OK, fast forward to the latest JT-type circuit, below.
It charges a battery (NOT just battery recovery chemistry going on) AND simultaneously runs a load,
thus appears to be a self-runner. Replicated.
Still undergoing tests -- where is the apparent "excess energy" coming from? we don't know yet, but certainly not claiming a "violation of the laws of physics".
Yes, it is a "Joule-thief" type of circuit.
A novel or a prosaic source of energy ? we don't know yet; tests are underway.
http://laserhacker.com/forum/index.php?topic=70.255
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2012.12.13, 21:16:06
OK, fast forward to the latest JT-type circuit, below.
It charges a battery (NOT just battery recovery chemistry going on) AND simultaneously runs a load,
thus appears to be a self-runner. Replicated.
Still undergoing tests -- where is the apparent "excess energy" coming from? we don't know yet, but certainly not claiming a "violation of the laws of physics".
Yes, it is a "Joule-thief" type of circuit.
A novel or a prosaic source of energy ? we don't know yet; tests are underway.
http://laserhacker.com/forum/index.php?topic=70.255
Dear Prof. Jones,
Sorry that the Company politics stopped me from sending you an oscilloscope-test-ready board. You can go to my bench in here to get the full information. Note the nov 22a.xls and the magic.xls files in particular. They clearly showed that adding a 2.3V 10F capacitor in parallel with the DC power supply will give you overunity results as seen on your Atten Oscilloscope. When you take away the DC power supply, the frequency of the Output Voltage will increase.
At a certain frequency range, the Output Power is clearly greater than the Input Power.Three teams (G-LED, BSI and HSIF) have found ways to stay at this frequency range
independently. All three can produce Forever Lighted Lamps. You should have no trouble reproducing the same.
God Bless and Merry Christmas,
Lawrence
Thanks for providing a schematic diagram of
the circuit arrangement. Its layout is a bit
unorthodox which makes it difficult to analyze
circuit operation. I've redrawn it in more
conventional positioning of the components
to aid comprehension but what is yet lacking
is the polarity of the Yellow LED and the phasing
of the transformer windings. The phasing can
be deduced, however, from the transistor
connections.
It is easy to see how transistor burnout can
be achieved. With just some small modifications
it could be made less likely.
It also appears that the circuit could be made
operational with just a single transistor since
the primary function of the 2N2222 is to boost
feedback current to the 2N4401 switch.
Switching of the 2N4401 "off" would be relatively
slow in this arrangement yet that may be a desirable
characteristic.
There isn't any obvious means of feeding significant
energy back into the power cells from the output
of the circuit.
- - - - - - - - - -
Lawrence, thank you for the hints - they're very
helpful.
Best wishes to you and yours as well!
What is the amount of extra energy claimed ?
Maybe two sources of very small amounts of energy would be the ground noise and RF radiation picked up by the antenna.
Not difficult to do in small amounts. An LED can be lit by subjecting it to ground noise or touching it to a HF circuit by one terminal.
A self runner wouldn't need batteries and they should be able to be switched out or removed. Is there wave forms ?
Cheers
Basically, this is a simple radio detector driving a one-stage amplifier with feedback.
The energy source is all nearby radio and TV transmitters from hundreds of kilohertz to near VHF. If he places it and the antenna in a truly effective Faraday cage it will run down.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2012.12.13, 21:16:06
...
where is the apparent "excess energy" coming from?
...
This question prematurely presumes that "excess energy" is a fact. For instance, if hertzian waves from a near radio transmitter were the energy source, then the excess energy would not appear in all circumstances (surely not in a good Faraday cage), and so the duplicability would be uncertain, depending on the location.
Therefore to not distort the debate, the first question to ask is: is the excess energy confirmed?
Among the experimenters here: is there somebody who can confirm it's works and present his measurement protocol and data?
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2012.12.14, 00:33:30
Basically, this is a simple radio detector driving a one-stage amplifier with feedback.
The energy source is all nearby radio and TV transmitters from hundreds of kilohertz to near VHF. If he places it and the antenna in a truly effective Faraday cage it will run down.
I agree. It's a possible explanation. Another one is a pre-charge of the capacitor. The number of turns of the primary coil is low, so the involved frequencies are surely some Khz, tens of Khz or even hundreds. At these frequencies, a 1-10µF capacitor would be by far enough to smooth the voltage and current, question of time constants. Therefore why a 4700µF?! It smells the incompetence or the manipulation.
