PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2021-10-19, 20:04:17
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]
Author Topic: What do you consider to be OU.  (Read 44911 times)
Group: Guest
I wonder if a solar tracking system for pv arrays  would meet the criteria  for  an overunity device ?
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 805
@ION
Quote
he device looks to be about 2x2 by 1/2 inch or 2 cubic inches of volume. There are 1728 cubic inches per cubic foot so we could pack 864 of these per cubic foot. This would mean we have 43.2 watts-Hrs per cubic foot radiated power density if it were real.

It doesn't work like that, we can not pack the receivers too close to each other because they interfere and detune.  I showed this in my wireless power videos from a few years ago.

This "invention" or project is nothing new.  There's been a product out there for a while, and probably not just one.

I'm actually working on a concept to coherently tune a few receivers in close proximity, to the same frequency!  

As I move individual modular receivers closer to an aggregate of receivers, like tiles in a grid, I can scale my antenna aperture, without detuning every module.  It's adaptable!

EM

PS,  that students energy harvester probably has a tuned coil for the low frequency fields and he is just coupling magnetically and in close proximity to them.  For the wifi and cellular phone frequencies, he uses an antenna.  

PS.   Ok, it's time for an antenna and radiated fields discussion again!

The time average power flow density flowing through space or anywhere, is given by 1/2 Re(ExH), where E and H are the electric and magnetic field vectors, respectively.  The ratio of they magnitude, E/H = 377 ohms in free space.  That is,  free space has a characteristic impedance of 377 ohms.  

Now, an antenna has an effective aperture, which is not necessarily the same as its size and its determined by how well it is tuned.  For example, a tuned coil can have an effective aperture 1000's of times larger then its physical size.  

To determine how much power can be received, multiply the effective aperture area of the antenna times the average power density of the electromagnetic fields.   That's it, very easy and straight forward!  (except figuring out your antennas effective aperture  LOL)

EM
   
Group: Guest
Probably out of place here, so if anyone feels the urge to post it as a new topic in a more appropriate place, please do so. Anyway, what I found interesting is the mention of recharging the stretchy battery wirelessly:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21585817
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2878
I suggest the following modifications:


delta energy = sum(energy outputs) - sum(energy inputs from currently WELL-KNOWN and TAPPED sources) + final stored energy - initial stored energy
A novel energy device is one for which the delta-energy >1, indicating the presence of a little-known OR un-tapped energy source.  [Definition 1]

100 years ago, NUCLEAR energy was untapped and would have fit into the definition AT THAT TIME.  Not anymore.  

Cold fusion or cold nuclear transformation (as examples) are untapped and essentially unknown and would fit into the definition.

An alternative approach to defining OU  --

Eoutput/Einput > 1, such that the Law of Conservation of energy is violated.  [Definition 2]

Actually, this [2] is how some colleagues of mine (scientists) PREFER to twist my definition of ou (above,[1]) -- but then they mock ou saying that the law of conservation of energy cannot be violated.  Such also like to refer to "ou" as "perpetual motion" implying a violation of the laws of thermodynamics [sigh].

 Rather, I'm looking for
Quote
A novel energy device -- one for which the delta-energy >1, indicating the presence of a little-known or un-tapped energy source
.
« Last Edit: 2013-02-27, 18:31:52 by PhysicsProf »
   
Group: Guest
I personally don't believe in "OU".  I don't believe that we can break the established laws of physics and tap heretofore unavailable energy.
I believe in unity. One.  In higher efficiency. In  how we can be less wasteful and make our machines more efficient. 
I believe we can utilize back torque to make our electrical generators more efficient.  Is that OU?
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 555
I personally don't believe in "OU".  I don't believe that we can break the established laws of physics and tap heretofore unavailable energy.
I believe in unity. One.  In higher efficiency. In  how we can be less wasteful and make our machines more efficient. 
I believe we can utilize back torque to make our electrical generators more efficient.  Is that OU?

Hi GFT,
I think most of us here feel the same way, but I think you are missing the point Physics Professor was making, that what we are looking for is a new unknown and untapped source of energy.  In the beginning it would appear to be over unity or perpetual motion but just until we learn what the source of the extra energy really is.
Welcome aboard.


---------------------------
"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]
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2021-10-19, 20:04:17