Notices
Results 1 to 30 of 30
Like Tree3Likes
  • 1 Post By George Moll
  • 1 Post By Pumblechook
  • 1 Post By Janus

Thread: Cheap Electricity with no fuel usage

  1. #1 Cheap Electricity with no fuel usage 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    28
    If you google "crystal radio", you will find that the power used is the radio wave captured by the "long" antenna. My idea goes somewhat along these lines. It is common knowledge that every astrological body produces natural radio waves. If we expand our antenna, by building a 40 foot tall radio tower, and place a coil of wire down the center of the tower. We unground the tower, and connect one wire of the coil to the ground. The other end of the coil should produce wildly fluctuating voltage. We run the output through a series of ceramic rectifiers. After taking readings for a period of time, we take an average and build a voltage regulator, with capacitors to fill in the ocational valleys in the output. We would now have usable DC electrical power.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    While it sounds like it might work in theory, I suspect the cost of erecting the tower and the ancillary equipment would exceed the value of the power you could collect.

    TANSTAAFL


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    While it sounds like it might work in theory, I suspect the cost of erecting the tower and the ancillary equipment would exceed the value of the power you could collect.

    TANSTAAFL
    Tesla built some stuff that actually uses the area surrounding an antenna of sorts, to charge and discharge a "C" loop.

    While another rotary three point system much like a high frequency generator, but with rotating multiple center points, intermittently charges and discharges this antenna.

    The bolts of power you get are supposed to be pretty wild. And from actually working with high frequency I would say perhaps to wild for me. For any kind of useful mobile perpetual motion system.
    But the truth is if you work with electricity and know it well. No one is going to shake your understanding of perpetual motion. It just is. And has to be, to safely work with electricity.

    Electricity does not come from the breakdown of chemicals. It comes from the creation of a diode from the breakdown of chemicals, that sends ambient radiation into matter at abnormal angles creating flow of electrons in the material.

    Look at an alternator that spins. It is just creating that same angular abnormal flow of electrons, by altering ambient radiations flow. Large three phase motors will create a slight output voltage while disconnected from power and winding down. No magnetism involved. Just cutting lines of ambient radiation flow. Causing an abundance of electrons and flow.

    My problem with creating long lasting perpetual motion systems is that they are inherently dangerous. Because they do not to stop when you disconnect them. Because they are not connected.

    Think about a big spinning machine that has broken off a piece of its large spinning cutter. It is violently spinning in a cam like path. Or hoping up and down on the ground. When this happens in the shop and it does, you like to be able to shut it down. By cutting power to it. Or cutting shop power.

    With high frequency soon someone will build a car using it. And when they do it will be amazing. But there are severe dangers in building a system like this. Electrocution is one of them. From a faulty connection.

    You could get a nice shock from a rusty car now, while working on one. The rust can melt, and create ARC. Anode Rectified Cathode voltage and amperage. But that is usually rare.

    When you start to build self-perpetuating automobiles with big power in them. Without millions of people combining all their knowledge people will get hurt.

    Neon bulbs can work in two ways. Neon can stop super high voltage spikes from jumping a gap. By connecting two conductors while not really transferring any real power or amperage. Holding the spikes down.

    Yet neon bulbs between two long runs of wire, can create large amounts of power and amperage in long runs of wire. Because the lengths of wire act like capacitors and draw the high voltage through a device you wish to power, like a transformer, before the wires have reached a point that they start to conduct. The AC cycle has already changed, and it is too late to create the load upon the line, or source of power.

