Yesterday I came across recent videos wherein Mark Dansie claims that a small solid-state disk device pulls energy "from the ambient".
I maintain considerable respect for his experimental efforts and for scrutinizing claims. He does his homework, and so his claim bears further study IMO.
Please see the Vids here:
http://pesn.com/2012/11/13/9602218_Mark-Dansie_Demonstrates_Solid-State-Chip_and_Water-Flashlight/
The 2nd vid, 19minutes, is the most informative -- the first part deals with this disk. Mark claims:
1. Isolated and momentarily shorted, it then shows a rise in voltage (which is shown on the vid)
2. It went from picoamps to (now) microamps and the near-term goal is to reach milliamps. (Said at about the 3m20 ff mark.) So this is a low-current device at present, but Mark notes that its limits are unknown.
3. Dansie says it works in a vacuum and in a Faraday cage.
4. Scientists have tested it and verified...
5. "Not metallic"
6. He went to a lab in Salt Lake City, UT, to see the disk, ended up staying abt 4 months.
7. Not galvanic or chemical.
The water-flashlight is also interesting, but I'm wanting to focus on the claim of a continuous-power solid-state device. What do you think of this?
So, not refuted or even challenged yet. Interesting.
In the videotaped interview, Mark adds that the device works better at colder temperatures -- and it works fine in vacuum and in a Faraday cage.
These are clues to its operation...
I would like to see this device. So they've brought it up from picoamps to nanoamps to microamps... That may be enough to run a Joule Thief of some of the designs we've worked on, which function at 4 microwatts. In that case, steady light output with no OBSERVED energy input... comes from "the ambient", Mark says. Fun stuff!
I really appreciate this comment from "ben__neb" on Sterling's site, it's good sense:
"The technology has been independently validated by several third party groups with high credentials" -- any time Sterling says anything like that, the red flags go up. Sterling doesn't know what credentials are or what validating means, but he will absolutely believe anyone who says "I have credentials and I validate this thing, please give us money" without any critical thought.
This sounds like a device which, if it existed, the inventor could sell. However, it doesn't exist, so instead he shows up at gatherings of fantasists and talks about things being validated by people with "high credentials" and, please give me money, uh, it'll take two years, maybe three. But it's been validated. No, you can't have one.
And Sterling believes it, packages it, publishes it, and we repeat as usual.
Exactly the same procedure as every time."
Hey everybody, aren't you fed up with pompous claims and scams?!
Aren't you fed up to have to swallow anything?
>:(
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.11.21, 15:33:04
I really appreciate this comment from "ben__neb" on Sterling's site, it's good sense:
"The technology has been independently validated by several third party groups with high credentials" -- any time Sterling says anything like that, the red flags go up. Sterling doesn't know what credentials are or what validating means, but he will absolutely believe anyone who says "I have credentials and I validate this thing, please give us money" without any critical thought.
This sounds like a device which, if it existed, the inventor could sell. However, it doesn't exist, so instead he shows up at gatherings of fantasists and talks about things being validated by people with "high credentials" and, please give me money, uh, it'll take two years, maybe three. But it's been validated. No, you can't have one.
And Sterling believes it, packages it, publishes it, and we repeat as usual.
Exactly the same procedure as every time."
Hey everybody, aren't you fed up with pompous claims and scams?!
Aren't you fed up to have to swallow anything?
>:(
Now let me just put you on record here, Ex -- are you referring specifically to the device which is the subject of this thread, the solid-state disk displayed by Mark Dansie in the video (1st post above)? and are you calling it a "scam"?
Thanks.
Yes Ex., It is already possible to run a Joule thief from free energy, being an (Earth battery) or a (radio antenna or radiant energy collector) or with other sources of free energy.
This is no different, I would guess it is some kind of device employing a static charging ability from some means such as the triboelectric effect or something, the effect would be limited
as the energy must be recollected after discharge or continuously if drained through a resistance. It should be possible to demonstrate some kind of electret device or similar doing a similar thing.
