 Dec 2015) - the authenticity of his YT videos were confirmed by Mr. Muzanov, ELFE salesman at ADGEX, as well as by Mr. Ivchenko, an ADGEX director. DEDcolorado disassembled the flashlight (demonstrating it does not contain anything else than an LED, 3 AA batteries, and a button switch), and measured the current before the test (~1A corresponding to ~3W LED), and then after 10 hours of lighting and 3 weeks of rest (the flashlight is claimed to fully recharge itself within 7-14 days), he measured quickly decreasing current of ~2-3% of the nominal power (20-35mA instead of the 1A)

    - Skywatcher (Overunity.com, 24 Feb 2016) - former ELFE supporter, used very systematical testing, showing good experience in using luxmeter. His results excluded any recharging both at shorter burns and 24 hours of rest, as well as at discharged batteries (to ~1%) and a week-long rest time. See posts #20, #21, #23 and #24)

    - TheCell (Overunity.com, 23 Feb 2016) - former ELFE supporter. His ELFE flashlight, after 14 days of rest, came back as discharged as left after the initial tests. He did not measure the light in any way, but even just observing the light, the depletion of the batteries was so evident that no doubts were left.

    - Arman Gevorkyan (FB ELFE group, Feb 2016) - he measured the light emitted by the ELFE flashlight with a lightmeter application on a smartphone. He measured persistent significant discharging while doing shorter daily test burns, with no signs of recharging during multiple days (see post #22 with his initial values. Following tests with equally negative results are documented on Facebook, in the FB ELFE group)

    - Ray Greenmeresearch (FB ELFE group, Feb 2016) - former ELFE supporter. He came to the conclusion that the flashlight does not work as specified, after having done several tests, including a 14 days long rest for allowing the "recharge", just to find the flashlight did not recharge. (see posts #6 and #15 for more details).

    - Egon Baran (FB ELFE group, March 2016) - he discharged an ELFE and an ordinary flashlight with a long run, till they dimmed dark, and compared their lights after long rest (42 hours rest at ELFE and 24 hours at the ordinary light) to find out that during 11 hours long run the ordinary flashlight recovered to higher brightness than ELFE. (the test continues, though)

    - Rasa Viharii (FB ELFE group, March 2016) - Free Energy fan with multiple ELFE lights. He writes: "I think I broke one of them... or maybe it was broken when they gave it to me... but either way, it doesn't work... the batteries are definitely loosing energy" (BTW, Rasa, before publishing this conclusion, was quoted by Stuart Campbell on PESN in the attempt to prove ELFE correct)

    - Peter Campbell (see the discussion at revolution-green, March 2016) - measured the luminosity during daily 3 hour test runs. No recharging observed.

    - Esa Juhani Ruoho (FB ELFE group, March 2016) - ELFE supporter and owner of two ELFE flashlights. He tested them by a simple naked-eye observation. No recharging observed even after a week of rest.

    - Jones Beene (Vortex, 08 March 2016) - Free Energy fan - reports results similar to others, with the difference that the flashlight had low power already on arrival. He could not detect any recharging, except of the naturally occurring slight luminosity increase after a period of rest (battery relaxation phenomena).

    - Algirdas Bastys (FB ELFE group, 30 March 2016) - testing with luxmeter together with an ordinary flashlight. ELFE, after 12 hr discharge and 14 days rest, stays depleted more than the ordinary flashlight (see the graph). This flashlight was receive already sevral weeks after ADGEX confirmed they were aware of the non-functional flashlights.
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2016
  26. txt29

    txt29 Active Member

    Now, when customers who tested the ELFE flashlight, and started to complain to ADGEX about it, they are receiving emails explaining that the flashlights do not harvest the energy because a wrong glue was used. Fantastic excuse, but even more fantastic is that their customers continue to believe them, and are looking forward to getting the new, better glued, flashlight.

    The first customers tested the ELFE flashlight already in November/December 2015 and found, of course, that it did not self-recharge. ADGEX did not explain why they continued shipping it for the next 3+ months. It must have been another problem, certainly. Never mind, it looks like their customers are happy to get the replacement s∞n (in a few months?), while they can keep the old flashlights. And in the meantime investors go on buying the shares of ADGEX. Finally, who would not want to invest into a company promising 8,000-fold valorization of the investment within 5 years, and having a proof-of-concept product on the market!
    • Funny Funny x 1
  27. Auldy

    Auldy Senior Member

    We should start a betting pool on what flagrant error will pop up next. Some odds:

    1:5 - Oxygen leaked into a sealed compartment due to manufacturing issues which led the device to not charge
    1:20 - The semi-circular insulator switches were installed with the wrong current setting, leading to a drop in both parallel and unparalleled charging. This is an easy fix if the consumer does not want to send the device back, and an DIY fix for the problem will be uploaded in our next webinar.
    1:50 - Units were assembled on a Tuesday, not Thursday, as specified in the SOP, which means the devices will not charge correctly.
    1:75 - A parakeet named Stan broke into the assembly warehouse over the weekend and damaged all goods.
    1:1001 - ADGEX admits the scam.
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2016
    • Funny Funny x 1
  28. txt29

    txt29 Active Member

    The DIY fix would be especially ingenious, because it would indeed fix the problem for good - Mr. Viktor Uzlov, ADGEX Managing Director, claimed that when the customer opens the flashlight, it self-destroys. And the opening of the product voids the guarantee in the same time, of course, too. Killing two birds with one stone. Problem solved.
    • Agree Agree x 1