PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2021-12-05, 20:25:20
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: 6 KW Free Energy Generator?  (Read 61661 times)
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 520
Isn't a speaker also a microphone?

wattsup


---------------------------
   
Group: Guest
Yes indeed.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 805
yes it is, which is why the louder sound in the air also affects it and as a result the phase angle between the voltage and current change.   Tesung apparently does not understand these concepts and how critical they are to power measurements.  I say this because I saw how he dealt with the Joule Thief circuits in calculating the power in vs. power out.  Total disregard for phase, I was just appalled!


To further discussion, a speaker's impedance can be approximated by something like:   Z = R + j wL,   so when a pure sinusoid waveform drives the speaker, we can tell right away the current will not be in phase with the voltage.   However, if we bring a resonator into the mix,  than we know that at resonance the angle between the current and voltage begins to shift towards zero, and maximum power flow is achieved.    Tesung is under the impression that the loud sound from the resonator has nothing to do with the input, and he is in for a surprise.   If there was no coupling between the speaker and resonator than indeed we can surmise that maybe we can amplify energy, but sadly that is not the case, or it better not be, or I might have to go back to school and relearn everything.   LOL   ;D    



PS.    Lawrence,   here's what you should strive for in your next experiment.   Obtain two oscilloscope screen shots, a BEFORE and an AFTER.   I want to see the phase difference between the voltage and the current into the speaker for both scenarios, before and after you add the resonator.    You can not just look at magnitudes, because the magnitudes most likely stay the same and only the phase changes.
« Last Edit: 2011-09-04, 20:21:07 by EMdevices »
   
Group: Guest
For most experimenters the difficulty of performing scientific and useable measurements is nothing compared to learning 'loudness' alone can't be used as an indication of power.

The common result is the loudness will be heard but the measurements don't line up with what is heard. Then the measurements or equipment is doubted.

I have no doubt an increase in loudness has been perceived. Unfortunately, that means almost nothing unless you are using it to tune something.

   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 520
PS.    Lawrence,   here's what you should strive for in your next experiment.   Obtain two oscilloscope screen shots, a BEFORE and an AFTER.   I want to see the phase difference between the voltage and the current into the speaker for both scenarios, before and after you add the resonator.    You can not just look at magnitudes, because the magnitudes most likely stay the same and only the phase changes.

Maybe consider doing the above in a sound proof room with sound absorbing surfaces.

But since you have a speaker and a microphone, you may consider doing some work with feedback that in my view has more potential for OU, or, at the least, you are all set up for Karaoke night.

wattsup


---------------------------
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3047
The loudspeaker is inherently a low impedance device
and a very inefficient transducer which is little affected
by acoustic reflections from nearby objects at low power
levels.

Horns are effective impedance matching devices which
will increase the efficiency and acoustic power output.

It may be that the nearby resonant chambers are acting
as a pseudo horn and/or extended radiator surface which
magnifies the acoustic power.



---------------------------
For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
   
Group: Guest
I bet you some Arduino code already exists to make it function as a timer.  Again, there are hardware timers built into almost any microcontroller.  All that you need is the code and to get the list of I/O pins that are being used for the counter function.  The code is ridiculously simple, you just trigger a read cycle with an interrupt when the "stop count" signal goes true and read the value in the timer registers.

Code on the Arduino or code on the host computer could convert the binary count into microseconds.  More importantly, you could run the phase angle timing test for 1000 cycles and then average it out and then spit out a very accurate time measurement.  The more I think about it, you actually have to do that.  You have to average out some inherent "timing jitter" factors associated with the triggering of the comparators.

Anyway, the more I think about it, the Arduino could make for a nifty digital assistant when you work with pulse motors.  Of course there is the code that ZeroFossilFuel has to control the timing of the pulsing which is incredibly useful.  If you can make the Arduino do something simple like this with one day or less of coding, then I think it would be awesome.  I think that's very doable also.

In another life I wrote some machine language, 6502, 8080 and 80x86.  Here is the mark of a true engineer:  If you had a Commodore64 or dare I say it, a Vic-20, you could write a cool little random self destruct program which was much fun.  The first 1024 addresses in the address space were reserved by the operating system for all of the variables and stuff like that.  I am pretty sure that all of the hardware registers for the graphics and everything else where also in that space.

So you wrote a small Basic program using the RND() function, the random number generator.   You generated a random number between 0 and 1024 for the address, and you generated a random number between 0 and 255 to "poke" into that address location.  Then the program looped back to do the same thing all over again.

