PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-02-25, 12:12:18
News: Check out the Benches; a place for people to moderate their own thread and document their builds and data.
If you would like your own Bench, please PM an Admin.
Most Benches are visible only to members.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7
Author Topic: Magnacoaster  (Read 128523 times)
Group: Tech Wizard
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1088
...
There are some youtubers out there that have spinning devices that seem not to be tricks. They seem to be upfront, forthright, and studious in their attempts i.e. the stubblefield reproducer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuQGuXJ02fo&feature=related
Plz, splain me dis?

Hi giantkiller,

I know you mainly addressed your question to MileHigh but please allow me to briefly answer.

Lasersaber in the video created a "distributed" low power battery from the Alu and Copper wire coils, using a moistered insulating material as the chemical component part of the battery. A very clever and unusual way for making a battery from dissimilar metals like that and the coil pair functions as an energy source i.e. battery, as an electromagnet and as an induction coil.

I feel you surely know all this. What else is to  be explained?

rgds,  Gyula
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1558
Frequency equals matter...


Buy me a drink
Thanks. I apologize. I do know this.
We have threads dealing with devices, processes, builders, nay-sayers, kooks and liars.
I was just trying to pull it together into a cohesive process of events we have all seen.

I am still trying to find the youtuber that showed the double pulse higher return scope signal.


---------------------------
   
Group: Guest
Giantkiller:

Yes there is big buzz about Lasersaber's battery setups.  The thread "Self-Runner NS Coil Pulse Motor Live Video Stream. It's been going for months!" is still going strong.  As Gyula stated, these are galvanic batteries with their electrodes coiled up like an inductor.  That way when they discharge they also become electromagnets.  Since they are incredibly weak as batteries, the fact that you only switch them on every 1/4 second or so with perhaps a 10% duty cycle allows the batteries to build up enough of a reserve of charge so when you do momentarily switch it on it lets out a tiny "puff" of energy that becomes a tiny magnetic pulse that makes the rotor continue turning.

What nobody seems to be discussing is the fact that the metals when corroding produce galvanic current and by extension energy.  You can look up the energy extractable when one gram of given metal in a galvanic setup corrodes.  I don't know all the numbers but I do know that for magnesium I dug up the numbers and they are fantastic (quoting myself):

Quote
Metal corrodes just from the moisture in the air. Copper and iron are classic examples of this. Aluminum and magnesium are examples that create much more galvanic current than copper or iron. Magnesium has a particularly high energy density. For magnesium it takes 43.2 thousand joules of electrical energy to produce just one gram. When it corrodes you get some of that energy back. So it's no surprise that a magnesium battery can power a microwatt motor for months.

So let's just look at this in ballpark terms.  Suppose you have a motor that contains one gram of magnesium, and suppose that when it corrodes you can get 1/2 of the energy back that created it.  That about 20,000 joules of energy.  Let's take a wild guess that a typical "motor" with a rotor that spins balanced on a needle point consumes an average of 5 micro-watts of power.  It's just a guess!  So what's the run time?

Well it's 20,000 seconds if the motor was running at 1 watt, times (1/0.000005) = 4,000,000,000 seconds.   With more number crunching that's 126 years!

So, supposing I was too optimistic about the power consumption and it's actually 50 micro-watts ->  Now it's a 12 year run time.

Supposing a typical battery in a YouTube clip only contains 0.2 grams of magnesium ->  Now it's a 2.4 year run time.

What if you only can get 10,000 joules of energy per gram?  ->  Now it's a 1.2 year run time.

That's an example of a scientific fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants intellectual exercise.  You have three pieces of data to work with, 1) A guesstimate of how much power the motor is consuming just by eyeballing it.  2) You could easily weigh the amount of metal in the battery.  3) A rough guess as to how much energy you can get back from your corroding metal (This one could easily be looked up online to get the real numbers)

Then you crunch the numbers and you can clearly see that Lasersaber's demos are all explainable.  I just don't know why nobody does this relatively simple analysis first before all of the wild speculating sets in.

Anyway, going back to the original discussion about the MEG-type transformer setup.  You mentioned you built one.  I think that you also mentioned that you discussed it in an OU thread.  If that's the case, can you give a link to the right point in the thread for where your discussion starts?  My gut feel is that it's not easy to make measurements on a setup like that, and you have to be very careful there.

MileHigh
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 335
Grumpy,  Thanks for putting up a real OU diagram ... I think.  It seems something has happened though to the .png file as nothing I've got will open it.  Tried several programs that always open .png files.  Tried MS Office tools as code in the file indicated it was made with MS Office.  What can I use to view this or has it gotten corrupted?  
Edit:  I ran a couple file type identifiers on the file but none of them can recognize the file type.  So I assume it got scrambled? 
as simple as it gets: (see attached) wind this up and give it a go, got to have the pulses tho!

Lot more here than meets the eye, but this is a good start for anyone.   OU straight out of the gate! (not much ok, but beter than a poke in your eye with a stick...)



« Last Edit: 2010-10-05, 01:43:24 by e2matrix »
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2589
@Giantkiller
I saw that salt battery setup and found it quite interesting, I know many technical persons would probably just dismiss this as a normal behavior but we can never be sure. For one there is the common assumption that there is still water present in the coils acting as an electrolyte which is questionable after such a long period of time. We should also consider that the salt solution may crystalize on the paper dielectric and these crystals which are diamagnetic in nature could also produce electrostatic forces should the coils vibrate or oscillate in any way. Now what might the consequences be of an electrostatically charged diamagnetic crystal oscillating in the presence of a magnetic field which may or may not have a high rate of change as well as a high frequency?. What are the consequences of these possible oscillations as they relate to the surface of the dielectric and the conductors? For me this is what "science" and research is all about, not jumping to conclusions or dismissing things we do not fully understand.

We could say the same thing of the magnetic devices which are the topic of this thread, on the surface it is easy to make assumptions of "ordinary" operation but the claims in themselves dictate extra-ordinary phenomena taking place. I believe you are on the right track with some of your prior posts as I have built many of these devices and there is usually more to them than meets the eye, there are always little details we miss which only show up through actual experiments. One such detail in magnetic systems is the effect of material boundary conditions vs proximity(near field) and the geometric relationship of the field sources, in one case the field strength was found to swing drastically from one side to the other with no presence of motion. That is one could see no motion of the magnets whatsoever and it is comical that anyone would expect to see this phenomena on any simulator as a simulator is not reality. A person would need a microscope to detect the extent of motion required to swing the field and there is no simulator up to this task. I have found this is the "grey area" the critics have not fully considered as Faraday's laws of induction relate to motion of the magnetic field relative to a conductor but it makes no stipulation as to the extent of motion required to move not the magnetic field which relates directly to the "work" input. I believe it was Ampere who stated that the field of an object should be considered as "seperate" from the source which created it however all "forces" must translate back to the source. If there is one thing we do know it is that normally when we attempt to move the magnet or conductor we lose and we can attribute this loss to work or a force acting over a distance but what happens when there is literally no distance and the input force is conserved? At this point many of the long held "theories" tend to fall apart and we can see this in the nanotechnologies as well where things acting on small scales can have large consequences. In any case I was never one to take the critics too seriously as I have yet to find one who can explain what the primary fields E, B, G are fundamentally, which raises the question how the hell could anyone understand much of anything without a solid foundation to build on?. Good luck with your experiments ;)

Regards
AC
« Last Edit: 2010-10-07, 07:45:43 by allcanadian »


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1558
Frequency equals matter...


Buy me a drink
@AC,
Thanks and I agree.
The reason nanotechnolgies is proving so many things is the target matter is soooooo much smaller than the source force. Obviously. Same size ratio as a nuclear bomb detonation against a big city. The matter is altered in compliance with the force of the magnetic field.

A new simulator is needed that combines the magnetic field with fluid dynamics.


---------------------------
   
Group: Guest
Just a comment about the water issue.  There is almost always some humidity in the air and that humidity can keep the metal corroding and the battery can continue to produce a very small amount of power even though it is "dry."

I don't know enough about silica gel to know if it can remove 100% of the water from a volume of air.  However, it does suggest a simple experiment:  Put a Lasersaber motor inside a sealed glass jar with some silica gel.  It would not be surprising if the motor stopped cold within two days.  Then remove the motor from the jar and wait a day or two for moisture from the air to re-infuse itself through the battery.  Then see of you can get the motor to run again.  If all goes as expected that would be a clear indication that the device works due to the corrosion of metal.

MileHigh
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 520
@AC,
Thanks and I agree.
The reason nanotechnolgies is proving so many things is the target matter is soooooo much smaller than the source force. Obviously. Same size ratio as a nuclear bomb detonation against a big city. The matter is altered in compliance with the force of the magnetic field.
A new simulator is needed that combines the magnetic field with fluid dynamics.

Hi @GK

Just to make a correction. Nanosize particles are extremely small but far more larger than any source particle, if you consider source particles to be based on or smaller then the copper atom itself. Here is a chart we use in our water treatment industry to give a visual idea of particle size.


---------------------------
   
Group: Guest
Giantkiller:

Yes there is big buzz about Lasersaber's battery setups.  The thread "Self-Runner NS Coil Pulse Motor Live Video Stream. It's been going for months!" is still going strong.  As Gyula stated, these are galvanic batteries with their electrodes coiled up like an inductor.  That way when they discharge they also become electromagnets.  Since they are incredibly weak as batteries, the fact that you only switch them on every 1/4 second or so with perhaps a 10% duty cycle allows the batteries to build up enough of a reserve of charge so when you do momentarily switch it on it lets out a tiny "puff" of energy that becomes a tiny magnetic pulse that makes the rotor continue turning.

That's interesting MileHigh.  Does that mean that if the device runs WITHOUT salt and WITHOUT water - saving perhaps some moisture in the air - that the device is then what?  A generator?

Regards,
Rosemary

   
Group: Guest
Rosemary:

What I am saying is that the source of the power is the corroding metal.  Current is produced when the metal interacts with the water and the oxygen in the air.  The power production is simply the result of a chemical reaction.  Like I previously posted, enormous amounts of electrical energy are needed to produce metals like aluminum and magnesium.  So aluminum and magnesium are potential components of a battery, just like the components in a lead-acid battery.  In other words they contain potential chemical energy that can be transformed into electrical energy.  Pirate Bill keeps on thinking that this is all "free" perhaps because he is unaware that massive amounts of electricity were used to make the components of his "earth batteries."  The energy comes from the aluminum or magnesium smelter.  It takes so much electricity to produce aluminum that they sometimes build hydroelectric power plants that are dedicated to providing power for aluminum smelters.

In my experiment, when you take away the water, the chemical reaction stops dead, and then the battery can't output any power.  It's akin to draining the electrolyte out of a lead-acid battery.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
Just to add a few more comments.  The current is only produced if there is a circuit for it to flow through.  If there no circuit then there is no metal corrosion.  They use this trick on ocean-going oil rig platforms.  They make current flow in the opposite direction versus the normal "corrosion" direction.  That ensures that the metal in the sea water that supports the oil platform won't corrode over time.

As far as the water goes, it can conduct electricity to form the electrical circuit between the two pieces of metal.  I suppose the material that separates the electrodes itself may not be a perfect insulator also.  The key point about the water is that we know that perfectly distilled water is an insulator, and the moment that there are impurities in it it starts to conduct.  The water or moisture that is in one of these types of batteries is by definition not pure.  There are all sorts of impurities that are present in the make-up of the battery that will give any moisture that is present in the battery the ability to conduct electricity.  It could be some chemicals on the surfaces of the metals, chemicals used to treat the cotton, finger grease, whatever.

It's interesting that Lasersaber can make a microwatt "motor" or that Pirate Bill can light some LEDs from his "earth batteries" but it is not remarkable.  As far as "telluric currents" go, why doesn't somebody put two pieces of identical stainless steel in the ground and see if they can pick up any energy from the telluric currents?  That way you factor out the galvanic currents.  From what I read about telluric currents, they are not capable of producing power in the way that a buried galvanic battery setup will.  Any possible energy pickup from telluric currents would be so minuscule as to be unmeasurable and below the background noise level.

That was fun getting that off my chest!

MileHigh
« Last Edit: 2010-10-08, 14:52:59 by MileHigh »
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2589
@wattsup
Quote
Just to make a correction. Nanosize particles are extremely small but far more larger than any source particle, if you consider source particles to be based on or smaller then the copper atom itself. Here is a chart we use in our water treatment industry to give a visual idea of particle size.

I think nanotechnology is a very important concept to understand, that is when the many aggregate parts of a larger area or object can be manipulated in such a way to effect the area or object as a whole. Victor Schauberger understood this concept of nanotechnology early in his work and in fact most of his work was not with water or the vortex but with electrostatics as they apply on nanometer scales and catalytic action. LOL, if people only knew, if they had any idea of what Schaubergers work implied as it relates to energy in the environment they would abandon all their silly coal fired power stations and hydroelectric generators in a heartbeat. Consider "what" we do, we move magnets past a wire and the moving magnetic field seperates the charges, charges that were always present in and on the wire as fields. Next, when this charge seperation is discharged as an electric current into a load this current opposes every motion of the magnet field which translates a force back to the magnet opposing it's motion as well. We simply pump charges in a continuous loop which is losing energy at every turn, it is beyond absurd, we may as well be living in the stone ages. The only real interaction with the environment is the fact that we are losing almost all the energy to the environment instead of powering our loads. If you want to break out of this cycle of ignorance I would suggest taking a fresh look at what nanotechnology represents from the perspective of electrostatics, a state of charge which translates indirectly through the fields and motions of small objects and not conduction currents, what some call "cold" electricity simply because it does not convert most all it's energy as motion to heat.
Regards
AC


I have found most often it is not what we see and measure that leads us astray it is what we "think" we see and measure that actually leads us astray.


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2589
@milehigh
Quote
It's interesting that Lasersaber can make a microwatt "motor" or that Pirate Bill can light some LEDs from his "earth batteries" but it is not remarkable.  As far at "telluric currents" go, why doesn't somebody put two pieces of identical stainless steel in the ground and see if they can pick up any energy from the telluric currents?  That way you factor out the galvanic currents.  From what I read about telluric currents, they are not capable of producing power in the way that a buried galvanic battery setup will.  Any possible energy pickup from telluric currents would be so minuscule as to be unmeasurable and below the background noise level.

Do you think that if you buried two pieces of identical stainless steel in the ground that you could pick up energy from telluric currents or any energy for that matter?, some day you may understand that it is not always the magnitude of the interactions but the quality of the interactions with nature that matter the most. This is the real issue, there was never any problem understanding that we are surrounded by magnitudes of energy we cannot concievably comprehend. Richard Feynman's energy in a cup of coffee boiling the worlds oceans comes to mind when we speak of the inherent energy in space and matter. The only real issue we have is understanding how to constructively interact with the various forms of energy to extract useful amounts of energy and in this respect our "science" has failed us miserably. What I did was look to nature directly, to make my own observations and not rely solely on others perspectives, I am a responsible adult after all and not a child who must always look to others for guidance and knowledge. I would agree most all that you have said makes sense from a conventional scientific point of view but if you did your homework you would understand that most of the people who have succeeded in FE technologies did not follow science they made their own.
Regards
AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Group: Guest
Poynty - just for the record.  I posted a reply here this morning and when I looked for it it was gone.  You need to check your system.  I also do not understand why every time I post I get taken right out the thread and have to find my way back so to speak.  It's really not user friendly for those of us whose eyesight is not that dependable.  To add to the general confusion I saw a tome of writing from MileHigh and when I looked again - it was barely a couple of paras.  ALSO.  I lost whole reams of 'chat' with MH this morning.  Please check on these things Poynty Point.  The system's not really working that well.  You'll need to fix it.

Rosemary:

Like I previously posted, enormous amounts of electrical energy are needed to produce metals like aluminum and magnesium.  So aluminum and magnesium are potential components of a battery, just like the components in a lead-acid battery.  In other words they contain potential chemical energy that can be transformed into electrical energy.  Pirate Bill keeps on thinking that this is all "free" perhaps because he is unaware that massive amounts of electricity were used to make the components of his "earth batteries."  The energy comes from the aluminum or magnesium smelter.  It takes so much electricity to produce aluminum that they sometimes build hydroelectric power plants that are dedicated to providing power for aluminum smelters.

If you were to take this argument to its logical conclusion - then - in terms of this a natural diamond would have less energy than an artificial diamond.  There is no more or less potential energy in a lump of pure copper than there is in a mixed aggregate of the same weight.  Nor is more potential energy added to the mix as a result of applied heat or galvanisation or anything else.  Mainstream claim that the energy from mass is from the atomic mass.  It's just that in a refined state - it's likely to be more useable as required. Bear in mind that the galvanic interaction does not compromise the mass of either the copper or the iron.  Theoretically, they'll be there - into infinity.  So.  Also theoretically - if there's an induction process going on in Laser's rig - which clearly there is, then that too could be there for infinity.

In my experiment, when you take away the water, the chemical reaction stops dead, and then the battery can't output any power.  It's akin to draining the electrolyte out of a lead-acid battery.

But this argument also has to be seen in context.  Laser claims that the rotor can turn with distilled water.  If so, then there is no 'salt bridge' required for the 'galvanic effect' - which is battery related.  It probably just works better with the addition of salt.  Correspondingly, and confusingly, Bill claims that his rig works best if the sand is dry.  In which case one could perhaps argue a 'salt bridge'.  But in both instances one only needs to encase the entire coil in some kind of sealed condition - like a sealed battery - and either the slightly moist sand - or the slightly moist atmosphere around the coil - would make both the sand and/or the atmosphere - a third element in that rig.  Unlike a sealed battery it would never go flat.  That's got to be clean green - and virtually, dare I say it,  'perpetual'.

Also.  Regarding your applied math to this general effect - I think you're out by a tad.  If you take a battery say with a rating of 12 x ampere hours - then what the manufacturer is saying that it will deliver 12 amps for 1 hour or 1 amp for 12 hours - or whatever combination required between these numbers.  So.  12 amps x 12volts = 144 watts.  Then x 60 seconds, x 60 minutes x 1 hour =  518,400.00 joules. We can't yet quite rate Laser's rig - but - just to follow general protocol and your example of applying numbers here.  Let's say that the rotor is turning with a ridiculously conservative dissipation of 0.2 watts.  0.2 x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 24 hours x 115 days = approximately 1,987,200.00 joules.  Technically it's alreadly out performed your standard lead acid battery.  AND it's NOT going flat.  AND that was an absurdly small wattage figure at kick off.

The truth of the matter is that the concept of a battery supply source also carries the concept of a depletable source of energy.  That much has yet to be proven in either Bill's rig or in Lasersabers.  Frankly I think they're both carving out some interesting history for us all.

Regards
Rosemary
edit.  Sorry the math was out.   I've amended. 
« Last Edit: 2010-10-08, 13:14:00 by aetherevarising »
   
Group: Guest
AC:

Quote
some day you may understand that it is not always the magnitude of the interactions but the quality of the interactions with nature that matter the most.

Can you explain what you mean by the "quality of the interactions with nature"?

Quote
if you did your homework you would understand that most of the people who have succeeded in FE technologies did not follow science they made their own.

Can I assume that you have "done your homework"?  Please cite some examples of you doing your homework and FE successes and "new sciences."

Rosemary:

Quote
If you were to take this argument to its logical conclusion - then - in terms of this a natural diamond would have less energy than an artificial diamond.  There is no more or less potential energy in a lump of pure copper than there is in a mixed aggregate of the same weight.  Nor is more potential energy added to the mix as a result of applied heat or galvanisation or anything else.  Mainstream claim that the energy from mass is from the atomic mass.  It's just that in a refined state - it's likely to be more useable as required. Bear in mind that the galvanic interaction does not compromise the mass of either the copper or the iron.  Theoretically, they'll be there - into infinity.  So.  Also theoretically - if there's an induction process going on in Laser's rig - which clearly there is, then that too could be there for infinity.

I am only talking about chemical energy being converted into electrical energy.  I'm not talking about atomic energy.  The "induction process" in Lasersaber's setup is a direct result of the releasing of the chemical energy and it's finite.  It would be more appropriate to say that there is an inductance associated with the geometry of the battery.

Quote
Laser claims that the rotor can turn with distilled water.

Like I stated before, there is no distilled water.  You put distilled water into the galvanic battery and there are guaranteed to be impurities in the battery itself that dissolve into solution and render the water impure and capable of conducting electricity.

Quote
Bill claims that his rig works best if the sand is dry.

Bill is not thinking this one through.  I once got into a discussion with him where he equated "dry soil" with days where it did not rain and "wet soil" with days that it rained.  This is over-simplistic to the extreme.  What Bill thinks is "dry" is in all likelihood not dry.  You can't forget the humidity in the air either.

Quote
Unlike a sealed battery it would never go flat.

When all of the metal corrodes away then the battery goes flat.  The energy comes from current produced by the corroding metal.

Quote
Also.  Regarding your applied math to this general effect - I think you're out by a tad.  If you take a battery say with a rating of 12 x ampere hours - then what the manufacturer is saying that it will deliver 12 amps for 1 hour or 1 amp for 12 hours - or whatever combination required between these numbers.  So.  12 amps x 12volts = 144 watts.  Then x 60 seconds, x 60 minutes x 1 hour =  518,400.00 joules. We can't yet quite rate Laser's rig - but - just to follow general protocol and your example of applying numbers here.  Let's say that the rotor is turning with a ridiculously conservative dissipation of 0.2 watts.  0.2 x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 24 hours x 115 days = approximately 1,987,200.00 joules.  Technically it's alreadly out performed your standard lead acid battery.  AND it's NOT going flat.  AND that was an absurdly small wattage figure at kick off.

You start with an estimated power consumption and then factor in the run time and arrive at an estimated amount of energy in the galvanic battery.  For a case like this you start with an estimate of the amount of energy in the battery and use the run time to estimate the power consumption.  So your calculations are correct but you are approaching the problem from the wrong direction.

You estimate almost two megajoules in the battery.  That's equivalent to a big beefy car battery, it does not make any sense.  I estimated between 2000 and 4000 joules in a hypothetical battery roughly equivalent to Lasersaber's galvanic battery.

For the power consumption of the rotor you estimated 0.2 watts.  That is way too high.  Working my calculations back from the estimated energy in the battery and a run time of more than one year, I estimated the power consumption of the motor between 5 and 50 microwatts.

It's not easy to estimate the power consumption of a given device.  You have to use your intuition and real-world experience.  You know the power consumptions of mundane things like toasters and hair dryers and TVs and transistor radios.  You can take a resistor and put exactly one watt of power through it and hold it between your thumb and index finger and feel what one watt of heat production feels like.  You can measure the power consumption of small circuits that you are working with on the bench, and so on.

The power consumption of Lasersaber's "motor" is comparable to the power consumption of an analog wristwatch powered by a battery, it's minuscule.

Lasersaber's motor demo is a nice small project and it's elegantly done.  It's a good exercise to understand how it is done and how it works.  Beyond that, there isn't much more to say.  There is no free energy "angle" associated with a galvanic battery.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
This is a special posting to resolve an issue with AllCanadian:

AC, it's time for you to stop the patronizing tone when you make a posting to me.  Every single time you have posted to me you use this tone and it's time for it to stop.  In the past I have ignored your patronizing tone and argued the technical points.  I noted that you never responded to the technical points at all.

Do you remember your posting that started with this comment:

Quote
LOL, are you still trying to confuse everyone here?

I defended myself with respect to that comment and pursuant to a request I rebutted all of your technical points and you never replied.

Let's take a look at your last posting to me and I will quote all of the patronizing comments:

Quote
Do you think that if you buried two pieces of identical stainless steel in the ground that you could pick up energy from telluric currents or any energy for that matter?

Quote
some day you may understand that it is not always the magnitude of the interactions but the quality of the interactions with nature that matter the most.

Quote
I am a responsible adult after all and not a child who must always look to others for guidance and knowledge.

Quote
but if you did your homework you would understand

This little game is now officially over AC, and I am expecting your future posts to me will be devoid of this patronizing tone.

MileHigh
« Last Edit: 2010-10-08, 19:42:22 by MileHigh »
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1558
Frequency equals matter...


Buy me a drink
AC:

Can you explain what you mean by the "quality of the interactions with nature"?

Can I assume that you have "done your homework"?  Please cite some examples of you doing your homework and FE successes and "new sciences."

Schaumberg  
Dollard

Quote
Rosemary:

I am only talking about chemical energy being converted into electrical energy.  I'm not talking about atomic energy.  The "induction process" in Lasersaber's setup is a direct result of the releasing of the chemical energy and it's finite.  It would be more appropriate to say that there is an inductance associated with the geometry of the battery.

Like I stated before, there is no distilled water.  You put distilled water into the galvanic battery and there are guaranteed to be impurities in the battery itself that dissolve into solution and render the water impure and capable of conducting electricity.

Bill is not thinking this one through.  I once got into a discussion with him where he equated "dry soil" with days where it did not rain and "wet soil" with days that it rained.  This is over-simplistic to the extreme.  What Bill thinks is "dry" is in all likelihood not dry.  You can't forget the humidity in the air either.

When all of the metal corrodes away then the battery goes flat.  The energy comes from current produced by the corroding metal.

You start with an estimated power consumption and then factor in the run time and arrive at an estimated amount of energy in the galvanic battery.  For a case like this you start with an estimate of the amount of energy in the battery and use the run time to estimate the power consumption.  So your calculations are correct but you are approaching the problem from the wrong direction.

You estimate almost two megajoules in the battery.  That's equivalent to a big beefy car battery, it does not make any sense.  I estimated between 2000 and 4000 joules in a hypothetical battery roughly equivalent to Lasersaber's galvanic battery.

For the power consumption of the rotor you estimated 0.2 watts.  That is way too high.  Working my calculations back from the estimated energy in the battery and a run time of more than one year, I estimated the power consumption of the motor between 5 and 50 microwatts.

It's not easy to estimate the power consumption of a given device.  You have to use your intuition and real-world experience.  You know the power consumptions of mundane things like toasters and hair dryers and TVs and transistor radios.  You can take a resistor and put exactly one watt of power through it and hold it between your thumb and index finger and feel what one watt of heat production feels like.  You can measure the power consumption of small circuits that you are working with on the bench, and so on.

The power consumption of Lasersaber's "motor" is comparable to the power consumption of an analog wristwatch powered by a battery, it's minuscule.

Lasersaber's motor demo is a nice small project and it's elegantly done.  It's a good exercise to understand how it is done and how it works.  Beyond that, there isn't much more to say.  There is no free energy "angle" associated with a galvanic battery.

MileHigh
Keely
Rife
Reich
Dotto
More experience to gain from those rejected by mainstream.

It is quite obvious to identify the vectored individuals from the mainstream.


---------------------------
   
Group: Guest
Giantkiller:

I posted the straight goods on galvanic batteries.  Dropping names in large fonts won't make a difference with respect to how a galvanic battery works.

Are you referring to me as an individual "vectored" from the mainstream?  I am only interested in the truth.

MileHigh
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1558
Frequency equals matter...


Buy me a drink
MC,
My reference to a 'vectored individual' is a label for someone who has the insight of foresight to see what the processes are that don't fit or are addressed by the status quo or academia. It is not a slander. The standard explanations hold no value as you, or I, or any others that have come through the mainstream. The textbook answers have no value here. There are a few of us that have gone beyond the normal with tests, reproductions, graphics, builds, research scientifically and not so scientifically. But the goal is to not only grasp the unforeseen but also not be daunted by lack of explanation. We have all suffered from this. I dropped those names, and yes Stanley Meyer also, because these men have done somthing when witnessed from which there is no returning 'To the box'. Or in others words 'Personally the shit has hit the fan and I cannot look back'. I myself, at this momnet have taken all the small steps I have encountered and are lumping the myriad into a few designs. These fit my ideas and others. One big think. This is the mental tool that has enabled many to progress beyond what they thought was normal. These men and women can no longer 'look back' for we know 'the truth is out there' and some have actually touched it.

The warning is 'If any of you are still embellished in academia you are in the wrong place here'. This is not a slam. You can not hope to be a good doctor if you are an professional plumber or what ever your choosing is.

This accomplishment is based of a future meeting of dreams, a nexis, not a previous graduation. The grasp needs to made in the next realm not the here and now.

I hope all understand. But this involvement here has been an acceptance of reality based on future dreams and desires I had when before I can remember.
This not grandstanding just pushing on.

I now have the magnet swipe, the stun gun approach, the HV approach, the resonant approach in my hands and realize that all coils are possible TPUs.

The HV comes directly from TTBrown and Podkletnov. Dropping names? No. They did it and we can too. Is not about what you say it is about but what do you believe and can you contribute? Standard diatribe always goes nowhere except into battle.

Now i have bought HV parts today, wire for leads, uwave diodes, high wattage resistors to add another known layer into the process.

With all respect, another person.


---------------------------
   
Group: Guest
Giantkiller:

I understand your perspective and let me make a few comments.

Quote
The textbook answers have no value here. There are a few of us that have gone beyond the normal with tests, reproductions, graphics, builds, research scientifically and not so scientifically. But the goal is to not only grasp the unforeseen but also not be daunted by lack of explanation.

These are things that have to be evaluated on a case by case basis.  If something is outside of the ordinary then it's logical to look at it from multiple perspectives.  What sometimes can appear to be outside the normal is in fact within the normal.  What can appear to not have an explanation can in fact have an explanation.  A case in point that was referenced recently was the joule thief.  A single AA cell can only light a single LED.  Connect that AA cell to a joule thief, and it can light one, 10, 25, or 50 LEDs to the same brightness.  Many people would consider this to be outside of the ordinary, but in fact it isn't.  If some of those people learn why, that gives them more understanding so that they can continue researching with a bit more knowledge under their belts.

So textbooks can be of great value, they represent accumulated knowledge gained from decades and decades of research!

Part of the fun is to be daunted by the lack of an explanation, for sure.  Sticking with my example, once you understand how a joule thief works, that might help you figure out how some other unexplained phenomenon works.

Quote
I now have the magnet swipe, the stun gun approach, the HV approach, the resonant approach in my hands and realize that all coils are possible TPUs

I know, many free energy experimenters believe that coils can be the key to creating over unity.  Like I said, this can be evaluated on a case by case basis.  Knowing how to make measurements is a critical issue.  I personally don't believe that coils can be configured to create over unity.  However, if you or anyone can make a case and show how you make your measurements, you might be able to convince me.  To put it in context, I am not likely to follow any TPU threads.  I would still be interested in the final results.  So if six months from now you have a TPU-based experiment where you claim over unity, it would be very interesting to see the data.  Of course many people may scrutinize that data and challenge your results.  I know that can be tough and stressful at times, but ultimately it's the right way to go.  If your experiment passes through a vetting process from your peers, your case is that much stronger.

You should try to look at this vetting process, were indeed you may be challenged by people that cite "textbook" explanations as something positive.  That is just as much a contribution to your project as anything else.  It would be unwise to "filter" input so that you only listen to people that you think will agree with you.  You will only come out stronger if you can address questions about your project from all angles.

MileHigh
« Last Edit: 2010-10-09, 05:31:59 by MileHigh »
   
Group: Guest
MileHigh.  I still don't get it.  If there are ions - as has been argued - in the iron and copper - and if these are responsible for the 'battery' effect and for an electrolytic action - then surely one would need to firstly establish that the ions are, indeed there, and then measure some sort of change to those ions to justify a transfer of energy?  - if indeed it's a battery?  That would be really difficult to establish.  At this stage, as I see it, there's an assumption that ions are responsible.  Surely?  Effectively one could never argue the following statement.  Nor could you prove it.  

Like I stated before, there is no distilled water.  You put distilled water into the galvanic battery and there are guaranteed to be impurities in the battery itself that dissolve into solution and render the water impure and capable of conducting electricity.

Not sure of the relevance to the 'water' being there or not.  I still don't see which ions are doing what to what moisture that you claim makes it a battery.   And if it is all expected to 'rust away' then actually - this is not evident anywhere.  Not in Bill's earth battery nor in Laser's windings.  I agree that in the event that it does rust - then it could be deemed to be a battery.  The only evidence of corrosion has been to the zinc coating on the wire.

Regarding the calculations - you're right about the wattage related to a typical battery.  I'm actually going to see if I can get actual numbers - either from Lasersaber or from Bill.  The point is that there's the switching of two reed switches as well as the perpetual turning of that rotor.  If we can establish the Ohmage of the wires - and the general energies required for working those switches - then maybe we can hone in on some actual numbers.  I'm going to see what I can find.

Where do I find that point you made about electric current feeds preventing rust on oil rig constructions?  I'd be quite keen on finding out more here.  Can you oblige MH?

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
   
Group: Guest
Hi Rosemary,

For starters, I am not building this stuff, so I don't have a need to do the research online or heaven forbid, in books.  I don't pretend to be an expert in this stuff, I am just using my common sense.  In high school in chemistry class they must have taught me about the galvanic corrosion of metals.

The people that actually build the stuff should be doing the real research.  They should be searching on terms like "galvanic current" and "galvanic corrosion of metals" etc, etc.  I honestly get the feeling that some of them don't do the research.  If they spent two day's worth of searching and reading then they would know what they were talking about.

Here's something that I found that's interesting:

Quote
An electrolyte is simply an electrically conducting fluid. Almost any fluid falls into this category, with distilled water as an exception. Even rain water is likely to become sufficiently conducting after contact with common environmental contaminants. If the conductivity of the liquid is high (a common example is  sea water) the galvanic corrosion of the less noble metal will be spread over a larger area; in low conductivity liquids the corrosion will be localised to the part of the less noble metal near to the junction.

Another one:

Quote
Metals (including alloys) can be arranged in a galvanic series  representing the potential they develop in a given electrolyte against a standard reference electrode. The relative position of two metals on such a series gives a good indication of which metal is more likely to corrode more quickly. However, other factors such as water aeration and flow rate can influence the process markedly.

Another one:

Quote
Magnesium is a lightweight alloy with a long history and a huge potential which is nevertheless plagued with a low
corrosion resistance, leading to relatively high dissolution rates depending on the alloy and the aggressiveness of the
environment.

Here is link explaining how two dissimilar metals buried in the ground will corrode due to galvanic action:

http://www.westcoastcorrosion.com/Papers/Why%20Metals%20Corrode.pdf

Quoting Pirate Bill:
Quote
This is the same as Milehigh's argument.  If he knew anything at all about business, he would know that to produce my magnesium block, if it took a hoover dam type project to do so then I believe I would have paid a little more than $30 for it.  If he is claiming that the energy (potential energy) is stored in these materials well, he is correct but then Einstein beat him to that idea many years ago.  Potential energy is inherent in ALL matter. E=mc squared and all that.

Bill is showing off his great intellect here, confusing chemical energy with atomic energy.  Duh!?  Bill has been playing with his joule thieves now for years, but if you asked him how a joule thief can light up 10 LEDs I bet you he would not be able to answer you.  If you asked him what's going on when you go from lighting 10 LEDs to lighting 20 LEDs at the same apparent brightness with his joule thief I bet you he would not be able to answer you.

"If he knew anything at all about business" - Who is Bill to talk about my business acumen?  I have never discussed business with Bill.  That's just bullshit.

For your answer, do a search on something like "preventing galvanic corrosion of oil rig platforms" or something like that.  I am not going to do the work for you.

Quote
one would need to firstly establish that the ions are, indeed there, and then measure some sort of change to those ions to justify a transfer of energy?

Quote
Galvanic corrosion is an electrochemical process in which one metal corrodes preferentially to another when both metals are in electrical contact and immersed in an electrolyte. Conversely, a galvanic reaction is exploited in primary batteries to generate a voltage. A common example is the carbon-zinc cell where the zinc corrodes preferentially to produce a current. The lemon battery is another simple example of how dissimilar metals react to produce an electric current.

When two or more different sorts of metal come into contact in the presence of an electrolyte a galvanic couple is set up as different metals have different electrode potentials. The electrolyte provides a means for ion migration whereby metallic ions can move from the anode to the cathode. This leads to the anodic metal corroding more quickly than it otherwise would; the corrosion of the cathodic metal is retarded even to the point of stopping. The presence of electrolyte and a conducting path between the metals may cause corrosion where otherwise neither metal alone would have corroded.

So from my perspective it's the same old story.  The evidence is everywhere explaining how metals corrode due to galvanic current action.  Yet the forum members always go for the "alternative" explanation.  Hey!  That has "edge" and they can have fun dreaming up all sorts of creative explanations for mundane things that are well understood.  You state that Bill does not see any corrosion on his metals.  That's meaningless.  It all depends on how much they have corroded.  Did he try looking for corrosion under a microscope?  I doubt it.  The huge mistake being made is taking anecdotal evidence as fact.

I am not an expert on this stuff and will never be an expert.  Therefore I may be wrong in some of my statements,  but the main principles are correct.  If I played with earth batteries like Pirate Bill and made batteries with dissimilar metals like Lasersaber and I was truly interested in the process then I sure as hell would really know what I was talking about right down to the formulas for the chemical reactions that release the metallic ions.

MileHigh
« Last Edit: 2010-10-09, 20:08:38 by MileHigh »
   
Group: Guest
Just one more comment about this:

http://www.mcnallyinstitute.com/Charts/galvanic-series.html

Quote
GALVANIC SERIES OF METALS AND ALLOYS

CORRODED END ( ANODIC OR LEAST NOBLE)

MAGNESIUM
MAGNESIUM ALLOYS
ZINC
ALUMINUM 5052, 3004, 3003, 1100, 6053
CADMIUM
ALUMINUM 2117, 2017, 2024
MILD STEEL (1018), WROUGHT IRON
CAST IRON, LOW ALLOY HIGH STRENGTH STEEL
CHROME IRON (ACTIVE)
STAINLESS STEEL, 430 SERIES (ACTIVE)
302, 303, 321, 347, 410,416, STAINLESS STEEL (ACTIVE)
NI - RESIST
316, 317, STAINLESS STEEL (ACTIVE)
CARPENTER 20CB-3 STAINLESS (ACTIVE)
ALUMINUM BRONZE (CA 687)
HASTELLOY C (ACTIVE) INCONEL 625 (ACTIVE) TITANIUM (ACTIVE)
LEAD - TIN SOLDERS
LEAD
TIN
INCONEL 600 (ACTIVE)
NICKEL (ACTIVE)
60 NI-15 CR (ACTIVE)
80 NI-20 CR (ACTIVE)
HASTELLOY B (ACTIVE)
BRASSES
COPPER (CA102)
MANGANESE BRONZE (CA 675), TIN BRONZE (CA903, 905)
SILICONE BRONZE
NICKEL SILVER
COPPER - NICKEL ALLOY 90-10
COPPER - NICKEL ALLOY 80-20
430 STAINLESS STEEL
NICKEL, ALUMINUM, BRONZE (CA 630, 632)
MONEL 400, K500
SILVER SOLDER
NICKEL (PASSIVE)
60 NI- 15 CR (PASSIVE)
INCONEL 600 (PASSIVE)
80 NI- 20 CR (PASSIVE)
CHROME IRON (PASSIVE)
302, 303, 304, 321, 347, STAINLESS STEEL (PASSIVE)
316, 317, STAINLESS STEEL (PASSIVE)
CARPENTER 20 CB-3 STAINLESS (PASSIVE), INCOLOY 825NICKEL - MOLYBDEUM - CHROMIUM - IRON ALLOY (PASSIVE)
SILVER
TITANIUM (PASS.) HASTELLOY C & C276 (PASSIVE), INCONEL 625(PASS.)
GRAPHITE
ZIRCONIUM
GOLD
PLATINUM
PROTECTED END (CATHODIC OR MOST NOBLE)

So the metals towards the anodic end are the ones that will corrode and the metals at the cathodic end are the ones that won't corrode when you pair them up in an earth battery or make a Lasersaber type battery cell.

I think a typical earth battery is made with magnesium and graphite.  You can see how these two elements are at opposite ends of the galvanic series.  Thus between them they produce a high electro-potential difference and hence are good for making galvanic batteries.  The magnesium will corrode and the graphite won't corrode.

The most likely reason that Bill does not see any noticeable corrosion when he looks at his magnesium is because the current/energy consumption due to the joule thief is minuscule, and therefore the corrosion is minuscule.  Again, you are making the mistake of taking anecdotal evidence as fact, seemingly ignoring the fact that the multi-billion dollar metals industry has been researching these issues for more than 100 years.

MileHigh
« Last Edit: 2010-10-09, 20:13:59 by MileHigh »
   
Group: Guest
A little message to Wilby:

Quote
indeed! i was impressed by his claim that "A single  AA cell can only light a single LED"... i guess if he ever came down from his ivory tower of wiki gleaned knowledge and did some bench work, he would know that it won't.

I added your emphasis.  I guess it all depends on which LED you are talking about, doesn't it?  I am pretty sure that a vanilla red LED has a forward operating point voltage of about 0.6 volts, just like a vanilla diode.  But different flavours of more modern white LEDs have higher forward voltages.  I believe that they can vary somewhere between 1.5 volts and 2.5 volts.  I haven't been reading my LED spec sheets on the DigiKey web site recently, sorry.

So, Wilby, I look forward to seeing you post a clarification/retraction on the OU JT thread where you admit that you were incorrectly assuming that everybody works with LEDs that have a higher forward operating voltage than 1.5 volts when in fact there are LEDs with forward operating voltages that are less than 1.5 volts.

MileHigh

P.S.:  I did a quick search and now realize that most LEDs have a forward operating voltage that is above 1.5 volts.  However, there are some LEDs with forward voltages that are less than 1.5 volts.  So my memory was faulty and Wilby gets to declare a partial victory.
« Last Edit: 2010-10-10, 01:57:52 by MileHigh »
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 567
MH, white LED's run about 4 volts, but even at that you can run more then 1 LED on an AA battery. I designed a circuit years years ago that ran 4 white leds from 1 AA cell and got about 20 hours battery life from it.


---------------------------
"Whatever our resources of primary energy may be in the future, we must, to be rational, obtain it without consumption of any material"  Nicola Tesla

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."  Edmund Burke
   
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-02-25, 12:12:18