**W. D. Bauer's
calculations of his parametric overunity rotator -**

**simply refuted**

By G. W. Bruhn,
Darmstadt University of Technology

**Abstract: **After several updates in the past, W.D. Bauer released
a *new update* of his note on the overunity properties of his parametric*
overunity rotator *[1] recently. Though W. D. Bauer knows about the
following very simple arguments against his new calculations by private
communication, he insists upon being right, *against all evidence.* The
following short note is an excerpt from a longer article [2], where the author
showed that *there are no OU effects at all in W.D. Bauer’s devices.*

W.D. Bauer’s
rotator consists of a rotating slab, the angular position of which in the plane
is denoted by _{}, and of a pair of rotors mounted symmetrically on the
slab the angular position of which in the plane is denoted by _{}. Separate
driving motors on the central axis control the speed of both slab and rotors by
means of belts. Let _{} and _{} denote the inertia moments of slab and the
rotor pair, respectively. For further information the reader is
referred to [1].

During a working
cycle the rotator device travels through three phases: During
phase 1 both the slab and the
rotors are accelerated from rest to angular velocities _{} and _{}, respectively.
During phase 2 the angular velocities
are equalized by different methods. During phase 3 the whole device rotating with
common angular velocity _{} is brought back to rest by detracting its
kinetic energy.

To show W. D. Bauer’s result to be erroneous we
consider phase 2.

**1.
****The
driven rotors device**

Let us first discuss the special case *h *=
1: At the beginning of phase2 the slab is decoupled from its drive motor such
that it can rotate freely with its angular velocity _{} due to its inertia.
The rotors are rotating with the angular velocity _{}, which has to be reduced by the rotor’s drive motor to the
final *smaller* value _{} at the end of phase
2. Evidently this can be done by
detracting the difference of the rotational energies via the rotor’s drive
motor, with other words,* the negative* amount of energy

_{}

has to be imported to the system, i.e. *we
obtain an energy gain. *Instead of this, W.D. Bauer calculates the amount of
energy (see (14) in [1])

_{}

by a
complicated and *dubious* method. His result _{}means, in
contrast to all evidence, that a *positive *amount of energy has to be *imported
*to the system *via the rotors*, in spite of the fact, that there is *already
a* *surplus of energy contained in the rotors*.

The same consideration applies to all values of
_{} and all _{}. *Thus we
conclude that W.D. Bauer’s formula*

* *

**2. A contradiction in W.D. Bauer’s treatment of
the braked rotors device**

W.D. Bauer
discusses two other possibilities of equating the angular velocities of the
rotors and the slab. The rotors are now *braked against the slab*:

**A.
**By braking after having *decoupled*
the slab from its driving motor.

**B. **By braking while
the slab rotation is kept at _{} *constantly *by its driving motor.

**Case A:** For the braking
process of the rotors against the *free* slab W.D. Bauer obtains an *energy
loss *during phase 2 of the size

(cf. (32) in [1]). We have checked this result and agree with
it.

**Case B:** The braking is
executed against the slab that is kept at constant _{} by its driving motor. We can approximate case
B by case A, if we assume the slab to have a very large momentum of inertia,
i.e. if _{}. Then the
braking process will, due to the *very large* value of _{}, not
considerably influence the slab, i.e. the slab will *approximately* keep
its angular velocity _{}, with other
words, the slab condition for case B is approximately fulfilled. Therefore we
can expect to obtain the energy balance _{} of phase 2 by neglecting _{} in the denominator of the formula of _{} above. This yields

_{}.

as the energy balance of case B, which is an *energy
loss* again as in case A. But W.D. Bauer’s result (43) in [1] is _{}, which is negative, i.e. a *gain of energy*, for
_{}, a result, that
is *very amazing* in view of the preceding case A. *Therefore we cannot expect W.D.
Bauer’s result (43) to be true, **while our result above is confirmed
in* [2].

**References**

** **

[1]
W.D. Bauer: The parametric overunity rotator – the Wuerth power booster, (with
last corrections on 3.10.00) at http://www.overunity.de/rotator/rotator2.htm

[2] G.W. Bruhn: W. D. Bauer's parametric overunity rotators - devoid
of all overunity, available for the time being via W.D. Bauer’s References in
[1]

The author: bruhn@mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de