Dumped:
Can you post your redrawn schematic?
Quote from: ION
Can you post your redrawn schematic?
Aye, can do. Sorry it took so long.
I had a learning curve to get in place
using Xsane to scan the image in
Puppy Linux. Heretofore I'd used
Windoze and it is great to be nearly
Windows Free!
That's a much better drawing to understand, just my way of thinking but isn't this mr cleans darlington pair oscillator, the oscillation are fed back from the ground connection to trigger the transistor.
Just with an antenna added to the positive rail. I'm not sure I would want an antenna there, or if it would do anything but expose me to lightning. :o
There is a giveaway when he says that the LED lights up when he touches it or the circuit, this indicates it may be lit by HF noise or even by the energy conveyed to his body by the AC grid capacitivley maybe
pretty much connecting his circuit to the grid. Any number of strange things could happen but it's all just curiosity unless the amount of energy is worthwhile, I mean I can light lot's of LEDs with next to no power.
OU is about the energy, not the effects that can be produced by just increased efficiency or other inputs.
I think the search for OU is about finding a significant gain in energy utilized compared to energy applied by us, but with no one being able to explain where it is or might be coming from.
A significant amount to me depends on the applied energy, but also there is a low limit where below it no conclusion can be made with our equipment. Which means it also depends on the equipment and how it is used.
Cheers
That is not to say that extreme efficiency is not interesting in itself, it is very much so, but extreme efficiency is not over unity in itself.
If one were to find an OU device then the efficiency may or may not be an issue to getting it, eg. if we had no idea where the energy
came from to make our solar panels work, we could call it OU. It's efficiency cannot be determined unless the energy source is identified and quantified,
then Over Unity it is not, because it is explained. It makes no difference that a solar panel is less than 20% efficient because it is all free anyway.
In the big scheme of things there is no waste because energy cannot be destroyed, if we never had control of the 80% of energy considered "losses"
in a solar panel then doesn't that make the solar panel 100 % efficient except for the heat ect. losses involved in the utilized energy it does harness.
The efficiency is relevant to the parameters and/or conditions applied to the evaluation.
Cheers
P.S. Even people who are so called "scientific" can sometimes be very unscientific when thinking in terms of what best suits their point of view or their agenda.
Going overboard with the calculus or the "scientific method" is less than ideal if the evaluation does not tell us the relevant data.
..
While people who are involved in the energy field and don't call themselves "scientific" will not have provided a technology at least as useful as this that the scientists provided, their duty should be to work for and to shut up until they succeed. >:(
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2012.12.15, 11:48:36
While people who are involved in the energy field and don't call themselves "scientific" will not have provided a technology at least as useful as this that the scientists provided, their duty should be to work for and to shut up until they succeed. >:(
Well you can't be referring to me because I do call myself "scientific". But for arguments sake if you were referring to me, then
I would say I have produced technology at least as useful as this or even more useful.
Just because you may not be aware of it or consider it as such does not make it non existent.
I was just saying that there is no point to overdoing the "scientific method" if the scope of the evaluation is not relevant the purpose of the evaluation.
I don't know about anyone else but I work for no one and I will speak when I please unless I offend someone unduly.
Then I would apologize. But I would still have spoken.
Cheers
P.S. I may be reading it wrong, and if so, I do apologize. But to me it seems you were more or less telling me to shut up if I don't consider myself scientific.
I didn't say I wasn't scientific. ???
2nd P.S. And just in case you were unsure, yes you are one of the people who I think overdo the scientific method when there is no real call for it.
But that is just my opinion and if it offends you for me to comment on that then I will apologize.
Considering some of your own comments on things I don't see why you should be offended.
..
@fh
Thanks for your clear reply. Sorry for my sharp response.
My message is: to present the circuit in question as a possible overunity device is an insult to intelligence and to all electronics engineers, technicians, and even hobbyists who play with such circuits for decades, and a fortiori an insult to the scientists.
Now it is so simple that everybody who supports the idea of OU in this device, without having himself built it, has no excuse. It seems that nobody here is convinced, and so, that we can close this void case that should have not even been open.
@Exn
QuoteWhile people who are involved in the energy field and don't call themselves "scientific" will not have provided a technology at least as useful as this that the scientists provided, their duty should be to work for and to shut up until they succeed.
I believe you are incorrect.
Science-The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Scientist- A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a natural or physical science.
You may notice that nowhere will you find that any scientists has ever produced one single practical device or technology because if they had they would not be a scientist who simply studies things but an inventor who actually builds things.
INVENTOR- A person who invents, to produce or contrive (something previously unknown) by the use of ingenuity or imagination.
It seems obvious that if everyone simply studied everything but never actually did anything with the knowledge from all they're studies then nothing would ever get done, that is the job of the inventor not the scientist and what you suggest is an insult to every person who has ever invented or discovered anything ... scientific or not.
AC
Dumped:
Thanks for the redraw.
It is clear from your well drawn schematic that you have been around electronics a long time and have lots of experience.
One clearly drawn schematic conveys more info and dispels more hype than the thousands of words and hot air blown around forums.
It is now very obvious what this is.
@Farmhand
QuoteI think the search for OU is about finding a significant gain in energy utilized compared to energy applied by us, but with no one being able to explain where it is or might be coming from.
A significant amount to me depends on the applied energy, but also there is a low limit where below it no conclusion can be made with our equipment. Which means it also depends on the equipment and how it is used.
It may be of interest that a great deal of R&D money is not being spent on thinking big but rather thinking very small on the nanoscale. Consider what might happen if we utilized a simple crystal radio circuit and printed a billion or so of them on something the size of a small flexible postage stamp and had each one tuned to a different frequency, now we have one billion EM recievers extracting energy from a very very large spectrum. Then we use nano-wires as antenna having the surface area of a few football fields in the volume of another postage stamp.... are you getting the picture?. At this point what do we have?, well we could literally have a "material" which could even be a fabric we wear which absorbs very large portions of the ambient EM energy spectrum which amounts to tangible amounts of energy.
There has always been plenty of energy everywhere however what was lacking was a means to get at it efficiently and many think nano-technology will get us there.
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on 2012.12.15, 18:49:34
@Exn
I believe you are incorrect.
Science-The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Scientist- A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a natural or physical science.
You may notice that nowhere will you find that any scientists has ever produced one single practical device or technology because if they had they would not be a scientist who simply studies things but an inventor who actually builds things.
...
As a first step the question is not to produce a
practical device, but to produce something that works or at least a reproducible new effect.
When Oersted shown that a current in a wire could deviate the compass needle, he demonstrated that a current can exert a mechanical force. Then the "invention" of a motor was obvious for everybody... Less than 10 years after, the industry built motors. A single year would be necessary today, as things go much faster.
The adepts and theorists of "overunity" or "free energy" have not yet demonstrate the least slight real effet of something new having a promising technology behind, except (not yet sure 100%), the scientists around LENR, including Rossi.
So your objection can't be accepted.
@Exn
QuoteWhen Oersted shown that a current in a wire could deviate the compass needle, he demonstrated that a current can exert a mechanical force. Then the "invention" of a motor was obvious for everybody... Less than 10 years after, the industry built motors. A single year would be necessary today, as things go much faster.
I believe that is what I was saying, scientists have never built or invented anything practical or not. They simply study natural phenomena and document what they found through their studies then let the people who actually build real devices , inventors, do what they do best which is build real practical devices which help make peoples lives better.
QuoteThe adepts and theorists of "overunity" or "free energy" have not yet demonstrate the least slight real effet of something new having a promising technology behind, except (not yet sure 100%), the scientists around LENR, including Rossi.
I believe you mean that you have never seen a working device, there are cases such as T.H.Moray and the Hendershot device where many demonstrations before credible experts were performed. However the consensus from the experts was that they had no idea how it worked or why it worked, in fact they said they did not even know where to start looking for an answer. One comical statement concerning the Hendershot device was made by a Dr.Pupin who had impeccable credentials and declared that the device could not be real simply because he could not understand it. Hmm so everything he does not understand cannot be real which must mean the reality of everyone and everything in the universe must be based on his singular understanding, wouldn't that make him a God?. Sounds a little too fanatical for my taste ,he must have fallen down a rabbit hole and bumped his head.
allcanadian
I agree 100% with your conclusion. Free energy is quite simple but those who are in power don't want this knowledge to leak into public because the one requirement is that it has to be used in place at small amounts, for every man on this planet.
Quote from: allcanadian on 2012.12.17, 01:28:06
@Exn
I believe that is what I was saying, scientists have never built or invented anything practical or not. They simply study natural phenomena and document what they found through their studies then let the people who actually build real devices , inventors, do what they do best which is build real practical devices which help make peoples lives better.
Who is the inventor of the electric motor? This one who demonstrates that a current can exert a mechanical force, or this one who build something using the now known fact that a current can exert a mechanical force? Obviously the former. A scientist invented the electrical motor. A current making a needle to turn is an electric motor. The fact that the invention is useful or not has nothing to do with the invention process, don't confuse invention and patent, and that is even more true considering that a first invention is often only a proof of concept with no practical application without further improvements, but with plenty of useful applications after.
My second point is that inventors in matter of free energy don't exist ("pseudo-inventors" is a more exact term), neither as pioneers of a new effect like this shown by Oersted, nor as creators of a useful device. Everybody fails for decades in trying to duplicate extravagant devices from pseudo-inventors because these devices simply don't work. But we can duplicate most of the inventions from Tesla or Edison. No mystery, on one side there are unskilled, crazy or dishonnest people and on the other side there are skilled, rational and honnest people.
Quote
I believe you mean that you have never seen a working device, there are cases such as T.H.Moray and the Hendershot device where many demonstrations before credible experts were performed.
...
Urban legend.
"Credible experts" are doubtful until there is a third party duplication. Only an independent replication by an independent team can be a proof. Most of Tesla's inventions can be duplicated and have been duplicated because they were real inventions with real effects. Moray or Hendershot are not Tesla.
Quote from: forest on 2012.12.17, 09:52:38
allcanadian
I agree 100% with your conclusion. Free energy is quite simple but those who are in power don't want this knowledge to leak into public because the one requirement is that it has to be used in place at small amounts, for every man on this planet.
Terrible conspiracy! Not one invention went through! ;D ;D ;D
Ask help to Santa Claus.
@Exn
QuoteWho is the inventor of the electric motor? This one who demonstrates that a current can exert a mechanical force, or this one who build something using the now known fact that a current can exert a mechanical force? Obviously the former. A scientist invented the electrical motor. A current making a needle to turn is an electric motor.
Hmm let me get this straight a scientist proves that a current in a wire can exert a mechanical force so this means he invented the electric motor. If we want to use this twisted logic then we may as well say he invented everything in the last 100 years that utilizes a current to exert a mechanical force, your point is so biased it verges on fanaticism.
QuoteMy second point is that inventors in matter of free energy don't exist ("pseudo-inventors" is a more exact term), neither as pioneers of a new effect like this shown by Oersted, nor as creators of a useful device. Everybody fails for decades in trying to duplicate extravagant devices from pseudo-inventors because these devices simply don't work. But we can duplicate most of the inventions from Tesla or Edison. No mystery, on one side there are unskilled, crazy or dishonnest people and on the other side there are skilled, rational and honnest people.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2685008/
A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices.
http://www.discovercreation.org/newsletters/ScientistsFalsifyResearchResults.htm
Scientists Invent Results:Times Online (June 4, 2009) headline reports that "One in seven scientists say colleagues fake data." That figure applies to serious breaches of "acceptable conduct by inventing results." The article went on to say that "46 per cent say that they have observed fellow scientists engage in 'questionable practices', such as presenting data selectively or changing the conclusions of a study in response to pressure from a funding source."
http://phys.org/news162795064.html
On average, across the surveys, around 2% of scientists admitted they had "fabricated" (made up), "falsified" or "altered" data to "improve the outcome" at least once, and up to 34% admitted to other questionable research practices including "failing to present data that contradict one's own previous research" and "dropping observations or data points from analyses based on a gut feeling that they were inaccurate."
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/why_scientists_lie_and_what_to.html
I could post a couple hundred more examples of scientists exhibiting almost criminal behavior if you would like, really Exn you seem to constantly make up stories which are complete bullshit and then think people will believe it because you use a few fancy words. Your fancy words do not impress me much and you are as extreme if not moreso than the people you criticize.
AC
Aye, 'tis very true AC.
No institution is exempt from the influences
of corruption and deception. The honest men
and women within the institutions who insist
upon truth at every step are overwhelmed by
the power of bought "leadership."
Corruption is like cream, it rises to the top of
any power structure...
Your redraw is wrong at the transformer, original is a ? and not 7 turns, this was a CFL choke so would be high turns ratio :) and not 1:1
Mike 8)
Centraflow,
I agree. You have a sharp eye.
The primary winding might be 7 turns, considering
the source voltage, but it could be more or less
as well. The rule of thumb for starting the
experimental process is 3 turns per volt. Then as
circuit performance is evaluated this number
would be adjusted experimentally to produce
the best result.
The secondary winding (the choke from a Compact
Fluorescent Lamp electronic ballast) is typically
100 to 130 turns but that could be varied too.
Yes, the secondary should contain more turns than
the primary.
Dumped,
It's all in the detail, or so they say!
This reminds me of some work I did a while back "STEAP" which is a parametric system and the main trafo was 1:1 and the cap across the trafo was to create the parametric oscillation in the down time. That worked but the output goes to another trafo and then feeds back through a double system of batteries, if not the system dies. The interesting thing is the amp draw was negative 0. I can post a circuit if you want, but this thread is for another and don't want to side track here :)
Will have to learn how to post circuits here as I am new to this forum
Mike 8)
Quote from: allcanadian on 2012.12.18, 05:26:33
...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2685008/
...
http://www.discovercreation.org/newsletters/ScientistsFalsifyResearchResults.htm
...
http://phys.org/news162795064.html
...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/why_scientists_lie_and_what_to.html
...
My point was:
- the scientists, including some great inventors and engineers as Tesla, have proved the efficiency and the reality of their knowledge: see the everyday technology based on their science.
- the pseudo-inventors in the field of the "free energy" have not one device that really works, i.e. not one confirmed by duplications from third parties.
Your point is:
- there are scientists who lie.
Non sequitur. Of course the scientists also are human and so, not perfect, there are black sheeps. But your statement is irrelevant regarding what I said, it doesn't contradict any of the two points, nor it allows for denying them. So in matter of useful technology, the score remains the same, scientists: 1, FE pseudo-inventors: 0.
Quote from: allcanadian on 2012.12.15, 19:25:00
@Farmhand
It may be of interest that a great deal of R&D money is not being spent on thinking big but rather thinking very small on the nanoscale. Consider what might happen if we utilized a simple crystal radio circuit and printed a billion or so of them on something the size of a small flexible postage stamp and had each one tuned to a different frequency, now we have one billion EM recievers extracting energy from a very very large spectrum. Then we use nano-wires as antenna having the surface area of a few football fields in the volume of another postage stamp.... are you getting the picture?. At this point what do we have?, well we could literally have a "material" which could even be a fabric we wear which absorbs very large portions of the ambient EM energy spectrum which amounts to tangible amounts of energy.
There has always been plenty of energy everywhere however what was lacking was a means to get at it efficiently and many think nano-technology will get us there.
AC
Concerning many crystal radio circuits on a postage stamp sized board, I don't think that would work, i think they would all interfere with each other. Nice idea but I don't think it would work because of interference amongst other things. "are you getting the picture", hahaha really.
..
@Farmhand
QuoteConcerning many crystal radio circuits on a postage stamp sized board, I don't think that would work, i think they would all interfere with each other. Nice idea but I don't think it would work because of interference amongst other things
To be honest my proposition was actually based on expert opinion of where the leaders in this technology believe it can go in the future.... which doesn't say a lot about your opinion does it?. They believe this is the next logical step and have basically proven the technology on a small scale through the nantenna technology, and no there is no interference that is absurd, the interference pattern between elements is why it works so well. Google-- Nantenna, Energy scavenging, EM energy scavenging etc... .
AC
I can accept then that it is a valid Tech.
Is there any links to outside references to this device or R&D ?
To be honest I was referring to them all being used in resonance at once and all outputting maximum energy because of it.
A crystal radio circuit uses resonance to magnify the disturbance. What I understood you described was a collective of tuned
circuits at different frequencies all outputting at resonance.
What it says about my opinion will depend on what the future brings. In my opinion.
Quoteand no there is no interference that is absurd, the interference pattern between elements is why it works so well
That reads funny to me.
Nantenna
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nantenna
QuoteAs of 2012, only a few nantenna devices have been built,[citation needed] demonstrating only that energy conversion is possible. It is unknown if they will ever be as cost-effective as photovoltaic cells.
QuoteA nantenna is an electromagnetic collector designed to absorb specific wavelengths that are proportional to the size of the nantenna. Currently, Idaho National Laboratories has designed a nantenna to absorb wavelengths in the range of 3–15 μm.[2] . Ideally, nantennas would be used to absorb light at wavelengths between 0.4 – 1.6 μm because these wavelengths have higher energy than far-infrared (longer wavelengths) and make up about 85% of the solar radiation spectrum [3] (see Figure 1)..
Of course it is possible, that would be obvious before even building one. It's an antenna and if tuned to a frequency will respond well to excitation at that frequency. That is plain logic considering a single circuit on it's own.
..
@Farmhand
QuoteOf course it is possible, that would be obvious before even building one. It's an antenna and if tuned to a frequency will respond well to excitation at that frequency. That is plain logic considering a single circuit on it's own.
Oh you read the Wiki, that's not what you want to be reading. I will try to keep this simple, it's not an antenna and the term Nantenna is simply a term they invented to give it relevance. In reality it is related more to a capacitor and the Casimir effect in that the physical length does not determine the fundamental frequency.The distance between conductive paths must fall near the half wavelength corresponding to the crest and trough of the wave. This is why in any given time frame outside the context of the zero crossing the induced potential is maximum at a specific frequency. The conductive path diameter should fall on a harmonic ratio of the fundamental and be very much smaller that it ie... 1/32, 1/16, 1/8 for maximum efficiency. These properties are also why there is no interference, it is not an antenna it is an EM collector.
It is as they state in your quote an EM collector and the article cited is general information which is for the most part completely outdated. Personally I like the science journals which are kind of neat because it's basically a race, the first to publish wins. The problem is that in this day and age by the time they do publish let alone peer review what they have stated is completely outdated. Which in itself is also kind of neat, basically this shit is moving so fast nobody can keep up including myself.
The trick here is to understand the premise then try to jump two steps forward however it should be understood that by the time you jump your probably already two steps behind. Were not the only fish in this sea and the odds that there is someone one hundreds times smarter than us is astronomical.
AC
If Wiki is no good then could you provide another link. ?
Is the information in the Wiki false, or outdated, what makes it no good ? If i may ask.
It says there, that as of 2012 only a few Nantenna devices have been built.
And it also say's about the Rectanna as well referring to the regular antenna
And this still doesn't make much sense, either there is interference or there is not ?
Quoteand no there is no interference that is absurd, the interference pattern between elements is why it works so well
Still I'm never overly hopeful of extreme manufacturing techniques. These type of things will likely require hi tech and expensive equipment to produce and always in the hands of BIG BIS.
..
..
Quote from: allcanadian on 2013.01.04, 04:26:11
...
it is not an antenna it is an EM collector.
...
Excellent joke! ;D
You should explain the difference, in the language of science, if possible.
https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=1269&mode=2&featurestory=DA_101047
Quote from: Grumpy on 2013.01.05, 16:29:51
https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=1269&mode=2&featurestory=DA_101047
So what do you conclude for the difference?
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.01.05, 17:59:55
So what do you conclude for the difference?
"EM Collector" is a combination of terms. The nanoantennas are tuned to the IR range, so in simple terms you can say they convert heat into electricity, an "electromagnetic solar collector".
No free lunch though:
QuoteWhile the nanoantennas are easily manufactured, a crucial part of the process has yet to be fully developed: creating a way to store or transmit the electricity. Although infrared rays create an alternating current in the nanoantenna, the frequency of the current switches back and forth ten thousand billion times a second. That's much too fast for electrical appliances, which operate on currents that oscillate only 60 times a second. So the team is exploring ways to slow that cycling down, possibly by embedding energy conversion devices like tiny capacitors directly into the antenna structure as part of the nanoantenna imprinting process.
@Exn
QuoteYou should explain the difference, in the language of science, if possible.
An antenna is generally considered as a metallic conductor which may Tx or Rx EM energy. However a solar cell can receive EM energy but we do not consider it an antenna because it is a substrate. As well there are non metallic materials which conduct, laminates, substrates and such which fall outside the definition of an antenna. As well at the nano scale we deal with molecules and particles which may conduct or not and which again fall outside the definition of an antenna.
