PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2022-01-24, 06:56:04
News: If you have a suggestion or need for a new board title, please PM the Admins.
Please remember to keep topics and posts of the FE or casual nature. :)

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Author Topic: 6 KW Free Energy Generator?  (Read 62135 times)
Group: Guest
AC:

I agree that they can't explain exactly how gravity works, but the effects of gravity are understood.  F = G.M1.M2/r^2.  Then you can use calculus to calculate the gravity field from a sphere, etc.

So things fall but exactly why they fall and exactly why the value of G is 6.67 10^-11 N.m^2/kg^2 is still a mystery as far as I know.  It's the same thing for the impedance of free space, 376.73031 ohms.  I don't think they know precisely why it is that value.

No doubt there are mysteries out there.  But for me the issue is that just like the effects of gravity are understood, the energy dynamics of your typical magnetic motor or coil-based TPU are understood.

For your black box thought experiment, my first thought is a nuclear pile!  lol  But of course that wouldn't last forever.  But to be factious for a second, if you can imagine a black box that generates heat, somebody else can imagine pink elephants in the sky on alternate Wednesday mornings.

As far as the arrogance of being all-knowing goes, I think everybody is open to new ideas.  New things will be discovered, but it's highly unlikely that free energy will be discovered.  Not that you guys aren't trying.  Look at the example of the laser.  Go back to 1940, and I doubt the concept even existed.  I think the first lasers were developed around 1960.  In our present time there must be thousands and thousands of applications for lasers.  But the key thing is they are not "magic" - they are understood, they obey the laws of physics.

A great one is when the first Apollo astronauts put a mirrored prism array on the surface of the moon that always reflects light back in the same direction.  Then they bounced a laser off the array and measured the distance to the moon to within a few centimeters.  Also, the moon's orbital radius increases by about two (?) centimeters per year.

Cold fusion is certainly interesting.  I think Rossi announced a delay.  If he doesn't show a demonstration unit by the end of 2012 I would start to lose my hopes.  I understand the basic concepts but honestly I'm not convinced that bouncing hydrogen molecules around inside a lattice can generate the "energy of fusion" that the physicists say is necessary.  For that one I am certainly willing to be open-minded and see if he delivers.  But the "number crunching" in my head tells me that he must be many many orders of magnitude away from the energy levels required for fusion.  I just can't envision an agitated lattice managing to knock a hydrogen atom into another atom to create fusion.  My frame of reference is the other two systems, laser-based inertial confinement or the other magnetic bottle system.  The energy levels in those two systems are astronomical, because that's what the number crunching says, and it's confirmed by the stars.  I suppose time will tell for Rossi.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
Cheappower2012:

Quote
why would an engineer be so interested in a fake overunity device,check out hes business web site.Hes an electronic engineer like you.

Jack Durban was on shaky ground as I already stated and I listened to about 40% of the interview.  At that point he talks about the device possibly working because it interacts with the Schumann resonance and that it might also interfere with submarine communications.

That's where he falls off the deep end.  He makes reference to submarine communications because they use ultra low frequency radio communications to communicate with submerged submarines.  That's because of the skin effect of salt water.  So he is trying to draw in a hypothetical connection where similar principles apply but it doesn't matter.  At that point in the interview it's all over.

The Schumann resonance and the submarine stuff have nothing to do with the TPU and he is simply exploiting the free energy curiosity and folklore about it.

So the guy has no credibility and he is just playing the game.  I know that sounds harsh and you can see the gulf between how you interpret that interview and how I interpret that interview.  So it's your choice to believe me or not.

I will go back to listening now but my suspicions have been confirmed.

MileHigh
« Last Edit: 2011-09-03, 12:15:36 by MileHigh »
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3848


Buy me some coffee
Peterae:

I don't have the link handy but there is an excellent Walter Lewin MIT lecture where he goes though the whole explanation of the movement of the electron around the nucleus.  It's a really good lecture and if you know your basic physics you should be able to follow it.  He crunches the numbers.  The bottom line is the electron is in orbit around the nucleus just like the Earth is in orbit around the sun.

