I try my best to maintain some of the principles of journalistic integrity as even a writer with a small audience has sway over the opinions of others. Thus, even though this is my personal blog and I can adhere to almost any rules I choose, I try to lay my biases out on the table, reference original research when possible and, when I’m delving into the realm of opinion and hearsay, I endeavour to make you aware of it. Whilst I’ve rarely had to revisit a post based on new information there have been a precious few that have warranted further investigation in light of new evidence and one such article was my criticism of the claims Quantum Generation had made in an email to me.

For the uninitiated the whole saga began early last year when the CEO of Quantum Generation, Arthur Fahy, sent me an email making some rather extraordinary claims about a motor that he had created. I initially responded with heavy handed scepticism, figuring that it was just another elaborate free energy scam, and thought that would be as far as it would go. What followed was an email exchange whereby Arthur revealed more and more information to me, pulling me deeper into the story and made me wonder just what exactly had happened. In the end I wrote the post and figured that would be the end of it, the final nail in a conversation that had entertained me for so long.

I was utterly wrong and the truth is far more interesting than the story that Arthur first told me.

Below is a 14 point response from Arthur Fahy in regards to my blog post:

In reply to your comments on your blog
1. I acknowledge and accept that neither of the university reports makes any reference to free energy or over unity. This was not discussed with either university or the Tech voucher Program. As previously stated the motor unofficially recorded an efficiency of 148%, as it only ran at that efficiency for approximately five minutes before it collapsed, the reading could not be made official. An efficiency of 148% is extremely high so the test would need to be repeated to reaffirm the reading. Since the collapsed motor could not be re started, the reading could not be included in the official report.

All associated UNSW testing equipment was checked for faults and none could be found. So I believe it is very feasible that the 148% was correct though under the circumstance still unofficial.

Graphs and data from both universities along with results from years of R&D show positive unique characteristics and I strongly believe it is possible to replicate the 148% or similar, hence the need to raise further funds to build and test a new motor based on all our data at hand.

The present motor under test is already achieving results that make it stand out.

2. Full detailed reports are not publicly available as the technology is still in development and confidential at this stage. It’s quite normal for a company researching new technology to protect its intellectual property.

Furthermore, the terms and conditions of the report clearly state, in part “Any use of this report, in part or in its entirety or use of names of entities or consultants, in direct or indirect advertising or publicity, is forbidden”. So again, the reports are confidential as per the terms and conditions of the report itself.

3. I have attached a photo of a Quantum Generation motor under test in a laboratory at the UNSW.

4. I have attached an edited copy of the Wollongong University report cover and first page, validating both that the testing was in fact carried out and that the work was conducted through the NSW Government Trade and Investment Tech Voucher program as I have previously stated.

5. I have also included photographs of a letter from Professor Vic Ramsden (UTS,CSIRO) showing when it all started. Unfortunately Vic passed away. I wish he was still around for he was brave, not many academics will get involved in this sort of research because they are fearful that their reputation will be blemished. I can understand that.

6. The illustration of patent drawings of a generator shown in the patent office document that you have shown on your blog bears no resemblance whatsoever to the motor that we are working on today.

7. We have no web presence because we are just concentrating on R&D, not really marketing anything.

8. The company Quantum Generation Pty. Ltd. has an ACN number (Australian Company Number). This nomenclature was later changed by ASIC to ABN (Australian Business Number) for all subsequently registered companies.

9. The de registration notice for the company was posted because a late lodgement fee was not paid on time. Since the company fundamentally does not trade this was a small oversight. The fee was paid and it is registered again.

10. Puthoff mentioned $billions when the motor ran at over unity and not before.

11. I appreciate that NASA are using photons to pull a vehicle through the vacuum and that they put power into the device. They are extracting energy (photons) from the vacuum which says that there is energy in the vacuum that can be extracted. The efficiency of extraction is the key. There are also magnetic waves in the vacuum. The reference merely makes the link that energy can be drawn from the air around us that we live in.

12. Cole and Puthoff (1993) verified that (generic) energy extraction schemes are not contradictory to the laws of thermodynamics. Perlmutter and Schmidt received a Nobel prize in 2011 for discovering that ubiquitous Dark Energy (vacuum) is causing the accelerating expansion of the universe. One of the members of the Nobel prize winning team Prof. Tamara Davis stated “one day we may be able to harness this energy on earth for the benefit of mankind”.

13. CP813,Space Technology and Applications International Forum STAIF 2006, American Institute of Physics 0-7354-0305-035

14. We are carrying out legitimate research and have purposely chosen to use the facilities of a number of Universities for testing the motor so as to optimize the accuracy of test results.