I still say that anything of significance in free energy needs to outdo the usefulness of solar and wind energy. Meaning kilo Watts of free energy at an affordable price for the device and safe/clean.
The way I'm seeing things Zero point energy is looking unlikely as a direct source of free energy, transmutation and other processes may be responsible for most credible claims of free energy from "unkown sources".
Obviously devices such as the testatika machine and so forth are simply collecting charges similar to a Van De-Graff machine, my impression is they would be just as unreliable as a solar panel.
Anyway without more info I would guess the biscuit device is a kind of capacitor/static charge collector.
Cheers
The disc exhibits properties of an electret, capacitor (dielectric absorption) and an ideal diode. At least, that is my take on it.
I would be interested to see if the electric field buildup reaches the same levels when there is no meter or excess wires connected to it.
The statement about it working in a Faraday cage doesn't eliminate possible induction from outside sources into the meter leads. A Faraday cage can attenuate changing electric fields but would have almost no effect upon changing low frequency magnetic fields.
It is interesting but I have large aluminum electrolytic caps that must be stored with jumpers across the terminals. That is old stuff.
Hopefully, this is a useful improvement over that old problem.
Quote from: Farmhand on 2012.11.21, 16:14:08
...
This is no different, I would guess it is some kind of device employing a static charging ability from some means such as the triboelectric effect or something, the effect would be limited
as the energy must be recollected after discharge or continuously if drained through a resistance. It should be possible to demonstrate some kind of electret device or similar doing a similar thing.
...
Anyway without more info I would guess the biscuit device is a kind of capacitor/static charge collector.
Cheers
WW:
QuoteI would be interested to see if the electric field buildup reaches the same levels when there is no meter or excess wires connected to it.
Dansie states the device works in a VACUUM as well as in a Faraday cage. Have you guys seen the video?
Dansie states in the comments section at PESN:
QuoteJust to answer a few questions, I had limited time and used an old meter. The disk was an earlier version.
Power is still low, but around 100 micro watts at a steady three volts.
100uW is plenty to power an LED continuously, using a JT circuit. Then you do visual tests by placing it in a Faraday cage underwater, etc. Put a meter in there with the device. I may suggest such tests to these guys.
Dansie: "Power is still low, but around 100 micro watts at a steady three volts."
How long can an electret produce 100uW at a steady 3V? or a capacitor -- when first shorted out, then applied to a load?
(the second is a rhetorical question ;) )
Yes, I've seen the videos.
Operation in a vacuum would not prevent the induction I mentioned earlier.
The only way it would is if the vacuum chamber was also built to redirect external magnetic fields away from the interior.
Faraday cages do not shield against static or slowly changing electric and magnetic fields. Ex: A compass will work just fine inside the best Faraday cage.
A magnetic shield enclosure or any Faraday cage have their limitations. I worked as a SIGINT op during the cold-war. Believe me when I say, very few invoking the names of these devices really know how to build or use one correctly.
On the capacitor powering an LED question......
I once ran a micro-power multi-vibrator powering an LED for several months off of a 68,000 uF 1000WVDC aluminum electrolytic cap after charging it to full operating volts for 60 seconds and discharging it for 10 seconds with a DC contactor. I don't remember how many volts it recovered to initially but it was high enough that a large zener and dropping resistor were needed between the cap and the LED driver circuit.
After some minutes the voltage stabilized in the several hundred mV range while powering the LED circuit through the jumpered zener dropping resistor. It ran until I needed the cap for another project.
I chalked the performance up to bad dielectric absorption, detector functions of the zener and ridiculously long jumpers. I didn't bother with a Faraday cage.
I'm hoping this disc is an improvement over my results. It looks like a vast improvement O0
In addition to hoping for measurements made with temporary connections I would like to see how the voltage builds after it was shorted for 10 seconds.
Quote from: Farmhand on 2012.11.21, 16:14:08
Yes Ex., It is already possible to run a Joule thief from free energy, being an (Earth battery) or a (radio antenna or radiant energy collector) or with other sources of free energy.
