PDA

View Full Version : Kinda off topic, but in might be interesting for space vehic



ChallegedChimp
2002-Jan-24, 12:11 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/01/23/ireland.invention.reut/index.html

Can such a thing exist? And if it does replenish itself... this would be a GOOD thing in my view for space observatories and vehicles. Put this bad boy on a Cassini and who can complain?

Simon
2002-Jan-24, 12:35 PM
I won't say no, but I wouldn't buy stock in it yet, either. That article is long on promises and very short of detail; it goes on for a while about zero-point energy, but doesn't actually say anything like "This machine uses zero-point energy to make electricity." Wait and watch, I suppose.

ToSeek
2002-Jan-24, 01:30 PM
Slashdot's commentary on this story (http://reason.com/ml/ml012402.shtml)

Azpod
2002-Jan-24, 06:35 PM
On 2002-01-24 08:30, ToSeek wrote:
Slashdot's commentary on this story (http://reason.com/ml/ml012402.shtml)



The best zero-point energy device I have ever seen was based on the two-plate principle that demonstrated that zero-point energy exists. The inventor (I can't recall his name; it was a while ago) used that principle and constructed what amounts to a modified solar cell-- three conductive plates and two very thin transparent semiconductors (glass, if I remember correctly). The middle conductive plate was wedged between the glass plates which in turn were surrounded by the two outer conductive plates. The idea is the same as a solar cell: that photons will disrupt the electrons in the outer plates, which will jump to the inner plates. Since the principle of zero-point energy is that there is a lower number of photons striking the inner plate than the outer plates, that the inner plate would get a negative electric charge, even in absolute darkness. If connected to the outer plates through a circuit, electricity could be generated from zero-point energy.

If I remember correctly, he demonstrated that this device did generate electricity when he placed inside a dark box, but there was some contraversy on how dark it really was inside the box, and if his device was generating electricty from zero-point energy or from the tiny amount of light that was creeping inside the box.

In any case, even if it did work, the amount of electrity it generated was very little, and it was demonstrated that one could use conventional solar cells to generate more electricity from any light source, including starlight for interstellar probes, than you could using this device relying on zero-point energy.

It's too bad, too: tapping zero-point energy would be a great task that could solve all of our energy needs. However, simple economics tells us that any device that does succeed in tapping into zero-point energy must be more cost-efficient than a conventional device to be of any use to us.

Bob
2002-Jan-24, 07:24 PM
Slashdot.dom's technical critique has some shortcomings also. 100 watt bulbs put out 100 watts only at a defined voltage (110 v in the US); they are not constant power devices. 3 100 w bulbs could draw only 60 watts from 4 12 volt batteries (or less depending on how they are hooked up).
And a battery having slightly higher ocv after 10 minutes under load? That's normal operation due to warming up the inside of the battery.

ChallegedChimp
2002-Jan-25, 11:59 AM
Glad for the replies (and an excellent quote by Tennyson). I wanted to run this by the bulging brains of this site and get yall's opinion. Maybe it is a hoax, but if this thing does prove to work (and no doubt it will take more scrunity, LOTS MORE, to find if it does)...but if it does...what does that do the 2nd Law? This device must get around that law somehow (again assuming it does work) and it shall be interesting to watch unfold. Or it could be one heckuva good scam. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Jan-25, 01:29 PM
On 2002-01-24 08:30, ToSeek wrote:
Slashdot's commentary on this story (http://reason.com/ml/ml012402.shtml)
Does anybody else see a Michael Lynch reasononline article about Enron there?

SeanF
2002-Jan-25, 02:16 PM
On 2002-01-25 08:29, GrapesOfWrath wrote:


On 2002-01-24 08:30, ToSeek wrote:
Slashdot's commentary on this story (http://reason.com/ml/ml012402.shtml)
Does anybody else see a Michael Lynch reasononline article about Enron there?


Yup, I do, too . . .

Kaptain K
2002-Jan-25, 04:07 PM
Ditto

sts60
2002-Jan-25, 04:15 PM
Here's the link:

http://slashdot.org/science/02/01/23/2232210.shtml

ToSeek
2002-Jan-25, 04:18 PM
On 2002-01-25 08:29, GrapesOfWrath wrote:


On 2002-01-24 08:30, ToSeek wrote:
Slashdot's commentary on this story (http://reason.com/ml/ml012402.shtml)
Does anybody else see a Michael Lynch reasononline article about Enron there?


Oops - got to watch my cutting and pasting!

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Jan-25, 04:48 PM
I've learned to check all my links after posting. The ... strangest (http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/index2.htm) ... things ... can happen.