The energy in a vacuum stuff and quantum physics and theories about fleeting particles and anti-particles is out of my realm.

MileHigh
Thanks MH i will try googling it.

So do you know the source of the energy that keeps it moving, that's the important bit, considering that everything around us is using this energy source.

Every atom we have in our arsenal is already capable of using this already apparent endless energy, has anyone ever tried to estimate the amount of energy an electron uses to orbit the nucleus and then extrapolated this to a quantity in relation to every atom in the universe, or for matter of interest maybe the energy that's required for the earth to orbit the sun, i think we already can work out the energy needed to maintain orbit around the earth.

I wonder if the earths orbit around the sun slows everytime it hits an object.
And i wonder how much energy it took to start the earth orbiting the sun in the first place, if energy cannot be created then maybe there's a way of focusing the abundant energy in the solar system to a local point for collection.

My point is no one can say if a free energy device can be built or not until we know how the electron keeps orbiting a nucleus, i am not sure if you or scientists can fully answer this question.
Unless you can prove to me an electron does not use an infinite power source then i must assume free energy is already widely available and we are sourrounded by free energy devices already.
   
Group: Guest

It must be reckoned that there is no need of energy to maintain the movement of an object at constant speed in space, or to maintain the rotation of the earth, or to maintain the rotation of a satellite far around the earth...
Don't forget Newton's first law. Energy is only needed for changing the state of objects, for instance to accelerate them.
The constituents of atoms are in equilibrium with the medium (ZPF),  the conservation of linear and angular momentum applies, therefore there is no reason to think that the electrons should stop. Even if we don't know exactly how the atoms interact with the ZPF, the question of energy for maintaining the "rotation" of electrons is irrelevant. The electrons don't stop because there is no force to stop them. Energy would be needed to stop them, not to let them rotate.


   
Group: Guest
Peterae:

Exnihiloest is right.  In overly simple terms both the Earth and an the electron are in free fall about a nucleus, and both are in a vacuum.  They both are examples of circular motion because of centripetal force.  No energy is consumed or provided to the system to maintain this state of affairs.

In theory the Earth's orbit around the sun slows or speeds up every time it hits an object.  It's arguably an energy-neutral process.  But even if you considered it to be energy-draining, often effects like this are so small that the sun will gobble up the Earth before they are noticeable.

Going back for a second to Cheappower's reference to the radio interview with Jack Durban, it's like a form of a Turing test for me.  Even with Sterling Allen conducting the interview, Jack Durban couldn't keep up the facade for the entire duration of the interview and he failed the Turing test.  A heart-breaker!

MileHigh
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3848


Buy me some coffee
OK guys i acept that  O0 thankyou
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1446
Frequency equals matter...


Buy me a drink
Vacuum is a relative measurement. Magnetic fields permiate through a vacuum and what are they interacting with?