This is no different,
...
You are right, it's not different from an antenna harnessing environmental energy: you get µW, not even mW (and providing that there is no artifacts which are always likely when power is very weak, for instance products inside the device that are depleted in ordinary chemical reactions).
Conventional sources of environmental weak energy are known from decades and generally not used because they are not able to produce significant energy.
If we were searching for µW or sometimes even mW, the case would be already closed. But we are searching for W, KW and even MW able to replace petroleum and nuclear.
The lies come from the suggestion based on the above principle that there would be enough of such energy everywhere, able to replace our usual means, while until proof of the contrary, the only obviousness is that no one is able to demonstrate it.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2012.11.21, 15:45:46
Now let me just put you on record here, Ex -- are you referring specifically to the device which is the subject of this thread, the solid-state disk displayed by Mark Dansie in the video (1st post above)? and are you calling it a "scam"?
Thanks.
No I'm not, that's not my style C.C, it's only the guy whom I quoted...
;D
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.11.22, 08:10:37
You are right, it's not different from an antenna harnessing environmental energy: you get µW, not even mW (and providing that there is no artifacts which are always likely when power is very weak, for instance products inside the device that are depleted in ordinary chemical reactions).
Conventional sources of environmental weak energy are known from decades and generally not used because they are not able to produce significant energy.
If we were searching for µW or sometimes even mW, the case would be already closed. But we are searching for W, KW and even MW able to replace petroleum and nuclear.
The lies come from the suggestion based on the above principle that there would be enough of such energy everywhere, able to replace our usual means, while until proof of the contrary, the only obviousness is that no one is able to demonstrate it.
Thank you for the truth!
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.11.22, 08:10:37
You are right, it's not different from an antenna harnessing environmental energy: you get µW, not even mW (and providing that there is no artifacts which are always likely when power is very weak, for instance products inside the device that are depleted in ordinary chemical reactions).
Conventional sources of environmental weak energy are known from decades and generally not used because they are not able to produce significant energy.
If we were searching for µW or sometimes even mW, the case would be already closed. But we are searching for W, KW and even MW able to replace petroleum and nuclear.
The lies come from the suggestion based on the above principle that there would be enough of such energy everywhere, able to replace our usual means, while until proof of the contrary, the only obviousness is that no one is able to demonstrate it.
I find 100 uW interesting as a scientist. I want to know where the power comes from, and how much larger this effect can be made, not ruling out W or even KW as this is an area of active ongoing research. Progress has clearly been made despite the naysayers.
Early TPU's from Steven Mark produced several watts.
A person claiming to know how these devices work came forward and provided additional information necessary to make devices in the kW range.
This was a few years ago, and still there is no scientific approach to explore this information, or the original devices by Steven Mark.
:(
seems like a very simple and basic kind of a phenomena, but if it gets the charge out of the air then it is not practical because large areas are needed, but if it depends on area alone, then it can be rolled up in a cylindrical fashion and increase the current but keep the size small.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2012.11.22, 18:04:46
I find 100 uW interesting as a scientist. I want to know where the power comes from
...
Everybody want to know but the lack of information from the author about his device prevents any hypothesis, or transforms them into vain speculations, especially when "free energy" is suggested. In matter of µW, any chemical cell can do the job.
It's surprising, professor Jones, that you are yet interested in hundred µW when you claim an overunity device in the range of hundreds mW, able to multiply by 8 its input energy (http://pesn.com/2011/05/27/9501835_Steven_E_Jones_demonstrates_overunity_circuit/).
So either there was a mistake in your measurement, and in this case it's surprising that you didn't acknowledge it and that you didn't ask Sterling to update his page, question of scientific honnesty, or your device is real, and in this case it's surprising that you promote the Dansie's device instead of yours which is one thousand times more powerful and instead of helping every experimenter here to duplicate it. It is obvious that a simple device as yours, well documented, powerful if it works and likely scalable, should take priority over the obscure Dansie's gadget. Do you maintain that your ou device works?