Wiley
2002-Jan-25, 04:50 PM
On 2002-01-24 14:24, Bob wrote:
Slashdot.dom's technical critique has some shortcomings also. 100 watt bulbs put out 100 watts only at a defined voltage (110 v in the US); they are not constant power devices. 3 100 w bulbs could draw only 60 watts from 4 12 volt batteries (or less depending on how they are hooked up).
And a battery having slightly higher ocv after 10 minutes under load? That's normal operation due to warming up the inside of the battery.




Good point. Just because the lights have a recommended max of 100 watts does not mean they are consumming 100 watts. (Dimmer switch, anyone?)

Also, four car batteries should be more than capable of keeping three 100 watt bulbs lit for an 90 minutes. The reserve capacity of a car battery is defined as the number of minutes the battery can supply 25 amps at 10.5 (or higher volts). A quick search of some battery manufactures web sites yielded the smallest RC 98 while the largest over 300. In other words, one good heavy duty battery should be able to supply enough power to light the bulbs.

Wiley
2002-Jan-25, 04:52 PM
On 2002-01-25 11:48, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
I've learned to check all my links after posting. The ... strangest (http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/index2.htm) ... things ... can happen.


Arrgh! Damn! You got me again.

(I suppose this time, it's "shame on me".)

ChallegedChimp
2002-Jan-25, 05:06 PM
Wiley, don't feel alone.

Ack! I been gotchaed (erm is that a word?)

(thanks GOW)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ChallegedChimp on 2002-01-26 06:00 ]</font>

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Jan-25, 07:19 PM
Careful, Chimp, this here's a family board, and the BA swings a mean board. Better go back and clean that up fast.

As for you, Wiley, I'll get you again. When you least expect it, expect it.

John Kierein
2002-Jan-27, 12:20 PM
On 2002-01-24 13:35, Azpod wrote:


On 2002-01-24 08:30, ToSeek wrote:
Slashdot's commentary on this story (http://reason.com/ml/ml012402.shtml)



The best zero-point energy device I have ever seen was based on the two-plate principle that demonstrated that zero-point energy exists. The inventor (I can't recall his name; it was a while ago) used that principle and constructed what amounts to a modified solar cell-- three conductive plates and two very thin transparent semiconductors (glass, if I remember correctly). The middle conductive plate was wedged between the glass plates which in turn were surrounded by the two outer conductive plates. The idea is the same as a solar cell: that photons will disrupt the electrons in the outer plates, which will jump to the inner plates. Since the principle of zero-point energy is that there is a lower number of photons striking the inner plate than the outer plates, that the inner plate would get a negative electric charge, even in absolute darkness. If connected to the outer plates through a circuit, electricity could be generated from zero-point energy.

If I remember correctly, he demonstrated that this device did generate electricity when he placed inside a dark box, but there was some contraversy on how dark it really was inside the box, and if his device was generating electricty from zero-point energy or from the tiny amount of light that was creeping inside the box.

In any case, even if it did work, the amount of electrity it generated was very little, and it was demonstrated that one could use conventional solar cells to generate more electricity from any light source, including starlight for interstellar probes, than you could using this device relying on zero-point energy.

It's too bad, too: tapping zero-point energy would be a great task that could solve all of our energy needs. However, simple economics tells us that any device that does succeed in tapping into zero-point energy must be more cost-efficient than a conventional device to be of any use to us.

John Kierein
2002-Jan-27, 12:27 PM
On 2002-01-24 13:35, Azpod wrote:


On 2002-01-24 08:30, ToSeek wrote:
Slashdot's commentary on this story (http://reason.com/ml/ml012402.shtml)



The best zero-point energy device I have ever seen was based on the two-plate principle that demonstrated that zero-point energy exists. The inventor (I can't recall his name; it was a while ago) used that principle and constructed what amounts to a modified solar cell-- three conductive plates and two very thin transparent semiconductors (glass, if I remember correctly). The middle conductive plate was wedged between the glass plates which in turn were surrounded by the two outer conductive plates. The idea is the same as a solar cell: that photons will disrupt the electrons in the outer plates, which will jump to the inner plates. Since the principle of zero-point energy is that there is a lower number of photons striking the inner plate than the outer plates, that the inner plate would get a negative electric charge, even in absolute darkness. If connected to the outer plates through a circuit, electricity could be generated from zero-point energy.

If I remember correctly, he demonstrated that this device did generate electricity when he placed inside a dark box, but there was some contraversy on how dark it really was inside the box, and if his device was generating electricty from zero-point energy or from the tiny amount of light that was creeping inside the box.