---------------------------
   
Group: Guest
@milehigh "professional skeptic" means to me that you don't believe something without hard proof or if it appears to violate some scientific law. A good friend of mine is like you in that respect,the answer you gave that SM and Jack Durban were  working together in a scam is the same answer he gave, remember too that SM is gay as relates to the phone message .Just for your information the video's date is from 1997 and 1998,crappy video's were posted I believe 2006,except for these video's we would not know SM from Adam.Jack Durban,when he came to overunity.com, posted a hi resolution video that he copied in secret at the time.Jack Durban didn't have a clue how it worked,"Schumann resonance ",as the explanation is just silly,or a members explanation that it channels the energy from the high voltage lines(magnetic fields) that run across the top of mansion where the video was recorded,that's insane. This same member went to that mansion in person,very funny stuff,Stefan(overunity.com) wanted him to knock on the door and ask if they knew SM.I suggested this radio program because it covers a lot of things,I don't expect you to believe any of it,I believe very little of it. Keep in mine that the video's are from 1997 to 1998 at that time battery technology was not what it is now,I have built almost every version of the tpu's ,(fake of course )to test whether you can fake it,only 2 are easy to fake the others are not .The others are hard to or impossible to do with what you could get at that time its one thing to video something to pull a con its another thing with people around you.This doesn't mean that its not a fake .The overunity.com members,some here, made one big mistake they believed every lie SM told them I started from the assumption that everything SM said is a lie,and hes goal is to make sure you never figure out how to build a tpu,so everything is checked. What SM told them is to make a big coil wound with smaller coils and fed 3 different frequencies to create a rotating magnetic field,totally silly.They all drank the koolaid and still do,even some every very smart guys believe this.I'm including pictures of some of my old stuff I have , pic #10,4 inch tpu,was made to test wattsup's theory that some tpu's were fake this is not that tpu, however I went thru and discovered that this one also was fake.Pic #20 is this fake tpu lighting a 100 watt bulb,real bulb. Pic#30 is a conceptional model to form a common operation model between different TPU's,this type was used in a video,he activated it by moving the speaker magnet around the back I label the areas where different functions happen,it works and will light a,light bulb.The tpu is worthy in my opinion to investigate far more than something from say, ring master bedini which we know is 100% fake. Milehigh you could be right the tpu could be fake,but you also could be wrong on this one, time will tell.
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3848


Buy me some coffee
When it comes to the crunch all we need is a working device to prove to these guys it's possible, now that shouldn't be hard should it  C.C

OK back to the bench.
   
Group: Guest
Thanks MH i will try googling it.

So do you know the source of the energy that keeps it moving, that's the important bit, considering that everything around us is using this energy source.

Every atom we have in our arsenal is already capable of using this already apparent endless energy, has anyone ever tried to estimate the amount of energy an electron uses to orbit the nucleus and then extrapolated this to a quantity in relation to every atom in the universe, or for matter of interest maybe the energy that's required for the earth to orbit the sun, i think we already can work out the energy needed to maintain orbit around the earth.

I wonder if the earths orbit around the sun slows everytime it hits an object.
And i wonder how much energy it took to start the earth orbiting the sun in the first place, if energy cannot be created then maybe there's a way of focusing the abundant energy in the solar system to a local point for collection.

My point is no one can say if a free energy device can be built or not until we know how the electron keeps orbiting a nucleus, i am not sure if you or scientists can fully answer this question.
Unless you can prove to me an electron does not use an infinite power source then i must assume free energy is already widely available and we are sourrounded by free energy devices already.


Dear Peterae,

I am glad that you also believe in electron motion energy.  We can treat the orbits as levels.  When electrons jump from one level to another, they absorb or emit energy.  That is the theory behind the Laser.

Now I have some basic test equipment in USA.  Some preliminary results are shown on my bench at:

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=588.msg16587#msg16587

reply 30

After the second Atten Oscilloscope arrive (within 4 weeks), I shall be able to improve on the tuning technique.  I believe that we can more conclusively show that multiple LCR resonance can bring-in energy from the surrounding.  The bring-in energy is indeed the electron motion energy of the orbiting electrons.

Divine Revelations will again be confirmed.  Amen
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1446
Frequency equals matter...


Buy me a drink
In reference to the SM17. There are 2 directional loop antennas, one facing up and one facing down. These pickup the ambient noise of the Environment. They are then amplified and fed back into the third and middle loop. SM chose the 5khz range as band width thereby limiting the interaction. Notice the large caps with the low turn loops.
This model gives a platform which adheres to SM's descriptions based upon what he could or could not say.
The two frequency switches could be any number of closure points, just diversionarily labeled or not.
The only plausible explanation for the center toroid thing is voice coil drivers. They work with 2 ohm speakers, or low turn count coils.
The open source distribution model has been talked about many times. There are enough people here to pick this apart and take a section to test. Everybody has done everything else to no avail. Pull your heads out of your arses and books put your heads together. It doesn't matter we know as individuals to hold aires about it. This is why we fail and have wars. My previous builds tested the facets of the tpu. My real job does not permit me to do any more nor does my surban domicile.
The youtubes i made showing the megahertz resonation during the off cycle of the square waves shows the one artifact that nobody has bothered to pursue. Why? What else is there? Has any build tapped this? Is this not something from nothing? Resonation of a magnetic field as it collapses. What direction are the vectors? It happens on the off pulse. As SM stated 'Cancel the flux', and 'weak magnetic field'.
More peanut gallery explanations are not necessary at this point. We have said all there is to say ad nauseum.