    It is a fascinating similar accident at job sites and in industry.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Cost verses power output 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    28
    If you worked in the power production field, you would understand that the cost of erecting the tower would in fact be less than that of a standard power plant. Though many of the construction principles would still apply. The use of ceramic rectifiers would remove the high frequency problems. The design would require several rectifiers, each set for a range of frequencies. I have read Tesla's works, and compared notes. In fact, he inspired my designs. His biggest mistake was in not knowing about back ground (natural) radio waves. He built his receiver to pickup only what was transmitted. He shaped his antenna specifically for that. My tower uses several parabolic and conventional antenna, all in series with the tower. There is a complex grounding system to shut the system down.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Cost verses power output 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by George Moll
    If you worked in the power production field, you would understand that the cost of erecting the tower would in fact be less than that of a standard power plant.
    If I worked in the power production field I should expect to see a detailed business plan laying out the costings for such an exuberant claim. May we expect a precis of such shortly?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: Cost verses power output 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Quote Originally Posted by George Moll
    If you worked in the power production field, you would understand that the cost of erecting the tower would in fact be less than that of a standard power plant. Though many of the construction principles would still apply. The use of ceramic rectifiers would remove the high frequency problems. The design would require several rectifiers, each set for a range of frequencies. I have read Tesla's works, and compared notes. In fact, he inspired my designs. His biggest mistake was in not knowing about back ground (natural) radio waves. He built his receiver to pickup only what was transmitted. He shaped his antenna specifically for that. My tower uses several parabolic and conventional antenna, all in series with the tower. There is a complex grounding system to shut the system down.
    As per my other post, "why use radiowaves when microwaves are more efficent in drawing current"?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: Cost verses power output 
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by George Moll
    If you worked in the power production field, you would understand that the cost of erecting the tower would in fact be less than that of a standard power plant. Though many of the construction principles would still apply. The use of ceramic rectifiers would remove the high frequency problems. The design would require several rectifiers, each set for a range of frequencies. I have read Tesla's works, and compared notes. In fact, he inspired my designs. His biggest mistake was in not knowing about back ground (natural) radio waves. He built his receiver to pickup only what was transmitted. He shaped his antenna specifically for that. My tower uses several parabolic and conventional antenna, all in series with the tower. There is a complex grounding system to shut the system down.
    Can you demonstrate that this would be more efficient, in terms of energy produced, space used and cost, than say a wind turbine?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Give us some sort of power density numbers. Is your 100 meter tall tower only going to produce 0.005 mW? If not, how much power DO you expect?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: Cost verses power output 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by George Moll
    If you worked in the power production field, you would understand that the cost of erecting the tower would in fact be less than that of a standard power plant. Though many of the construction principles would still apply. The use of ceramic rectifiers would remove the high frequency problems. The design would require several rectifiers, each set for a range of frequencies. I have read Tesla's works, and compared notes. In fact, he inspired my designs. His biggest mistake was in not knowing about back ground (natural) radio waves. He built his receiver to pickup only what was transmitted. He shaped his antenna specifically for that. My tower uses several parabolic and conventional antenna, all in series with the tower. There is a complex grounding system to shut the system down.
    Can you demonstrate that this would be more efficient, in terms of energy produced, space used and cost, than say a wind turbine?
    In the late sixties and early seventies they were talking about nuclear power and included the radio transmitter shielded by many walls of steel, and other elements, under the heading of "possible nuclear plants to build".

    Those that knew that this is not only feasible, but not much talked about since the Geneva convention before World War Two. Thought wow, cool nuclear power.

    Then to these experts horror, they went with the plant that killed Americans in the fifties. Kind of like looking for a positive particle accelerator and building a donut shape. Instead of a gun shaped apparatus.

    I knew my country was in serious trouble at that point.

    Some Senators may have actually been as dumb as they acted. But these Senators were told that the dangerous plants won't shut down. Almost couldn't be just shut down. The plants that could kill or hurt all living things on earth.

    And that the radio plants could be shut off in under a second. The Radio plants would just shut right off. So the Senators said that they wanted the plant that would keep running.

    Oh yea. That is where we live.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 Science, not business 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    28
    This a science forum not a business forum. So no detailed layout. My design would catch all radio waves in the area. The calculations for the tower is based on location. You have to measure all radio waves in the area.(Even microwaves, few as though are in nature.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    And no offense, but I suspect that the power produced by the tower will by tiny. Probably much less than what you would get if you built a windmill or solar panel of similar size. There just isn't that much long-wavelength electromagnetic radiation out there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 Power Potential 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    28
    As to the power potential, well anyone who has work on a radio tower can tell you how dangerous it can be. When a tower which has not been used in years becomes ungrounded, it becomes in energized. There have been many cases of workers becoming electrocuted, or fried. A small piece of wire, in the case of a crystal radio, carries enough power to power a radio.(google crystal radio)
    Remember, the coil of wire in the center of the tower would act like the secondary coil in a transformer. By ungrounding the tower you create an effect not unlike that in a microwave oven. The waves bounce around the steel infrastructure, and would pass through the coil repetitively. With one side of the coil grounded, you control the wild current to some extent. If you think solar is more efficient, consider that after 3 overcast days, most solar panel systems no longer have enough charge to do anything(Remeber that solare panel systems use battery to makeup for night). As for windmills, thanks for relying on mother nature to blow. :wink:
    Bad monkey likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    174
    what frequencies are you targetting?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    66
    The received power is tiny as has been said. Even the total power over all wavelengths is tiny.