In any case, even if it did work, the amount of electrity it generated was very little, and it was demonstrated that one could use conventional solar cells to generate more electricity from any light source, including starlight for interstellar probes, than you could using this device relying on zero-point energy.

It's too bad, too: tapping zero-point energy would be a great task that could solve all of our energy needs. However, simple economics tells us that any device that does succeed in tapping into zero-point energy must be more cost-efficient than a conventional device to be of any use to us.


This might actually work! I am of the belief that the background radiation extends beyond the microwave to very long penetrating wavelengths. Reber mapped such a background at hundreds of meters wavelengths. The "light" that leaks into the "solar cells" may be the natural low frequency background given off by the universe. I predict this background from a static universe. It's the redshifted light from an infinite universe, as a solution to Olbers' paradox. I've always thought that this is what the "free energy" is anyhow. So, this may not be so "off topic" after all.

Karl
2002-Jan-27, 12:48 PM
On 2002-01-27 07:27, John Kierein wrote:

This might actually work! I am of the belief that the background radiation extends beyond the microwave to very long penetrating wavelengths. Reber mapped such a background at hundreds of meters wavelengths.


As I've pointed out numerous times, this low frequency radiation is galactic background, not cosmic background. The source is synchrotron radiation from electron cosmic rays and the galactic magnetic fields. I'll assume that you will grant that both of these exist? I had the pleasure of discussing this subject at length with Ari Flieschmann from Russia when he was in this country a few months ago. The radiation is scattered by the interstellar media to give the observed characteristics.

John Kierein
2002-Jan-27, 03:32 PM
If it is galactic, then why is it dim along the galactic plane and at Andromeda? Why is it uniformly bright when above & below the galactic plane? If there is interstellar scattering, then why isn't there scattering from the much brighter ecliptic plane like we see in the IR? (Look at the famous IRAS image.)

Karl
2002-Jan-27, 07:59 PM
On 2002-01-27 10:32, John Kierein wrote:
If it is galactic, then why is it dim along the galactic plane and at Andromeda? Why is it uniformly bright when above & below the galactic plane? If there is interstellar scattering, then why isn't there scattering from the much brighter ecliptic plane like we see in the IR? (Look at the famous IRAS image.)


Where would you look to get the longest unobstructed view through the largest volume of galactic magnetic field?

This area has been researched for a long time, if there are any substantive disagreements, where are they published? Observation in this range in used to determine the properties of the interstellar medium.

Look at Novaco and Brown, ApJ(1978) 221:114-123, Nonthermal Galactic Emission Below 10 MegaHertz

Azpod
2002-Jan-27, 08:50 PM
On 2002-01-27 07:27, John Kierein wrote:
This might actually work! I am of the belief that the background radiation extends beyond the microwave to very long penetrating wavelengths. Reber mapped such a background at hundreds of meters wavelengths. The "light" that leaks into the "solar cells" may be the natural low frequency background given off by the universe. I predict this background from a static universe. It's the redshifted light from an infinite universe, as a solution to Olbers' paradox. I've always thought that this is what the "free energy" is anyhow. So, this may not be so "off topic" after all.


Actually, it's much more likely that the photons that powered this device came from the blackbody radiation of the box that he put the device in than the cosmic background radiation. I don't know how well a device like that would generate electricity from IR or microwave radiation, though. I still think that it was generating electricity from light coming in through cracks in the box. The pictures I saw showed a box on a table with two wires coming from it hooked up to some sort of really sensitive voltometer showing a small but positive charge, as well as the box open showing what looked like a solar cell inside it. I think that light could sneak into that box easily enough.

Did anyone else see this? I remember it from a few years back, but I can't find any information about it on the Web.

I would be curious to find out if someone had constructed such a device and tried to disprove that it could generate electrity from zero-point energy that way. My suspicion is that someone did and proved exactly that it generated electrity based entirely on photons from the immediate environment. But I can't find out if that is the case or not.

It'd be cool if someone could build a device to generate electricity from zero-point energy, but I think that it's a pipe-dream: even if it is possible, I doubt that the device would ever be more cost-effective than generating energy through traditional means.

_________________
Lobster sticks to magnet. (http://www.solarisdx.net/features/1lm.html)
That is all.

--Azpod... Formerly known as James Justin

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Azpod on 2002-01-27 15:50 ]</font>

lpetrich
2002-Jan-27, 10:49 PM
I'll believe it when I see it. IMO, vacuum-energy devices are simply updated versions of perpetual motion machines.

Vacuum energy is all around is, and can never be gotten rid of, so a successful supposed vacuum-energy device must work by some other principle.

So why haven't any of these guys created a successful working model? It's the same thing that can be asked of Pons and Fleischmann with cold fusion.