I am taking note  of what itseung8 is doing. He is on the correct path of electron motion energy. This is a better term than 'jacking the field'.
« Last Edit: 2011-09-03, 17:31:56 by giantkiller »


---------------------------
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 805
@cheappower2012
Quote
...or a members explanation that it channels the energy from the high voltage lines(magnetic fields) that run across the top of mansion where the video was recorded,that's insane. This same member went to that mansion in person,very funny stuff...

 :o  ;D  8)



@GK
Quote
I am taking note  of what itseung8 is doing.

Me too, but he needs to be more scientific about it.   Those resonators put out sound with higher directional energy along their open end axis, so it matters where the microphone is placed and how close.   All that aside,  the sound energy decays more rapidly inside a single resonator than when it's surrounded by other resonators that reflect some of the energy back.  This is well known.  And by the way the energy does not come from some exotic "electron spin" but from him striking the forks with the little hammer.  He also needs to remove the uncertainty of initial power input, and change the fork striking mechanism (striking it by hand is not too repeatable and controllable)  And lastly,  measuring how long the sound lasts, is not a measure of energy creation, just how high the Q of the setup is.  He does not do a power in vs a power out measurement, because he can't.  It's quite complicated, how would you account for all the sound energy that radiated away?   Maybe do this experiment in an anechoic chamber and have lots of microphones around a sphere and than do lots of math to compute the energy that radiated away.   This is what I've done with antennas, it's called near field scanning.    Tesung talks scientific, but I'm not fooled.




@exnihiloest
Quote
It must be reckoned that there is no need of energy to maintain the movement of an object at constant speed in space, or to maintain the rotation of the earth, or to maintain the rotation of a satellite far around the earth...
Don't forget Newton's first law. Energy is only needed for changing the state of objects, for instance to accelerate them.
The constituents of atoms are in equilibrium with the medium (ZPF),  the conservation of linear and angular momentum applies, therefore there is no reason to think that the electrons should stop. Even if we don't know exactly how the atoms interact with the ZPF, the question of energy for maintaining the "rotation" of electrons is irrelevant. The electrons don't stop because there is no force to stop them. Energy would be needed to stop them, not to let them rotate.

I have news for you,   electrons orbiting the nucleus would stop rotating if there were no energy input from the outside.  This is not  similar to a satellite rotating around the earth, like you ignorantly believe.   Can you guess why?    It's called RADIATION.   Electrons are charges under acceleration, and acceleration of charges gives off radiation and energy.   If the temperature drops to obsolete zero all electron motion stops.  It's the temperature and the energy around us that "keeps us going and going!"
« Last Edit: 2011-09-03, 18:08:07 by EMdevices »
   
Group: Guest
Giantkiller:

Quote
They are then amplified and fed back into the third and middle loop.

Amplified by what?

Quote
The youtubes i made showing the megahertz resonation during the off cycle of the square waves shows the one artifact that nobody has bothered to pursue. Why? What else is there? Has any build tapped this? Is this not something from nothing?