    You can't just erect a taller aerial to get more power. When you get to to about 5/8 a wavelenth the antenna receives the maximum it can.

    It easier to image the aerial trasmitting power rather than receiving it but the processes are similar. At up to 5/8 of a wavelength the energy is going out at a low angle.. Longer aerials will fire at a higher angle and then even longer aerials will have a complicated radiation pattern where there will be a lot energy at some elevations and little at others....with little at the required low angle ..ideally horizontal. The get more signal you have to used aerial arrays such as TV or FM aerials..Yagis or stacks. At low frequencies such arrays would be enormous as they are scaled by the wavelength.

    And to make a aerial covering many octaves is very difficult.
    Bad monkey likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    George, you have been given multipple opportunities to offer solid support for your contention that this is a practical idea. So far you have failed to do so and have simply intoduced more arm waving.

    Please provide data to support your case or I move this thread to pseudoscience.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16 Re: Cost verses power output 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
    Quote Originally Posted by George Moll
    If you worked in the power production field, you would understand that the cost of erecting the tower would in fact be less than that of a standard power plant. Though many of the construction principles would still apply. The use of ceramic rectifiers would remove the high frequency problems. The design would require several rectifiers, each set for a range of frequencies. I have read Tesla's works, and compared notes. In fact, he inspired my designs. His biggest mistake was in not knowing about back ground (natural) radio waves. He built his receiver to pickup only what was transmitted. He shaped his antenna specifically for that. My tower uses several parabolic and conventional antenna, all in series with the tower. There is a complex grounding system to shut the system down.
    As per my other post, "why use radiowaves when microwaves are more efficent in drawing current"?
    I would pick radio waves over micro waves. And DC current over radio waves if I wanted the most power possible at a particular point.

    You have never seen radio waves used to create power. You could make the planet an antenna.

    Microwaves leave much more potential energy unused, then do radio waves.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17 proof 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    28
    My working generator is the only proof I need. It runs my house with power left over.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18 Re: proof 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by George Moll
    My working generator is the only proof I need. It runs my house with power left over.
    What kind of generator do you use? And how safe is it?

    My only concern with perpetual motion is safety. I can make all the power I could ever use. Being able to shut it off is my concern.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19 Generator 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    28
    There is no such thing as perpetual motion. My generator is a simple steel latus radio tower. It has a small coil of wire place in the center. The coil is ran down to a rectifier. The rectifier charges my battery bank. The battery bank feeds my inverters, spread though out my house. Simple, but don't forget that I will not tell all of my design. Safety is part of the design I'm keeping to my self. Patent is pending.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20 Re: proof 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Dude, you jumped from this
    Quote Originally Posted by George Moll
    My design would...
    to this
    Quote Originally Posted by George Moll
    My working generator is the only proof I need. It runs my house with power left over.


    Prove it. Prove your whole house plays AM/FM radio. Now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    28
    I didn't suddenly jump to anything. I did not intend to tell any one on this forum that I was not just talking theory, but had a working model. I just got fed up with one individual pretending like he knew everything. The generator has been working since Feb. I have been running 6 window ACs, 2 refrigerators, 3 TVs, 2 computers, and all of the lights in my 3 bedroom house. I went to Invent-tech before my first post. They couldn't do anything because the invention was outside their range, but they sent me to patent lawyer. He started the research into the patentability. Thus the patent pending. I do not have the only working model either. I have told several of my electrician friends how to build one. 4 of them have duplicated my results, the others haven't had time/money to work on building their own.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by George Moll
    I didn't suddenly jump to anything. I did not intend to tell any one on this forum that I was not just talking theory, but had a working model. I just got fed up with one individual pretending like he knew everything. The generator has been working since Feb. I have been running 6 window ACs, 2 refrigerators, 3 TVs, 2 computers, and all of the lights in my 3 bedroom house. I went to Invent-tech before my first post. They couldn't do anything because the invention was outside their range, but they sent me to patent lawyer. He started the research into the patentability. Thus the patent pending. I do not have the only working model either. I have told several of my electrician friends how to build one. 4 of them have duplicated my results, the others haven't had time/money to work on building their own.
    You could give us a photo. With important parts obscured if you wish. At least then we'd know you have a device, if nothing more.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    28
    The shape of the tower, and the placement of the coil are sensitive material. As is the safety features used to shut the thing down. So you want a photo of what non sensitive parts? The battery backup and the inverters are common parts in DC circuits. If you want to test the theory, build your own. But I'm afraid that you would have to leave your box, and think a little outside of it. Remember, nothing great has ever been invented inside the box.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    31
    Nice idea I've been thinking about build a crystal radio to see I it works