I think that it is time for you now to clarify your position and remove all ambiguities about your past overunity claim and your goal here.
@Exn
QuoteThe lies come from the suggestion based on the above principle that there would be enough of such energy everywhere, able to replace our usual means, while until proof of the contrary, the only obviousness is that no one is able to demonstrate it.
No, the lies come from the suggestion that just because we cannot demonstate something it must be untrue when in fact it is neither true nor false.
Consider the fact that for thousands of years man watched birds fly overhead and yet nobody could put what they were seeing in the proper perspective and all thought that man could never fly. However once people became more intelligent they understood that we may be able to fly at some point in time but there are certain things which must be understood first before this can happen. Don't get me wrong, 99% of the population lacked the insight to even consider such a thing which is generally the case however the smart ones knew this was simply a problem just waiting for the right solution because if the birds could do it then obviously so could we.
Now consider that point, how is it that everyone on the planet for thousands of years saw birds flying over their heads all day long but could not connect the dots and understand that we could fly too?. How is that possible? and why were all the critics running around in circles flapping their arms and yelling --- You see, You see this is proof man can never fly!. Proof is relative and context matters.
Now let's apply this very same concept to the future, people 300 years ago probably looked at air in much the same way we look at gravity because neither could figure out a way to get a hold on it. Then people figured out that wings and jet engines belching flames could act on air and man could fly just as we will probably figure out a way to produce a force which will act against gravity and we will fly to places at speeds we can probably not even imagine. It is really no different only the technology and level of understanding must change and I can promise you that our children will look back at us in the same way we look back at those people from 300 years ago.
AC
@All
Now that we have the right frame of mind it does not seem all that improbable that we cannot harness ambient energy in large scales. 100 years ago solar cells would have been considered completely impossible and if a person would have demonstrated them without disclosing how they worked the same critics here would have been saying exactly the same things back then in exactly the same way. Critics never change, time marches on and technology advances as we gain understanding but the critics never seem to change. They are always telling us everything is impossible and explaining it with numbers, charts and math, they tell us we just don't understand what were talking about and their perspective must be the right one ... but we always seem to make progress despite their lectures.
The only point I would make is that we have more than enough science to last us for a while but what we need is a better understanding of it and moreso new ways to apply it. Nantenna technology is a good example and at some point this may render solar cells obsolete. Now imagine a solar cell that has volume, a solar cell is dependent on 2D surface area exposed to the sun however with nantenna technology we convert EM energy directly to electrical energy in 3D(Volume). Now let's take this known technology further to encompass not only a three dimensional volume having a small exterior size but an astronomical surface area within a small volume. Then we could consider the fact that we are not speaking of singular frequencies but large spectrums of EM energy. What would the future look like?, it could be a small black cube however it could have many square miles of surface area covering large parts of the EM spectrum and convert this energy directly to usable electrical energy. A small black cube, it makes a person think doesn't it?, keep in mind this is known and proven technology however there are a few technical hurdles to get past but they are no more difficult that anything we have encountered in recent history.
In any case science is not the problem solutions are and it should be understood that science is simply information which is open to interpretation based on our level of understanding. How we apply this information is up to us and our imagination within the limitations of what works in reality and this is basically what the critics are against. They are saying there is only one right way to do things and it must be their way which has little to do with real science or natural phenomena but moreso their ego's.
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on 2012.11.23, 10:18:31
@Exn
No, the lies come from the suggestion that just because we cannot demonstate something it must be untrue when in fact it is neither true nor false.
...
Basic reasoning, rhetoric and logical mistakes. See who has "the burden of proof". "The burden of proof" is on the side of the positive affirmation. This should be well accepted as soon as one has understood that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of anything.
We have not to suppose that every alleged thing is true. If someone affirms without providing any evidence that the goblins exist and he meets them every evening, all the past of the humanity, its conventional knowledge and the common sense are enough to say that it's false. Euclide was among the firsts to state that "what is affirmed without proof can be denied without proof".
So the natural supposition in matter of extraordinary claims not supported by facts, is that it's false until proof of the contrary.