The square waves by definition have megahertz frequencies in them.  If something in your setup could resonate in the megahertz range, then it makes sense that the square waves could have done this.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest

@GK On Ltseung888 work:

Me too, but he needs to be more scientific about it.   Those resonators put out sound with higher directional energy along their open end axis, so it matters where the microphone is placed and how close.   All that aside,  the sound energy decays more rapidly inside a single resonator than when it's surrounded by other resonators that reflect some of the energy back.  This is well known.  And by the way the energy does not come from some exotic "electron spin" but from him striking the forks with the little hammer.  He also needs to remove the uncertainty of initial power input, and change the fork striking mechanism (striking it by hand is not too repeatable and controllable)  And lastly,  measuring how long the sound lasts, is not a measure of energy creation, just how high the Q of the setup is.  He does not do a power in vs a power out measurement, because he can't.  It's quite complicated, how would you account for all the sound energy that radiated away?   Maybe do this experiment in an anechoic chamber and have lots of microphones around a sphere and than do lots of math to compute the energy that radiated away.   This is what I've done with antennas, it's called near field scanning.    Tesung talks scientific, but I'm not fooled.


 

Dear EMDevices,

You should look at the slides using the constant sound source carefully.  A speaker was connected to the signal generator and a microphone was used to pick up the sound. The amplitude of the constant sound was displayed via the Winscope program. (slide 14 and 15 of Aug Summary)

The comparison was done with the speaker alone and when a resonance box was brought appropriately close to the speaker (1/4 wavelength).  The increase in amplitude was marked by the two white arrows.  This is the visual confirmation with a constant sound.  The increase in loudness of the sound could be heard by every one in the room.  (It is a slight variation of the tuning fork with a resonance tube experiment.  There was negligible change if the distance was different.)

With the above set up, I did not have to worry about the differences in the striking force.  The sound is much louder in all parts of the room.  I do not need to worry about the exact position of the microphone.

The scientific question is – a passive element (resonance box) helped to produce a much louder sound.  Where does the extra energy come from???

The experiment is easy to repeat and there is no need to strike the tuning fork.

Divine Revelation 1 cannot be wrong.  There is extra sound energy when the resonance box is placed appropriately close to the constant sound source.
« Last Edit: 2011-09-04, 03:54:41 by ltseung888 »
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3055
...

The scientific question is – a passive element (resonance box) helped to produce a much louder sound.  Where does the extra energy come from???
...

Could it be an effect similar to this old
device?

It was said:

335 BC Bull Horn or stentorophonic tube.
Alexander the Great used one and could
communicate 12 miles.


---------------------------
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: 805
@ ltseung888


Using a "constant" source is a step in the right direction.  Very good.   Now,  why don't you also measure the voltage and current input to the speaker?    You will find that those values change when you place a resonator in the room.    The louder sound produced by the resonator is not free energy out of nothing, it comes from the sound source, or speaker, and builds up over a few periods of the pure tone.  The energy built up in the resonator than also interacts with the speaker and changes it's input impedance.  It would be nice if they were decoupled but they are not.   I deal with this all the time, but in the electromagnetic domain, for example in phased arrays the impedance of each element is different when by itself than when placed in the array.

   
Group: Guest
@ ltseung888


Using a "constant" source is a step in the right direction.  Very good.   Now,  why don't you also measure the voltage and current input to the speaker?    You will find that those values change when you place a resonator in the room.    The louder sound produced by the resonator is not free energy out of nothing, it comes from the sound source, or speaker, and builds up over a few periods of the pure tone.  The energy built up in the resonator than also interacts with the speaker and changes it's input impedance.  It would be nice if they were decoupled but they are not.   I deal with this all the time, but in the electromagnetic domain, for example in phased arrays the impedance of each element is different when by itself than when placed in the array.



We can let the sound last for hours.  The suggestion that the much louder sound comes from the building up of some initial condition does not seem correct scientifically.

Furthermore, 2, 3, 4 resonance boxes placed appropriately will increase the loudness of the sound.  I guess that more may produce the same effect but I shall stick to 4 as I have 4 in my possession.  The experiment can be repeated easily.

Is the suggestion that energy from the air molecules are led-out or brought-in reasonable?

Please study the spreadsheet at the debate thread with MileHigh at my bench.  Both theory and experiments checked out.

I believe you may have a signal generator and an oscilloscope.  The other electronic components are relatively cheap.  Please repeat the above experiment for yourself and for the World.

With the right equipment, any scientific challenge will be met.  Divine Revelation 1 cannot be wrong.


   
Group: Guest
...
@exnihiloest
I have news for you,   electrons orbiting the nucleus would stop rotating if there were no energy input from the outside.
...

It's not news! Your news date of a century. You give a false answer to a true question which was brilliantly answered by Bohr in 1913!  :)

Rotation means centripetal acceleration and accelerating charges means radiation therefore expense of energy. This is one of the points that disqualified classical mechanics to explain the atom stability. On this point you are right that my comparison was approximate but it was made in the Peterae's post context of an electron viewed as an orbiting object.
Now, we know it is not simply the case, and it is the reason why I said what you should have read more carefully: "the constituents of atoms are in equilibrium with the medium (ZPF)". I have not said that "there were no energy input from the outside", I said that the electron radiates as much as it receives, but it is not the real point.
It is well known that this question was brilliantly answered by Bohr. An electron is also a wave, its stability needs the orbit length to be an integer multiple of the wave length in order to maintain constructive interferences. The stability comes from standing waves, not from energy from outside.
The consequence has been the quantization of the electronic orbits, perfectly verified by the precise rays in the spectrum of radiations from electrons changing their orbit. Bohr's answer worked perfectly to explain hydrogen atom and it had to be clarified for atoms with more than 1 electron (Sommerfeld's work).

If you affirmed that the electron needs energy to maintain its orbit, you would need to discard discrete electronic orbits, to discard Bohr's atomic model, to discard quantum mechanics, so you could not even speak about electron or orbit. The problem with physics is that every field is logically interconnected with all others and you can't take and reject at will this or that, especially crucial points, without having all the matter of each field to rebuild from a to z.


   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
@exnihiloest
Quote
It is well known that this question was brilliantly answered by Bohr. An electron is also a wave, its stability needs the orbit length to be an integer multiple of the wave length in order to maintain constructive interferences. The stability comes from standing waves, not from energy from outside.
The consequence has been the quantization of the electronic orbits, perfectly verified by the precise rays in the spectrum of radiations from electrons changing their orbit. Bohr's answer worked perfectly to explain hydrogen atom and it had to be clarified for atoms with more than 1 electron (Sommerfeld's work).

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


---------------------------
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
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.

 :) ;) :D ;D

(I'm not laughing at you. I'm laughing at a prime example of self fullfilling logic that is the basis for all of our sciences today   >:-))
   
Group: Guest
@ ltseung888


Using a "constant" source is a step in the right direction.  Very good.   Now,  why don't you also measure the voltage and current input to the speaker?    You will find that those values change when you place a resonator in the room.   The louder sound produced by the resonator is not free energy out of nothing, it comes from the sound source, or speaker, and builds up over a few periods of the pure tone.  The energy built up in the resonator than also interacts with the speaker and changes it's input impedance.  It would be nice if they were decoupled but they are not.   I deal with this all the time, but in the electromagnetic domain, for example in phased arrays the impedance of each element is different when by itself than when placed in the array.



Dear EMDevices,

I now measured the Input Voltage and Current to the speaker.  They hardly changed when I brought the resonance box to about ¼ wavelength distance.  The resulting sound was much louder.  

I know that I have the advantage of the experimental set up.  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.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 805
@ltesung888

I'm glad to see your implementing my suggestions, but implement them correctly please.  I don't see your AC current waveform in the diagram?   The phase between the current and voltage should change when you bring that resonator close to it.   Please do the experiment again and record what I suggested, maybe use a 0.5 ohm resistor in series with the speaker and scope the waveform across it.  If the phase angle between the voltage and current does not change, than maybe you have a point.


Oh, and by the way, the way you need to report BEFORE and AFTER changes, is with two oscilloscope graphs, one before and one after the resonator is brought close.  You are only showing me one graph on your slide above.