When you ran this program you just sat back and watched the computer undergo spasms and have a seizure!  lol  The display would go crazy and it might make random sounds and sometimes the display buffer got mapped to the same 1K address space that the operating system and hardware registers used and you got a psychedelic display.  The poor computer would keep sticking pins into itself until it locked up and died.  It was fun!

MileHigh

   
Group: Guest
The relevant guts that are in the micrcocontroller that the Arduino uses taken from Wikipedia:

Quote
Multifunction, bi-directional general-purpose I/O ports with configurable, built-in pull-up resistors

Internal SRAM up to 16 kB (32 kB on XMega)

8-bit and 16-bit timers
    PWM output (some devices have an enhanced PWM peripheral which includes a dead-time generator)
    Input capture

Analog comparator

10 or 12-bit A/D converters, with multiplex of up to 16 channels

12-bit D/A converters

Lighting and motor control (PWM-specific) controller models

LCD controller support

Low-voltage devices operating down to 1.8 V (to 0.7 V for parts with built-in DC–DC upconverter)

Too good to be true!!!!  You could go nuts if you are a pulse motor enthusiast and you wanted to leverage the power of the Arduino board in your testing!!!
   
Group: Guest
Please make constructive suggestions as the above and I shall try my best to confirm any assumptions or suggestion with the experimental set up.

Thank you for the suggestion.  We all learn something even if the suggestion turned out to be wrong.

Scientific suggestions can be verified by appropriate experiments.


My first suggestion is to have a proper control for every element of your experiment.
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3844


Buy me some coffee
MH
Those were the days, when i was 14 i was programming the commadore pet with 6502  :)
I was trained in Z80 but learnt most 6809, 8080, etc

I love pic's they have everything that's needed including comparators, 10 bit A/D's timers etc.

Take a look at this little beauty it's only 8 pins
http://www.microchip.com/wwwproducts/Devices.aspx?dDocName=en549758
   
Group: Guest
@exnihiloest
That is a brilliant answer and we can use it in everday life as well, for instance if I had a chicken which always sat in it's pen then all of a sudden this chicken decided to miraculously start flying in circles well then I would just call my chicken a Duck. A chicken is also a duck, as well it is known that the electron is made of smaller particles which magically pop in and out of existence therefore we could simply say my chicken is also a duck however when it is sitting, or a chicken, it is made of pigeons which magically pop in and out of existence. It all makes perfect sense when we really think about it and it is a good thing there are so many smart people to find these answers for us.

Regards
AC


By considering among other things the atom according to the Bohrl model, which follows from Maxwell's electromagnetism and mechanics laws, compatible with relativity and giving birth to quantum mechanics, the human kind got the basis of a tremendous and consistant knowledge that allows the technology to produce the pieces that allcanadian and all of us use every day: electricity coming from alternators whose rotation is obtained from nuclear, hydroelectric dam or oil energy, cell-phone communications, electronics of PC for posting here, cars with GPS giving the exact position thanks to general relativity, TV from geostationary satellites at 36000 km from the earth and so on...

For those who are not ignorant of this tremendous and consistant knowledge, there is no mystery but only causes and effects logically related, with theoretical models fitting rather well what we observe in our universe. This is the reason why our technology works so well.

Those who are ignorant of this tremendous and consistant knowledge see in it chickens, ducks or pigeons because they are not able to distinguish between them nor they are able to understand that a duck can transform into a pigeon, as nickel can transform into copper, or a magnetic field trnsform into an electric field depending on how we look at it: it is outside of the mind of farmers. For them, all these things are fuzzy birds.

Now what have these ignorants of science built on their side? Did they produce electricity, send satellites to the limit of the solar system, build radio transmitters? No, they work in farms, feed ducks, pigeons and other animals in order to feed other people including more intelligent people than them, as Bohr, and get benefits in return, for instance some technical means to light their chicken coop or to plow their fields.
So the world goes.
 