So we can say everything is an antenna or nothing is however we should understand this is simply an opinion or interpretation of how we see things. The issue is perception, if I have millions of molecules in a row it may be seen as an antenna however if there are only a few molecules it may not as there is no clear definition hence the term EM collector.
AC
Quote from: DeepCut
Not always so great to be Windoze-free.
Try using OpenOffice to view a very large
spreadsheet - total failure.
'Tis true- there are some tasks which are
dependent upon the use of Windoze to
some extent, or an alternative.
Where possible in those cases I'll try the
Windows program with Wine to see how
it flies. So far great success. Wine is quite
incredible.
The only thing I presently use Windows for
(Win98) is printing. Once I get that working
with Puppy I'll be truly free!
Quote from: Grumpy on 2013.01.05, 21:19:59
"EM Collector" is a combination of terms. The nanoantennas are tuned to the IR range, so in simple terms you can say they convert heat into electricity, an "electromagnetic solar collector".
...
A nantenna converts EM waves into electricity, not heat. The "heat" view is a misleading interpretation for at least two reasons. Heat is not EM waves only but a nantenna respond to the EM waves only. Radio EM waves are also "heat", all electromagnetic energy is "heat". Consequently
a nantenna doesn't differ from a radio antenna, it's exactly the same principle, and thus a radio antenna is also an "electromagnetic collector", including a "solar collector" (for instance you get noise when pointing a dish antenna toward the sun). Any (n)antenna is an "electromagnetic collector".
Quote from: allcanadian on 2013.01.06, 20:41:22
@Exn
An antenna is generally considered as a metallic conductor which may Tx or Rx EM energy. However a solar cell can receive EM energy but we do not consider it an antenna because it is a substrate.
...
This doesn't answer the question which was "why an antenna is not an EM collector?".
An "EM collector" is not necessarily an antenna, but an antenna is an EM collector!
Your logic is frightening. Would you say that a dog is not an animal because other kinds of animals are not dogs?!
@Exn
QuoteThis doesn't answer the question which was "why an antenna is not an EM collector?".
I believe the question was why a nantenna is not an antenna and as I said because it could be a laminate, a substrate or reduced to singular molecules or groups of them.
QuoteAn "EM collector" is not necessarily an antenna, but an antenna is an EM collector!
Yes, EM collector covers a broad spectrum of devices and an antenna falls within this classification by definition.
QuoteYour logic is frightening. Would you say that a dog is not an animal because other kinds of animals are not dogs?!
Maybe something was lost in translation, by analogy an EM collector would be a major class (animal) covering a broad spectrum of things and the antenna a subcategory (Dog) which is a small part of this larger group.
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on 2013.01.07, 15:23:57
@ExnI believe the question was why a nantenna is not an antenna and as I said because it could be a laminate, a substrate or reduced to singular molecules or groups of them.
Once again, frightening logic.
An "antenna" is defined by its function, not by its technology. A ferrite rod antenna is an antenna, very different from a filar antenna which is also an antenna, itself being completely different from a dish antenna and so on. But each one realizes the same function: to produce currents from EM waves.
A nantenna is exactly an antenna, for nanowavelengths, including the rectifier.
Quote
Yes, EM collector covers a broad spectrum of devices and an antenna falls within this classification by definition.
False again. A log-periodic antenna is a wide band antenna, a dish antenna also. Even without changing its length, a simple telescopic antenna can cover a ratio of more than 1:100 (shortwaves, VHF, UHF, even SHF), which is more than a nantenna (around 1:2).
@Exn
Quote
An "antenna" is defined by its function, not by its technology. A ferrite rod antenna is an antenna, very different from a filar antenna which is also an antenna, itself being completely different from a dish antenna and so on. But each one realizes the same function: to produce currents from EM waves.
A nantenna is exactly an antenna, for nanowavelengths, including the rectifier.
That is your opinion, personally I do not agree with it as it is not the accepted definition, it is your definition.
QuoteFalse again. A log-periodic antenna is a wide band antenna, a dish antenna also. Even without changing its length, a simple telescopic antenna can cover a ratio of more than 1:100 (shortwaves, VHF, UHF, even SHF), which is more than a nantenna (around 1:2).
That is your opinion and again I do not agree with it as it is over generalized and makes no reference to how nor why conversion takes place. If this is the case we may as well just call everything an antenna in which case the term has no relevance.
AC