Also statements like:    "Input waveform hardly changed when Resonance box was brought close..."  need to be quantified.  What does HARDLY mean?  0.1 volt? 0.00001 volts?  If you want to do something scientific you need to pay attention to these kinds of suggestions.  Objective measurements is what's accepted by the scientific community not subjective impressions.

@exnihiloest
Quote
Rotation means centripetal acceleration and accelerating charges means radiation therefore expense of energy. This is one of the points that disqualified classical mechanics to explain the atom stability. On this point you are right that my comparison was approximate but it was made in the Peterae's post context of an electron viewed as an orbiting object.

I know you know your stuff, that's why I'm watching you like a hawk.    >:(     ;D  :D
« Last Edit: 2011-09-04, 17:34:00 by EMdevices »
   
Group: Guest
EMdevices is dead on about the speaker and measuring the power consumption.  When you put a resonator in front of the speaker you lower the impedance of the air medium that the speaker "sees."

Now the air medium draws more acoustic power from the speaker.  The speaker is simply acting like a transformer between electrical input power and acoustic output power.

So you should see an increase in the power draw from the speaker.  However, the power increase might be very small, and you might need a multimeter with five or six digits of precision after the decimal point.

Lawrence, if you hadn't considered the issue of the impedance of the air "load" as seen by the speaker, this should be investigated.  In technical terms the whole system is a "filter" and as a result it could be mathematically modeled and you could run simulations.

Like many experimenters, you bump into observations that are difficult to explain unless you have a deeper understanding about the electrical and mechanical systems that are at play.

You can't get excess energy from air molecules or Joule Thieves.  In addition, the Joule Thief was never promoted as being an over unity device.  It was simply promoted as a device that could extract the last bits of juice from a nearly dead battery.  People discovered that it could also light long strings of LEDs in series and got a bit carried away.

MileHigh

P.S.:  EMdevices, you mentioned the phase angle also which I hadn't considered.  I'm not sure how you could make a decent input power measurement for a speaker if you don't have a DSO.  I guess you need to make as accurate as possible measurements of the voltage waveform, the current waveform, and the phase angle.  It's an interesting problem.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 805
thanks for backing me up, MileHigh.  O0    

[edit: ]  I hope you know this is risky because the next slide from ltesung888 is going to read:  

 EMDevices AND MileHigh are WRONG!    ;D  :D



looks like RomeroUK is back,   hey dude, where have you been?      ;D  :D
   
Group: Guest
Okay, just for fun, the measurement issue.  How do you measure very slight changes to the electrical power going into a speaker?  Assume you have an amp, a speaker, and sinusoidal waveform from a signal generator to work with.  You have the usual bench equipment but no DSO.

I am going to guess that there are better ways than my suggestion but here goes:

You put a current sensing resistor in the speaker wire.  You measure your AC voltage to the speaker and your AC voltage across the CSR with your best multimeter.  You can also "trick" your scope and offset the waveform and increase the scope gain to detect small increases in voltage also.

Then the tough part is the phase angle.  You can eyeball the zero crossings on your scope or put it into X-Y mode.

If you have some kind of timer circuit and connected the voltage and current waveforms to comparator circuits then you could make a very precise measurement of the phase angle.

That suggests a neat breadboard design.  You can probably buy 10-bit digital counter chips.  So you cascade two 10-bit counters to make a 20-bit counter.  Suppose you use a one-megahertz crystal oscillator to clock the counter.  Assume the counter has three inputs, "start count," "stop count," and "clear."

So you make your own digital timer with a resolution of one microsecond.  It's just a few chips on a breadboard and 20 LEDs to give you the count.  Then you would be in a position to make an extremely accurate measurement of the phase angle.

So with a basic bench setup and your home-brew digital timing device you would have all you need to make the before and after speaker input power measurements for Lawrence's experiment.

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


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2022-01-24, 06:56:04