The problem comes when farmers decide to plow the fields of physicists without having studied what is known in physics. They wonder that something thought by them in the form of a "chicken" could also be a "duck". They wonder at all the things that defy their basic sense of farmer and so they make all the mistakes that the pioneers in physics already made before finding out the right solutions. A farmer not smart enough to understand that one does not make physicist's discoveries in a snap of a finger is like a physicist who would like become a farmer without solid notions in agriculture: he sows corn in winter and  never harvest anything. Did we reap a single FE device that works? We didn't, otherwise we would not be here to search for it.
There is a way to progress: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_giants
In the free energy field, the many dwarfs I see are not standing on the shoulders of giants, they despise them from the summit of the low level of their innate knowledge, they challenge math with gibberish, they are still convinced they are the giants!  ;D

« Last Edit: 2011-09-05, 14:53:54 by exnihiloest »
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2055
@exnihiloest
Quote
By considering among other things the atom according to the Bohrl model, which follows from Maxwell's electromagnetism and mechanics laws, compatible with relativity and giving birth to quantum mechanics, the human kind got the basis of a tremendous and consistant knowledge that allows the technology to produce the pieces that allcanadian and all of us use every day: electricity coming from alternators whose rotation is obtained from nuclear, hydroelectric dam or oil energy, cell-phone communications, electronics of PC for posting here, cars with GPS giving the exact position thanks to general relativity, TV from geostationary satellites at 36000 km from the earth and so on...

I think some clarification may be in order, first the electricity coming from the alternators you mention was not a result of any actions of Bohr, Maxwell nor Einsteins relativity but Nikola Tesla who invented the AC motors and generators which are used everywhere in this modern world and this man Nikola Tesla thought all the great men you have mentioned were peddling BS. As well it has been proven in the supreme court that Nikola Tesla was the inventor of "Radio" as well as having patented devices similar to transistors and in 1999 IBM tried to patent the logic gate a function of transistors fundamental to all digital electronics and low and behold IBM was denied their patents because one Nikola Tesla had prior art in his patents which predated IBM by some 50 years. So please get your facts straight and at the very least give credit to the people who invented real technology and not theorist who as we know seldom invent anything.

Quote
In the free energy field, the many dwarfs I see are not standing on the shoulders of giants, they despise them from the summit of the low level of their innate knowledge, they challenge math with gibberish, they are still convinced they are the giants!
I see it a little different, I see responsible adults who have decided they have a mind of their own and can think for themselves (not unlike your giants) and rather than watching others mindlessly following your giants without question they are asking--- "why"?. Children follow others without question not responsible adults and this is why the men you call giants had become giants in their fields in the first place-- because they did not blindly accept the theories of others. It's kind of funny how that works, almost all the people we call the greatest minds in history rejected the science of the time and you seem to be implying that we should just accept it, no I don't think so were past that nonsense.
Regards
AC
« Last Edit: 2011-09-06, 01:35:04 by allcanadian »


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

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   
Group: Guest
@exnihiloest
I think some clarification may be in order, first the electricity coming from the alternators you mention was not a result of any actions of Bohr, Maxwell nor Einsteins relativity but Nikola Tesla who invented the AC motors and generators
...

The pioneers in electricity were Ampère, Faraday, Coulomb, Biot, Savart, Helmholtz and so on... whose the discoveries were synthesized by Maxwell in his equations (Einstein relativity is another way to understand electrical phenomena, for instance to explain Ampère wires attraction).

An ac motor is an application of Faraday's law of induction dating 1831, well before Tesla. Tesla was a brilliant inventor. He was not a messiah. His work has been rendered possible because all the context of electromagnetism was established. For example the idea of winding coils to create magnetic fields in ac motors didn't pop out in his mind from nothing: this was already known. Coils and effects of varying magnetic fields were known. Tesla was standing on the shoulders of the pioneers and became himself a giant (in inventions, not in discoveries).

And when Tesla quitted the other giants, he failed. His idea of a longitudinal wave for explaining the coupling at long distance of big LC resonators was wrong. The effect is perfectly and more simply explained by Maxwell equations applied to circuits in near field.

Quote
I see it a little different, I see responsible adults who have decided they have a mind of their own and can think for themselves (not unlike your giants) and rather than watching others mindlessly following your giants
...

If "responsible adults" had decided they have a mind of their own, they wouldn't differ from the pioneers whom we were speaking about, and we would get the same useful results from their minds as from the minds of the pioneers. But we see nothing.
We see nothing because either their mind were too limited  in relation to their pretentious claim or more likely they have decided that they have innate knowledge, not a mind of their own! It's very different.
They have not to think, they have not to understand, they already know: Maxwell is wrong, Einstein is stupid, Bohr's model is a question of ducks and chickens, and so on!...   C.C
Tesla is not a giant for them, he is their God. Challenging his longitudinal wave is viewed by the bigots as a blaspheme (I experimented myself this situation); astonishing example of "different thinking". These "responsible adults" are much more likely unemancipated and tyrannic children lost in poor dreams.
 