I’ll leave most of these points up to consideration for the reader however in response to a couple:

  • Point 1 affirms my position that the over 100% efficiency results were likely spurious and not repeatable although Arthur seems intent on staying firm to the idea that it’s achievable. However, as I’ll discuss in more detail later, the line “the present motor under test is already achieving results that make it stand out” may in fact have an element of truth to it.
  • Point 11 makes the mistake of confusing the reaction mass with energy as QVPTs still require a power source in order to generate thrust, they just don’t need to bring any reaction mass with them. Additionally this phenomenon only works in a vacuum and would not work in our atmosphere.


Above is the picture referenced in point 3 and I can confirm that from the EXIF data it was taken somewhat recently. It definitely looks like a motor although I’ll admit I’m not terribly familiar with the testing apparatus that it’s connected to. Suffice to say based on this I was convinced that Arthur had indeed created something (the image didn’t appear in any reverse image searches) but whether or not it was what he was claiming it to be was still up in the air at this point.

I sat on this information for a while, mostly because I wanted to dedicate a decent amount of time to this write up. A couple weeks after receiving this response from Arthur I received another email from someone identifying themselves as Darell wanting to speak to me regarding Quantum Generation. I was intrigued, figuring it might be an interested party or an investor Arthur had approached, so I called him on the number provided. As it turns out Darell was in fact an investor in Quantum Generation and had been for quite some time.

As it turns out Quantum Generation, whilst being the brain child of Arthur Fahy, does in fact have quite the number of investors. Darell mentioned that they were mostly friends and family of Arthur who were funding his idea due to the potential applications it might have. Now that my curiosity was piqued I went to ASIC and bought the company’s share register and verified that there are dozens of investors, Darell being among them. Arthur, as the CEO, holds the majority of the stock however.

The story I was able to get from Darell was in a similar vein to that of Arthur however he was a little bit more level headed about the motor and what its potential capabilities were. He was able to confirm that it had been tested at a couple different universities using the Tech Voucher program and that work had been under way on it for several years. I pressed him several times for contacts at the universities in question and, during that phone conversation, he echoed Arthur’s points about no one wanting to publicly put their name against it. A few weeks later though I received a contact name from him for a research fellow at the University of Wollongong and I approached them with a few questions regarding Quantum Generation.

Below are my questions and his responses:

1. Did Quantum Generation provide you with a motor for testing? If so what kind of testing did they contract you to do?

Quantum Generation provided only their motor to UOW for testing. The nature of the testing involved UOW implementing a computer controlled current source to energise the motor and to test the efficiency of the motor under various operating conditions.

2. What was the outcome of the testing you conducted?

The outcome of the testing resulted in an efficiency curve over a wide speed and load range, where the maximum efficiency reached 78%. The efficiency curve remained close to this value over a wide speed range, which is different to regular types of motors where their efficiency tends to significantly drop as the speed changes. It should be noted that the motor was not tested in the most optimal configuration due to a limitation of the drive system. It was concluded to re-test the motor with a suitable system.

3. Arthur Fahy had made some claims about the performance of the motor (specifically its efficiency), would your observations support the notion that it’s capable of efficiencies exceeding 100%?

The measurements and observations of the efficiency (of the motor in its current state whilst being tested at the University of Wollongong) did not exceed 78%. Therefore, the conclusions from our testing can only support a maximum efficiency of 78%.

4. Does the motor operate through a method of action that’s novel or unlike other motors?

The motor requires only DC current to operate, so quite standard from a “blackbox” point of view. However, I do believe there are aspects of novelty in the design unlike standard commercially available motors.

5. Was the device unusable after testing was completed?

The motor was not damaged during the testing at UOW and maintained full functionality at the conclusion of the tests.

Of note here is the notion that the motor maintains a similar efficiency across a wide range of speeds, something that is indeed a novel characteristic that you won’t find in typical DC motors. Arthur had alluded to this previously and Darell re-iterated it over the phone, something which got lost in the over-zealous excitement of achieving over-unity efficiency. Indeed had Arthur approached me with this I would have  been genuinely interested in the technology as a motor with those kinds of specifications would have applications in many areas. Whilst I highly doubt that there will ever be a verified over-unity reading (even though in Darell’s last email to me he mentioned that the University had agreed to build a proper controller to test a new motor thoroughly) there’s definitely something novel about this particular motor and Arthur should focus on those characteristics rather than attempting to create a free energy machine.

Have I changed my mind on investing with Quantum Generation? Well for what it’s worth there’s likely something marketable in there in the form of another DC engine that has a specific use case but it is most certainly not going to be a free energy machine. Whilst Arthur’s response to my initial post still shows his interest in pursuing that idea he’d be much better focused on improving the underlying mechanism of action and marketing the technology’s strengths rather than its spurious readings. I’m sure there’s even more information that I’m not privy to that would speak volumes to investors and so I’d recommend pressing hard for said information so you can make the right choice.

About the Author

David Klemke

David is an avid gamer and technology enthusiast in Australia. He got his first taste for both of those passions when his father, a radio engineer from the University of Melbourne, gave him an old DOS box to play games on.

View All Articles