PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-06-21, 03:00:41
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]
Author Topic: Mark Dansie claims this solid-state device works...  (Read 29422 times)
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2996
seems like a very simple and basic kind of a phenomena, but if it gets the charge out of the air then it is not practical because large areas are needed, but if it depends on area alone, then it can be rolled up in a cylindrical fashion and increase the current but keep the size small.

Good point about the cylindrical geometry, EM. 
"but if it gets the charge out of the air"  -- no, Mark Dansie said they tested it in a vacuum and it continued to function.
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3055
Quote from: allcanadian
However once people became more intelligent...

Help us to understand what you meant by that.


---------------------------
For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2690
@Exn
Quote
If free energy or overunity were ordinary, we would have them in our every day life, and we wouldn't be here, searching for them!
I think that depends on one's perspective as I spend a great deal of time outdoors and enjoy my time there observing nature at work however a person who spends 99% of their time indoors playing with numbers or staring at a computer might think differently. Anyone can plainly see we are immersed in a dynamic world of continuous motion on various levels and this energy is free, it is free however many people believe we should pay for everything using a currency and system of currency which has nothing to do with nature and is unnatural. Most live a life of complete delusion concerning nature and believe man's way and his thinking is the nature order, I don't think so that is absurd, just as absurd as we and our actions are and someday they will learn a lesson they will not forget.

Quote
About "unproven claims in physics", I'm afraid that you mix "claim" and "hypothesis" and that you don't see the relations logically linking the observations to the consequences that are hypothesized. It's possibly the same reason that inclines you to think that "a chip that harvests electrons from the ambient" is ordinary: the less you know in physics, the more you can accept as "ordinary" because a wishful thinking accepts anything as possible and normal.

No, the more we know of science the more we can accept things which others call extraordinary as ordinary because we have a greater understanding, you have it backwards. Fools call free energy extraordinary because they cannot grasp the simple concept just as a child would see a rainbow as extraordinary because they cannot understand it. I understand most all energy harvesting technology better than most and if you cannot grasp this simple concept I would be happy to answer any questions you have.

AC


---------------------------
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
@Exn
No, the lies come from the suggestion that just because we cannot demonstate something it must be untrue when in fact it is neither true nor false.
Consider the fact that for thousands of years man watched birds fly overhead and yet nobody could put what they were seeing in the proper perspective and all thought that man could never fly. However once people became more intelligent they understood that we may be able to fly at some point in time but there are certain things which must be understood first before this can happen. Don't get me wrong, 99% of the population lacked the insight to even consider such a thing which is generally the case however the smart ones knew this was simply a problem just waiting for the right solution because if the birds could do it then obviously so could we.

AC

I don't think anyone suggested that because something cannot be demonstrated it must be untrue, however I think the argument is that unless it is demonstrated it is not demonstrated so how can it be considered as truth ?

People cannot fly, we can make machines that can fly and people can ride in them or on them, but people themselves still cannot take off and fly on their own.
People don't  just become more intelligent, they become more knowledgeable, which comes about by the accumulation of knowledge based on scientific findings. Whether the scientific findings occur in a garage or in a Lab.
Science is not restricted to so called scientists, anyone can do something scientifically.

To fly like the birds insinuates, for man to be able to take off and fly without any artificial help. Which is in fact impossible.
Even machines cannot fly using the same take off principals of the birds, jumping then flapping wings to fly off. Not one that I have seen.

To me for men to fly like the birds they would need to be able to just fly with no machines to help.

Cheers
   
Group: Guest
Good point about the cylindrical geometry, EM. 
"but if it gets the charge out of the air"  -- no, Mark Dansie said they tested it in a vacuum and it continued to function.

There is no such thing as a perfect vacuum as far as I know. It continued to function in a near vacuum like space. But how did it function as compared to not in the near vacuum like space ?

What is commonly called a "vacuum" as far as I know is just an almost empty space with most of the air removed. As far as I am aware a true vacuum does not exist.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Cheers
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3948
tExB=qr
Isn't "energy from the ambient environment" the same as "we have no idea how it works"?
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 805
Good point about the cylindrical geometry, EM. 
"but if it gets the charge out of the air"  -- no, Mark Dansie said they tested it in a vacuum and it continued to function.

Oh, I missed that point, very interesting, so if it works in a vacumm than we can roll it up like an electrolytic capacitor perhaps. 

I think I know what this phenomena might be. 

The disk has been imprinted with an electric field, so it is an electret.   However, it slowly looses its internal polarization and electric field and degrades. As it degrades the free charge on the surface begins to leak away and raise the potential.

This is not something that will work forever, sorry!   :(

EM
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2996
Oh, I missed that point, very interesting, so if it works in a vacumm than we can roll it up like an electrolytic capacitor perhaps.  

I think I know what this phenomena might be.  

The disk has been imprinted with an electric field, so it is an electret.   However, it slowly looses its internal polarization and electric field and degrades. As it degrades the free charge on the surface begins to leak away and raise the potential.

This is not something that will work forever, sorry!   :(

EM

At the PESN thread, Dansie said it would continue to operate for "20 years plus".  If true, doesn't look like an electret to me.  Here's the conversation:

Quote
PhysicsProf:  I would like to know how long this device can put out "100uW at a steady 3V"...
Dansie:  20 years plus.