Using a so-called "mind of their own" for wishful thinking is a terrible waste of gray matter! We are not yet surprised by the total lack of working inventions from this method.
Using a "mind of their own" doesn't mean to refuse conventional science which shown so many obvious proofs of its relevance, it means to understand it, to use it and to go beyond.

   
Group: Guest
I just wanted to say again Exnihiloest that you really know your theory.  It's very impressive.  I knew it in the sense that I sat through the classes and was able to follow along and understand.  I don't have the ability to use and apply academic knowledge like you can.  To do that I have to go back and relearn stuff, which I do very occasionally.  As you well know, when you finish school and go into the working world most people don't work in pure science, especially engineers.  You tend to forget the nitty-gritty details in the stuff you learned.  It's not too often you have to use matrix algebra on the job!  lol

You, on the other hand, do know all of the details, and as a result it's great to read your comments sometimes.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
Thanks for your remark, MileHigh. My method doesn't differ from yours. "I have [also] to go back and relearn stuff". After having experimented with the lifter, I enjoyed the experience. So I renewed with physics in 2002 (as hobby) after tens of years of activity in other fields. I had almost all forgotten. It was a very hard work for me to upgrade (4 years), and I didn't even touch the math formalism outside basic formulae, but only the principles. Now it's a bit easier to see the misinterpretations of known phenomena in overunity claims.
What I read from you is always very clear answers and relevant questions or objections. Purely logic and rational. I think its a good thing for a forum such ours. It's also a real pleasure to see some else writing what I would like to have wrote myself (and less tiring for me)!  :).

   
Group: Guest
Isn't a speaker also a microphone?

wattsup
Indeed, it is.  I knew someone who eavesdropped on his brother's conversation using a walkie-talkie wired to a television speaker in his brother's bedroom.  Surprised his brother no end!   :D   ;D   ^-^

--Lee
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2055
@exnihiloest
Quote
An ac motor is an application of Faraday's law of induction dating 1831, well before Tesla. Tesla was a brilliant inventor. He was not a messiah. His work has been rendered possible because all the context of electromagnetism was established. For example the idea of winding coils to create magnetic fields in ac motors didn't pop out in his mind from nothing: this was already known. Coils and effects of varying magnetic fields were known. Tesla was standing on the shoulders of the pioneers and became himself a giant (in inventions, not in discoveries).

If all the context of electromagnetism was established then I wonder why most all the modern science journals are littered with what is called "new phenomena" relating to electromagnetism?. I would agree with what you are saying however I would point out the difference between a person who says look the apple always falls from that tree and another person who understands why the apple falls to such an extent that they may prevent it from falling in the first place. While many great men in our past established a basic understanding of things this does not mean they understood everything nor how to apply their understanding to tangible things in new ways which help real people. I do not worship NikolaTesla it just seems odd that so many supposed experts just conveniently forget to mention his name when speaking of our modern grid or AC motors and generators but have no issue with dropping Edison's name every chance they get.

Quote
And when Tesla quitted the other giants, he failed. His idea of a longitudinal wave for explaining the coupling at long distance of big LC resonators was wrong. The effect is perfectly and more simply explained by Maxwell equations applied to circuits in near field.
That's debatable and I would remind you how many times in our past the popular opinion of something was later proven to be inaccurate, more people believing something does not make it more correct only more popular.

Quote
If "responsible adults" had decided they have a mind of their own, they wouldn't differ from the pioneers whom we were speaking about, and we would get the same useful results from their minds as from the minds of the pioneers. But we see nothing.
We see nothing because either their mind were too limited  in relation to their pretentious claim or more likely they have decided that they have innate knowledge, not a mind of their own! It's very different.
They have not to think, they have not to understand, they already know: Maxwell is wrong, Einstein is stupid, Bohr's model is a question of ducks and chickens, and so on!...   
Tesla is not a giant for them, he is their God. Challenging his longitudinal wave is viewed by the bigots as a blaspheme (I experimented myself this situation); astonishing example of "different thinking". These "responsible adults" are much more likely unemancipated and tyrannic children lost in poor dreams.
I hate to have to state the obvious but you seem completely infatuated with Nikola Tesla, he was a great but unpopular and underrated inventor in my opinion---- get over it and move on.