@Exn
QuoteSo the natural supposition in matter of extraordinary claims not supported by facts, is that it's false until proof of the contrary.
Well there your problem is, I don't see anything extraordinary about the claim made here however most of the wild eyed unproven claims in physics on the otherhand I do find extraordinary. Like those fantasy particles popping in and out of existence from parallel universes which I imagine you believe in hook line and sinker, or the magical bending space time fabric or even that darn variable time moving backwards and forwards and all over the darn place, I find that extraordinary. I imagine old Euclide would have gotten a real kick out of the theories most "believe" today, personally I like to stick to something resembling reality.
@Exn
You know talking with you is kind of like reading a textbook or inputting data into a computer because I always seem to get the same old answers and there is nothing original or unique in it, maybe that is why you have made no real progress?.
AC
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.11.23, 09:41:46
Everybody want to know but the lack of information from the author about his device prevents any hypothesis, or transforms them into vain speculations, especially when "free energy" is suggested. In matter of µW, any chemical cell can do the job.
It's surprising, professor Jones, that you are yet interested in hundred µW when you claim an overunity device in the range of hundreds mW, able to multiply by 8 its input energy (http://pesn.com/2011/05/27/9501835_Steven_E_Jones_demonstrates_overunity_circuit/).
So either there was a mistake in your measurement, and in this case it's surprising that you didn't acknowledge it and that you didn't ask Sterling to update his page, question of scientific honnesty, or your device is real, and in this case it's surprising that you promote the Dansie's device instead of yours which is one thousand times more powerful and instead of helping every experimenter here to duplicate it. It is obvious that a simple device as yours, well documented, powerful if it works and likely scalable, should take priority over the obscure Dansie's gadget. Do you maintain that your ou device works?
I think that it is time for you now to clarify your position and remove all ambiguities about your past overunity claim and your goal here.
Indeed I did ask Sterling to update his page a long time ago. He had originally put "demonstrates" overunity and I immediately insisted that he change that to "evidence for". If you have looked at that page recently, you will notice this title and abstract:
QuoteDr. Steven E. Jones' circuit gives evidence for 8x overunity
Professor Jones has developed a variation of the 'Joule Thief' circuit and has shown evidence that its output is eight times greater than the input as measured by a state-of-the-art oscilloscope...
by Sterling D. Allan
Pure Energy Systems News
I'm sure I've explained this before on this forum; perhaps you missed it, ex?
I also asked Sterling to change the description attached to videos about this effort, which he did --
Quote"
On May 26, 2011, Dr. Steven E. Jones showed us a simple solid state circuit he had been working on that provided evidence for producing more energy out than is electrically put in, implying that energy is being harvested from the environment somehow. However, the effect was small and very high-frequency and proved very difficult to reproduce and scale up in his further experimentation. Dr Jones has moved on to other approaches he finds more promising, including Davey devices."
At the same time, note that I now work on JT-type circuits along with Davey devices and other approaches. I have not given up by any means.
I also find the device shown by Mark Dansie to be interesting and worth studying further. And Lasersaber's latest JT- variant. And some torque-multiplier and motor-generator claims as well.
My goal is to contribute to development of a novel energy source for the benefit of mankind.
Quote from: allcanadian on 2012.11.23, 14:00:44
@Exn
Well there your problem is, I don't see anything extraordinary about the claim made here however most of the wild eyed unproven claims in physics on the otherhand I do find extraordinary.
...
If free energy or overunity were ordinary, we would have them in our every day life, and we wouldn't be here, searching for them!
About "unproven claims in physics", I'm afraid that you mix "claim" and "hypothesis" and that you don't see the relations logically linking the observations to the consequences that are hypothesized. It's possibly the same reason that inclines you to think that "a chip that harvests electrons from the ambient" is ordinary: the less you know in physics, the more you can accept as "ordinary" because a wishful thinking accepts anything as possible and normal.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2012.11.23, 14:38:42
Indeed I did ask Sterling to update his page a long time ago. He had originally put "demonstrates" overunity and I immediately insisted that he change that to "evidence for".
...
Sorry to not be impressed neither by semantic drifts nor by sophisms.
The question is: does your device produce 8 times more power out than in?
A yes or no answer is enough.
At this high level of overunity, even layman's measurements could confirm the effect by many ways, and a fortiori from an academic.
But from what I saw here, nobody has confirmed your so-called "evidence". When 8x overunity is claimed, a real evidence is to be provided. The complaisance towards his own mistakes, lack of rigor in measurement, conclusion in spite of insufficient work, is not an excuse, nor is the imperative need to prematuratly publish unfounded results with his photo on one the most important sites dedicated to free energy.
Quote
My goal is to contribute to development of a novel energy source for the benefit of mankind.
If your device produces 8 times more power out than in, we may conclude that your goal is reached. Or shouldn't we?
Perhaps I did not make myself clear, so let me restate: I do not claim that my little reverse-JT device produces 8x more energy out than in; while I continue to pursue various paths seeking a device to benefit mankind.
Quote from: EMdevices on 2012.11.23, 05:18:42
seems like a very simple and basic kind of a phenomena, but if it gets the charge out of the air then it is not practical because large areas are needed, but if it depends on area alone, then it can be rolled up in a cylindrical fashion and increase the current but keep the size small.
Good point about the cylindrical geometry, EM.
"but if it gets the charge out of the air" -- no, Mark Dansie said they tested it in a vacuum and it continued to function.
Quote from: allcanadian
However once people became more intelligent...
Help us to understand what you meant by that.
@Exn
QuoteIf free energy or overunity were ordinary, we would have them in our every day life, and we wouldn't be here, searching for them!
I think that depends on one's perspective as I spend a great deal of time outdoors and enjoy my time there observing nature at work however a person who spends 99% of their time indoors playing with numbers or staring at a computer might think differently. Anyone can plainly see we are immersed in a dynamic world of continuous motion on various levels and this energy is free, it is free however many people believe we should pay for everything using a currency and system of currency which has nothing to do with nature and is unnatural. Most live a life of complete delusion concerning nature and believe man's way and his thinking is the nature order, I don't think so that is absurd, just as absurd as we and our actions are and someday they will learn a lesson they will not forget.
QuoteAbout "unproven claims in physics", I'm afraid that you mix "claim" and "hypothesis" and that you don't see the relations logically linking the observations to the consequences that are hypothesized. It's possibly the same reason that inclines you to think that "a chip that harvests electrons from the ambient" is ordinary: the less you know in physics, the more you can accept as "ordinary" because a wishful thinking accepts anything as possible and normal.
No, the more we know of science the more we can accept things which others call extraordinary as ordinary because we have a greater understanding, you have it backwards. Fools call free energy extraordinary because they cannot grasp the simple concept just as a child would see a rainbow as extraordinary because they cannot understand it. I understand most all energy harvesting technology better than most and if you cannot grasp this simple concept I would be happy to answer any questions you have.
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on 2012.11.23, 10:18:31
@Exn
No, the lies come from the suggestion that just because we cannot demonstate something it must be untrue when in fact it is neither true nor false.
Consider the fact that for thousands of years man watched birds fly overhead and yet nobody could put what they were seeing in the proper perspective and all thought that man could never fly. However once people became more intelligent they understood that we may be able to fly at some point in time but there are certain things which must be understood first before this can happen. Don't get me wrong, 99% of the population lacked the insight to even consider such a thing which is generally the case however the smart ones knew this was simply a problem just waiting for the right solution because if the birds could do it then obviously so could we.
AC
I don't think anyone suggested that because something cannot be demonstrated it must be untrue, however I think the argument is that unless it is demonstrated it is not demonstrated so how can it be considered as truth ?
People cannot fly, we can make machines that can fly and people can ride in them or on them, but people themselves still cannot take off and fly on their own.
People don't just become more intelligent, they become more knowledgeable, which comes about by the accumulation of knowledge based on scientific findings. Whether the scientific findings occur in a garage or in a Lab.
Science is not restricted to so called scientists, anyone can do something scientifically.
To fly like the birds insinuates, for man to be able to take off and fly without any artificial help. Which is in fact impossible.
Even machines cannot fly using the same take off principals of the birds, jumping then flapping wings to fly off. Not one that I have seen.
To me for men to fly like the birds they would need to be able to just fly with no machines to help.
Cheers
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2012.11.23, 17:17:17
Good point about the cylindrical geometry, EM.
"but if it gets the charge out of the air" -- no, Mark Dansie said they tested it in a vacuum and it continued to function.
There is no such thing as a perfect vacuum as far as I know. It continued to function in a near vacuum like space. But how did it function as compared to not in the near vacuum like space ?
What is commonly called a "vacuum" as far as I know is just an almost empty space with most of the air removed. As far as I am aware a true vacuum does not exist.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Cheers
Isn't "energy from the ambient environment" the same as "we have no idea how it works"?
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2012.11.23, 17:17:17
Good point about the cylindrical geometry, EM.
"but if it gets the charge out of the air" -- no, Mark Dansie said they tested it in a vacuum and it continued to function.
Oh, I missed that point, very interesting, so if it works in a vacumm than we can roll it up like an electrolytic capacitor perhaps.
I think I know what this phenomena might be.
The disk has been imprinted with an electric field, so it is an electret. However, it slowly looses its internal polarization and electric field and degrades. As it degrades the free charge on the surface begins to leak away and raise the potential.
This is not something that will work forever, sorry! :(
EM
Quote from: EMdevices on 2012.11.24, 01:54:43
Oh, I missed that point, very interesting, so if it works in a vacumm than we can roll it up like an electrolytic capacitor perhaps.
I think I know what this phenomena might be.
The disk has been imprinted with an electric field, so it is an electret. However, it slowly looses its internal polarization and electric field and degrades. As it degrades the free charge on the surface begins to leak away and raise the potential.
This is not something that will work forever, sorry! :(
EM
At the PESN thread, Dansie said it would continue to operate for "20 years plus". If true, doesn't look like an electret to me. Here's the conversation:
QuotePhysicsProf: I would like to know how long this device can put out "100uW at a steady 3V"...
Dansie: 20 years plus.
Now I don't know where he got that 20-years-plus from... Yes, it would be nice to see some actual measurement numbers (including how good the vacuum was, FH, agreed) -- but his public demo and comments provide a start I guess. Dansie's remarks and demo are appreciated -- and intriguing.
@Farmhand
QuoteWhat is commonly called a "vacuum" as far as I know is just an almost empty space with most of the air removed. As far as I am aware a true vacuum does not exist.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Well if energy travels from one place to another then it most likely occupies every point in between at some point in time, aka Occam's Razor -- " a principle stating that among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected" which Exn loves to quote. Thus the notion that any supposedly empty space is empty or somehow devoid of energy is false as such removing the air means nothing.
We can also apply Occam's Razor to the extraction of ambient energy, if the energy is present and we know as a fact it must be then if a solar cell or nantenna can extract it then any number of unique ways can be developed to extract it. It is absurd to say it cannot happen because we already have undeniable proof it can in solar cell and nantenna technology thus this hypothesis makes the fewest assumptions. We know it works in X number of proven ways therefore there is no reason it should not work in Y number of ways based solely on the same process of X.
I think it's kind of funny how most people here practice what I call pick and choose science where they can just discard the science they do not like to justify their archaic beliefs. We know our environment and the known universe is a sea of energy that is a fact which needs no further debate,it is not a matter of if energy can be extracted rather how we will do it.
AC
@PhysicsProf
QuoteNow I don't know where he got that 20-years-plus from... Yes, it would be nice to see some actual measurement numbers (including how good the vacuum was, FH, agreed) -- but his public demo and comments provide a start I guess. Dansie's remarks and demo are appreciated -- and intriguing.
I would agree, I have built many small devices which extracted small amounts of energy from supposed ambient conditions. As well it is important to note that not once did the thought ever cross my mind that it violated any laws of science because it's operation was based on them. I'm really not sure why so many people get such crazy thoughts in their head when they see something they do not understand. It is as if they lose all logic and common sense when threatened by something they cannot put into context.
It's also kind of funny that I never really mentioned this to anyone other than a few people because I didn't think much of it, that is I thought so what?, it is a simple device which extracts small amounts energy from the environment ... so what?. Then I see people here having a hissy-fit at the very notion and running in circles screaming the sky is falling the sky is falling. If there is a reason any rational and professional person should stay clear of these forums I believe this would be it. I once heard you say you were looking for a more professional atmosphere, did you have any luck? and could you PM me if you have?.
I have been in this forum for about a year now and can say with a fair amount of certainty that most here seem bound and determined to fail.
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on 2012.11.23, 23:28:34
...
Anyone can plainly see we are immersed in a dynamic world of continuous motion on various levels and this energy is free
...
Naturally. For example E=mc
2. Yes it's free. And now, what?
I don't see the interest of dicussions about banalities.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2012.11.24, 06:50:17
At the PESN thread, Dansie said it would continue to operate for "20 years plus". If true, doesn't look like an electret to me..........
Dansie's remarks and demo are appreciated -- and intriguing.
20 years for a functioning electret is very good but not impossible. Think of it as the electric form of a permanent magnet. You can't get free energy from those either.
Folks should experiment with them. I have an electret microphone that is at least 30 years old. It still works just fine. Unlike some beliefs, the internal charge (actually just polarization - I understand a difference between polarization and charge) of an electret does not dissipate in a short amount of time, regardless of how many times it is used to gather charge from the environment. There is no useable energy in the electret. Just like a magnet, energy must be applied (movement, connection, etc.) to make use of it.
If I use a conventional DMM to measure the charge of my microphone I also get a rising voltage. The problem is that if you leave it connected, that measured potential starts dropping after a time. The energy measured (read as potential) is probably the energy of shorting and unshorting the terminals.
Notice the meter used in the video..... I believe that one has a rather high input impedance.
Regardless, I am also impressed with the device.
This may wind up being an improvement over current solid-state energy harvesters.
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.11.24, 10:57:45
Naturally. For example E=mc2. Yes it's free. And now, what?
I don't see the interest of dicussions about banalities.
The way I see it mc
2 is just kinetic energy. It's hard to say that ambient is not dynamic.
I have seen the disc in person. Mark handed it over to me so i could have a quick look.
You can short the disc, but it gets its charge back in an instance.
All i know is that the materials are very expensive.
The claims are real.
Too bad that its not my disc ;-)
To comment on the vacuum claim, you can ask yourself if there is movement of electrons there.
If so, then there is energy.
Steve
Quote from: GibbsHelmholtz on 2012.11.24, 14:28:44
The way I see it mc2 is just kinetic energy. It's hard to say that ambient is not dynamic.
It is enough to say that there is energy everywhere. We don't care that there is energy everywhere.
The real questions are:
- Are the known ambient energies enough for our needs? The answer is: no.
- Are there other possible ambient energies that are extractable and more powerful? The answer is: nobody knows, or nobody knows how.
Quote from: Stevie1001 on 2012.11.25, 08:52:16
...
The claims are real.
Too bad that its not my disc ;-)
...
What is real? What are the factual proofs that the disc would be revolutionary compared to a lithium battery of same size?
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.11.25, 11:29:35
- Are there other possible ambient energies that are extractable and more powerful? The answer is: nobody knows, or nobody knows how.
You are only correct if the big claimants like SM, TK, DS,... are liars. We do not have proof that they are liars. We do have evident that they are lying by not being able to replicate their devices. However, that evident is too weak to constitute a proof. On the other hands, we also have evident for OU with measurements. However, that evident is also too weak to constitute a proof.
You are left with two choices: Try hard to prove that they are lying or try hard to prove OU. It's just personal reference really.