  Now I don't know where he got that 20-years-plus from...  Yes, it would be nice to see some actual measurement numbers (including how good the vacuum was, FH, agreed) -- but his public demo and comments provide a start I guess.  Dansie's remarks and demo are appreciated -- and intriguing.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2690
@Farmhand
Quote
What is commonly called a "vacuum" as far as I know is just an almost empty space with most of the air removed. As far as I am aware a true vacuum does not exist.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Well if energy travels from one place to another then it most likely occupies every point in between at some point in time, aka Occam's Razor -- " a principle stating that among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected" which Exn loves to quote. Thus the notion that any supposedly empty space is empty or somehow devoid of energy is false as such removing the air means nothing.

We can also apply Occam's Razor to the extraction of ambient energy, if the energy is present and we know as a fact it must be then if a solar cell or nantenna can extract it then any number of unique ways can be developed to extract it. It is absurd to say it cannot happen because we already have undeniable proof it can in solar cell and nantenna technology thus this hypothesis makes the fewest assumptions. We know it works in X number of proven ways therefore there is no reason it should not work in Y number of ways based solely on the same process of X.

I think it's kind of funny how most people here practice what I call pick and choose science where they can just discard the science they do not like to justify their archaic beliefs. We know our environment and the known universe is a sea of energy that is a fact which needs no further debate,it is not a matter of if energy can be extracted rather how we will do it.

AC


---------------------------
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: 2690
@PhysicsProf
Quote
Now I don't know where he got that 20-years-plus from...  Yes, it would be nice to see some actual measurement numbers (including how good the vacuum was, FH, agreed) -- but his public demo and comments provide a start I guess.  Dansie's remarks and demo are appreciated -- and intriguing.

I would agree, I have built many small devices which extracted small amounts of energy from supposed ambient conditions. As well it is important to note that not once did the thought ever cross my mind that it violated any laws of science because it's operation was based on them. I'm really not sure why so many people get such crazy thoughts in their head when they see something they do not understand. It is as if they lose all logic and common sense when threatened by something they cannot put into context.

It's also kind of funny that I never really mentioned this to anyone other than a few people because I didn't think much of it, that is I thought so what?, it is a simple device which extracts small amounts energy from the environment ... so what?. Then I see people here having a hissy-fit at the very notion and running in circles screaming the sky is falling the sky is falling. If there is a reason any rational and professional person should stay clear of these forums I believe this would be it. I once heard you say you were looking for a more professional atmosphere, did you have any luck? and could you PM me if you have?.
I have been in this forum for about a year now and can say with a fair amount of certainty that most here seem bound and determined to fail.

AC


---------------------------
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
...
Anyone can plainly see we are immersed in a dynamic world of continuous motion on various levels and this energy is free
...

Naturally. For example E=mc2. Yes it's free. And now, what?
I don't see the interest of dicussions about banalities.

   
Group: Guest
At the PESN thread, Dansie said it would continue to operate for "20 years plus".  If true, doesn't look like an electret to me..........

Dansie's remarks and demo are appreciated -- and intriguing.

20 years for a functioning electret is very good but not impossible. Think of it as the electric form of a permanent magnet. You can't get free energy from those either.

Folks should experiment with them. I have an electret microphone that is at least 30 years old. It still works just fine. Unlike some beliefs, the internal charge (actually just polarization - I understand a difference between polarization and charge) of an electret does not dissipate in a short amount of time, regardless of how many times it is used to gather charge from the environment. There is no useable energy in the electret. Just like a magnet, energy must be applied (movement, connection, etc.) to make use of it.

If I use a conventional DMM to measure the charge of my microphone I also get a rising voltage. The problem is that if you leave it connected, that measured potential starts dropping after a time. The energy measured (read as potential) is probably the energy of shorting and unshorting the terminals.
Notice the meter used in the video..... I believe that one has a rather high input impedance.

Regardless, I am also impressed with the device.

This may wind up being an improvement over current solid-state energy harvesters.



   
Group: Guest
Naturally. For example E=mc2. Yes it's free. And now, what?
I don't see the interest of dicussions about banalities.



The way I see it mc2 is just kinetic energy.  It's hard to say that ambient is not dynamic. 

   
Group: Guest
I have seen the disc in person. Mark handed it over to me so i could have a quick look.
You can short the disc, but it gets its charge back in an instance.
All i know is that the materials are very expensive.
The claims are real.
Too bad that its not my disc ;-)

To comment on the vacuum claim, you can ask yourself if there is movement of electrons there.
If so, then there is energy.

Steve
   
Group: Guest
The way I see it mc2 is just kinetic energy.  It's hard to say that ambient is not dynamic.  

It is enough to say that there is energy everywhere. We don't care that there is energy everywhere.
The real questions are:
- Are the known ambient energies enough for our needs? The answer is: no.
- Are there other possible ambient energies that are extractable and more powerful? The answer is: nobody knows, or nobody knows how.

   
Group: Guest
...
The claims are real.
Too bad that its not my disc ;-)
...

What is real? What are the factual proofs that the disc would be revolutionary compared to a lithium battery of same size?

   
Group: Guest

- Are there other possible ambient energies that are extractable and more powerful? The answer is: nobody knows, or nobody knows how.



You are only correct if the big claimants like SM, TK, DS,... are liars.  We do not have proof that they are liars.  We do have evident that they are lying by not being able to replicate their devices.  However, that evident is too weak to constitute a proof.  On the other hands, we also have evident for OU with measurements.  However, that evident is also too weak to constitute a proof. 

You are left with two choices:  Try hard to prove that they are lying or try hard to prove OU.  It's just personal reference really. 

   
Pages: 1 [2]
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-06-21, 03:00:41