Quote
Using a so-called "mind of their own" for wishful thinking is a terrible waste of gray matter! We are not yet surprised by the total lack of working inventions from this method.
Using a "mind of their own" doesn't mean to refuse conventional science which shown so many obvious proofs of its relevance, it means to understand it, to use it and to go beyond.
The funny thing about wishful thinking is that sometimes wishes come true, for instance a long time ago a couple of uneducated bicycle repairmen had a dream to fly like a bird however the experts basically told then they were crazy as it should be obvious that something which is heavier than air could never fly -- it is obvious and intuitive. Now it wasn't so much that they were "crazy" it was just that they had a new and different perspective on what was at that time a very old problem. As well it was not so much the physics nor the math that was the issue as you have mentioned they were already established for the most part at the time. Here we should understand that physics and math and singular phenomena are not airplanes, they are not the same thing, and while science may predict why an airplane flies after the fact it can never predict that one must exist or not or the new science which may come about because it exists.
I was reading an article in Scientific American just last week on this issue whereby the author had developed a theorem proving that science and physics cannot predict technology nor the new science which may evolve from it for obvious reasons. You see science is a description of phenomena which occurs after the fact not before, it describes what our imagination has conceived which very well may be due to wishful thinking. Science does not and has never created one single technology, people create new technology which may lead to new understanding and new science. As such to imply that we can just remove people or their imagination or their wishful thinking from the equation goes against the spirit of what science is in my opinion.

Regards
AC


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

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   
Group: Guest
@exnihiloest
If all the context of electromagnetism was established then I wonder why most all the modern science journals are littered with what is called "new phenomena" relating to electromagnetism?

New phenomena don't mean "new principles". New phenomena in electromagnetism are generally new observations which can be still described by known fundamental laws. Or have you counter-examples?
 
...
Quote
While many great men in our past established a basic understanding of things this does not mean they understood everything nor how to apply their understanding to tangible things in new ways which help real people.
[...]
I would remind you how many times in our past the popular opinion of something was later proven to be inaccurate, more people believing something does not make it more correct only more popular.

The objection is irrelevant because the fact that a popular opinion of something can be later proven to be inaccurate doesn't imply that it is true in a particular case. Many popular opinions remain accurate. Only facts can prove they are not. We have not one fact proving Tesla could be right about energy transmission at a distance thanks to longitudinal waves.
 
Quote
The funny thing about wishful thinking is that sometimes wishes come true...

I don't deny it, I agree with you. But once again, it is not a rational argument. It just says: "among all things that can be thought, there can be some that could be true". This assertion is of no help in science. We deal with the physical reality. We need facts, we need observations. If we have no fact, we need at least hypothesis, testable in experiments.
When we have nothing else than pure imagination, providing we have brilliant ideas (which is not common in the free energy field), we can write Sci-Fi books as Jules Verne did. Some of our dreams can become reality, such Jules Verne's submarine, without knowing which in advance. It is a question of statistics. But our goal is not to produce a large amount of crazy ideas while hoping that other people in the future will build real products similar to our ideas, because our ideas are of no help for them in the building itself (otherwise we would have built ourself the machines). Our role is not to dream or let others dream, not to spread virtual technology that should work but don't, but to produce real machines according to a single dream: "free energy".
 
Quote
...
I was reading an article in Scientific American just last week on this issue whereby the author had developed a theorem proving that science and physics cannot predict technology nor the new science which may evolve from it for obvious reasons. You see science is a description of phenomena which occurs after the fact not before

I don't agree with your last assertion. Science comes not only from previous observations but also from hypothesis. Science has a power of prediction, and so can precede the facts. Naturally the facts must be verified.
For example, electromagnetic waves were predicted by Maxwell before the fact of their production and detection shown in experiments by Hertz.
I agree with you that science and physics cannot predict technology. But technology remains compatible with science (and technologies such electronics are directly by-products of physics). We have no technology that wouldn't work according to the known physics laws.
Therefore if we say that such wishful thinking about a hypothetic technology which obviously contradicts physics laws, can work, then we have to give facts and prove it by experiments. If the experiments confirms the predictions, either the technology is compatible with science in despite appearances or it implies new science: it is just a question of theory to adjust or create.
Unfortunately in the free energy field the most used method following from the wishful thinking consists in denying conventional science in advance ("Lenz's law doesn't apply"), then to show conventional experiments while misinterpreting the results to fit the previous assertion. Naturally if Lenz's law didn't work, we would get easily a perpetual machine, but nobody affirming "Lenz law doesn't apply", is able to present a perpetual machine. The wishful thinking is unable to move anything from virtual to real. It is a terrible waste of time for everybody.

   
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2021-12-05, 20:25:20