    I wonder what voltage difference there would be if you modified it so it could be put in earth
    orbit ?
    But remember this is completely hypothetical I'm not planning to try this out since you've patented this device
    Last edited by Bad monkey; December 16th, 2011 at 05:18 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    984
    George if this is real you should make millions and literally save the world. I sincerly hope it is real but frankly you sound like a loony. The general rule is; no free lunch. I personally need a lot of proof in the form of details and referrances to articles published in peer reviewed journals before I believe in power for free. When people ask for details about it you will not supply them claiming patent issues. Ocam's razor suggests there is no device and if it exists it does not work.

    If it did work, it seems there would be a lot of random charges being generated by the existing power grid and interfering with power transmission.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick View Post

    Look at an alternator that spins. It is just creating that same angular abnormal flow of electrons, by altering ambient radiations flow. Large three phase motors will create a slight output voltage while disconnected from power and winding down. No magnetism involved. Just cutting lines of ambient radiation flow. Causing an abundance of electrons and flow.
    Actually there is magnetism involved. The left over inertia of the motor is driving the turbine.

    Quote Originally Posted by George Moll View Post
    This a science forum not a business forum. So no detailed layout. My design would catch all radio waves in the area. The calculations for the tower is based on location. You have to measure all radio waves in the area.(Even microwaves, few as though are in nature.)
    So, why does it have to be a tower? Why couldn't you lay the antenna on the ground sideways? If the radio waves are coming from space, then I don't see quite why it would matter how the antenna is oriented. Unless the ground would absorb too much of the energy?


    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee View Post
    Give us some sort of power density numbers. Is your 100 meter tall tower only going to produce 0.005 mW? If not, how much power DO you expect?
    I know this is a science forum and we prefer numbers so we can match observation against theory, but in this case, it's an impossible request.

    Even if you could predict how much radio wave activity there was going to be coming from space, whatever design was used to harness it all would be inefficient, and you'd have to know the inefficiencies. Otherwise any figures quoted to you would just be a guess. This guy is clearly a hobby electrician, who has quite possible stumbled onto something interesting, and an "if or not" observation that energy is being generated, coupled with some basic tests (like running a few appliances) really is going to have to be enough.

    I don't fully understand radio theory very well. Wild Cobra would be the best guy to ask if he were to browse this thread. He mentioned on another thread that there is a rule where, once an antenna reaches 1/4 the wavelength or more of the signal that is passing through it, all the energy radiates out into the air. Presumably that rule can be inverted, so a sufficiently long antenna would absorb a wide range of frequencies, which could each be converted into power by using separate resonators for each frequency. It's a solid theory. No reason to question the apparatus proposed by George Moll would work.

    The only question is how much radio wave activity is there coming from space to be absorbed in the first place?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post

    If it did work, it seems there would be a lot of random charges being generated by the existing power grid and interfering with power transmission.
    Interesting point. Technically those long power lines should act like long antennas, at least kind of.

    However, the resonators hooked up to that grid only capture one frequency: 60 Hz. Any other frequency would be going unnoticed, and the grid loses some energy at 60 Hz as it is, so a utility analyzing their line would just think they were losing less, not gaining more from space.

    If Mr. Moll's theory is correct you should be able to attach resonators that work at other frequencies to the long power lines and leach energy off the grid that goes unnoticed (because the utility companies didn't generate those frequencies to begin with). Though I'm not sure the effect would propagate through transformers, so you'd have to tap into the line where it is longest between them to be sure.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,965
    I can't help wonderin if Moll's antenna is near any power lines (overhead or underground). He could, perhaps unwittingly, just be picking up induced current from them. (I can't believe there would be enough RF energy to power a house. A single light? Maybe.) This way of stealing electricity from the grid is quite common in some rural areas. Until they get caught. Hmmm... I wonder if that is why we haven't heard any more from him
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    31
    That's an odd thought isn't it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,205
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post



    The only question is how much radio wave activity is there coming from space to be absorbed in the first place?
    To put it into perspective, a single cell phone located on the Moon would produce what, to a radio telescope, would be considered a strong signal.

    Given that Radio telescopes are very sensitive to interference, the amount of radio wave activity needed to produce any usable energy from a 100 ft antenna, would also be enough to swamp out any present day radio telescope.
    msafwan likes this.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •