Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Search Forums
Custom Search
Who's Online
0 registered (), 89 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
FIRST LINEAR MOTION DETECTOR ( CLASSICAL MECHANIC)
by Orac
Today at 07:10 PM
Mathematics / Physics / Quantum theory and God
by Revlgking
Today at 04:38 PM
2014 Ebola Outbreak Map HealthMap.Org
by paul
Today at 08:09 AM
Bill Nye CO2 science Debunked
by paul
Today at 07:44 AM
EBOLA Novel Nano Tech Based Antiviral Agents
by paul
Today at 07:28 AM
PROBLEM the principle of conservation of moment.
by newton
Today at 01:36 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
paul 54
newton 44
samwik 31
Bill 24
Amaranth Rose II 15
Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
#39421 - 08/11/11 10:19 AM Re: Harvested TV, radio signals power devices [Re: kallog]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 3527
Quote:
How do you reconcile those apparently contradictory beliefs?


although science is not supposed to be based on beliefs
many times I have encountered people who only have the capability of squirting out the laws of their belief system instead of discussing reasons why they think that something will not work based on logic.
instead they rely soley on the common scape goat belief system that they squirt out when they are faced with something they cannot comprehend.

these laws that you use in your belief system have never been accepted as being 100% correct so they do not give someone a proper means of disproving anything that is new.

It isnt my burden to prove to you that what I say is right , it is now your burden to prove that what I say is wrong , and squirting out laws will not accomplish that task.





_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
Of Interest?
#39422 - 08/11/11 11:48 AM Re: Harvested TV, radio signals power devices [Re: paul]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/30/10
Posts: 1386
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Originally Posted By: Paul
It isnt my burden to prove to you that what I say is right , it is now your burden to prove that what I say is wrong , and squirting out laws will not accomplish that task.

WRONG!!!

When somebody makes a statement that is contrary to accepted beliefs (in this case formally stated physical laws) they are the ones who are required to prove their statement. If somebody came up to you and said Abraham Lincoln was a slaveholder it would not be your job to show he was wrong, it would be his job to show that he was right.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#39425 - 08/11/11 03:16 PM Re: Harvested TV, radio signals power devices [Re: Bill]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 3527
Bill

I simply placed a 225 sq cm device in every 225 sq cm of the 5.5 km circle , then I multiplied that number by the amount of wattage that 1 device can generate.

21 billion x .006 Watts = 126 Mega Watts

So since I have quantified the wattage it is now his turn to show where I am wrong.

I think that kallog should address this and not just squirt out laws since I have already done the math.


If you dont agree then thats your problem.


If somebody came up to me and said they have a 100 Watt light bulb that they would like to use but they only have access to a bunch of D cell batteries and none of them have an output of 100 Watts.

I would ask if they have tried to connect the batteries together to light the 100 Watt bulb.






_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#39435 - 08/11/11 07:45 PM Re: Harvested TV, radio signals power devices [Re: paul]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: paul
[quote]You say they can. You show why they can.I already have.
21 billion x .006 watts = 126 Mega Watts !


Assumption: the "one case" where 6mW was measured as so common you can fit 21 billion devices in similar places.

Assumption: Installing one device won't reduce the power available to neighboring devices.


Remember, no laws allowed! That includes made-up laws (assumptions). So no, you haven't shown anything that satisfies your own requirement.

Top
#39436 - 08/11/11 07:56 PM Re: Harvested TV, radio signals power devices [Re: paul]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: paul

many times I have encountered people who only have the capability of squirting out the laws of their belief system instead of discussing reasons why they [u]think


Nobody can escape that. If you say

21 billion devices * 0.006W = 126MW

then you're using the law of conservation of energy! Just because you didn't state in words doesn't mean you're not using it. If the 1st law was wrong, you could have said:

2 devices * 0.006W * mystery factor of 10 billion = 120MW

Top
#39438 - 08/11/11 09:22 PM Re: Harvested TV, radio signals power devices [Re: paul]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/30/10
Posts: 1386
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
You tell how you did it. But you don't explain how you bypassed one of the most tested of the natural laws so:

PROVE IT!!!!

I don't have to accept anything without proof, and I don't have to disprove it. That is your job since you made the ridiculous statement.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#39451 - 08/12/11 04:38 PM Re: Harvested TV, radio signals power devices [Re: kallog]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 3527
Quote:
Assumption: the "one case" where 6mW was measured as so common you can fit 21 billion devices in similar places.


It is a sort of new concept, so the reason I used the 6mW was because there should be advances that will allow for more energy production per device , of course I did assume that all devices would get a max of 6mW.
assumming that the closer to the radio station the stronger the signals would be and the further from the station the weaker the signals would be.

I was just using the 6mW as an average.

of course you would not get the same output from all 21 billion devices , some closer should be stronger and the further away ones should be weaker.


Quote:
Assumption: Installing one device won't reduce the power available to neighboring devices.


it may be that the devices actually absorb the radio signals energy as they enter the devices , in this case the signals would become weaker further out after there energy has been absorbed by the devices closer in.

otherwise if the energy is not absorbed but merely excites electrons or whatever makes it tick causing electricity to flow in a circut as it passes the device then there would be no reason for doubting that more energy could be taken by using multiple devices than the energy used in the transmission.


Quote:
Remember, no laws allowed! That includes made-up laws (assumptions).


I never use laws to figure something out anyway , I never have figured out how to put them in my calculator or to apply them in any situation in a fashion that would decide if something would or would not happen.


Quote:
So no, you haven't shown anything that satisfies your own requirement.


yes , I have.



_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#39452 - 08/12/11 04:58 PM Re: Harvested TV, radio signals power devices [Re: kallog]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 3527
Quote:
then you're using the law of conservation of energy! Just because you didn't state in words doesn't mean you're not using it.


Im not using any law , !!!

Im just using the data provided in the articles and my calculator to explore the possibilities of the devices.

if there was no data in the articles and only laws then I would have no avenues open for exploration.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#39453 - 08/12/11 05:02 PM Re: Harvested TV, radio signals power devices [Re: Bill]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 3527
Quote:
You tell how you did it. But you don't explain how you bypassed one of the most tested of the natural laws so:

PROVE IT!!!!


the laws are only a set of guideline's

and the most important thing is that you are most likely misusing the laws.

not that the laws are important anymore since they have been manipulated in a fashion that supports the energy industries.


Quote:
I don't have to accept anything without proof, and I don't have to disprove it. That is your job since you made the ridiculous statement.


I don't have to accept anything without proof either.
if you think Im wrong then its your responsibility to prove that im wrong by explaining why im wrong.

and squirting out the tools that were used to brainwash your brain into thinking the way you do will not ever prove anything , to me , or anyone else.

the only thing that law squirting will accomplish is nothing.







_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#39454 - 08/12/11 05:45 PM Re: Harvested TV, radio signals power devices [Re: paul]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/30/10
Posts: 1386
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Since you are convinced it will work all you have to do is build a simpler system that will prove the concept. We will wait while you do that.

I remember you never have even tried to build one of the systems you have developed that was supposed to provide large amounts of power.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#39457 - 08/12/11 08:52 PM Re: Harvested TV, radio signals power devices [Re: paul]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: paul
It is a sort of new concept, so the reason I used the 6mW was because there should be advances that will allow for more energy production per device , of course I did assume that all devices would get a max of 6mW.


You're lieing. You used 6mW because it gives a more impressive result. Use 0.06uW or whatever the other value was. The article made it clear that 6mW was anomalous and depended on the (one) location. You can't assume there will be any advances - that's just making things up.


Quote:
it may be that the devices actually absorb the radio signals energy as they enter the devices , in this case the signals would become weaker further out after there energy has been absorbed by the devices closer in.

Of course! That's what any antenna does!



Anyway all this is irrelevant. I assume there will be future advances on batteries that make them never run out. We won't need power grids because a single battery will last forever. If you doubt me, you'd better prove it. Don't be brainwashed by energy scavenging and other small-time ideas that hide the truth of unlimited free energy.

Top
#39460 - 08/12/11 09:40 PM Re: Harvested TV, radio signals power devices [Re: kallog]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 3527
Quote:
Of course! That's what any antenna does!


So what you are saying is that there would be a limited number of these devices that could be used , otherwise
the entire amount of power in the form of radio waves that the transmitting radio station produces would be absorbed by the devices if enough are used and that would reduce or even eliminate the effectiveness of the radio broadcast itself rendering it useless as long as these devices are being used in a large quantity.

I can see lawsuits that will demand that the manufacturers of these devices supply there own source of energy to be supplied to the devices.

in effect eliminating there usefullness.

somebody has got to pay for the electricity.

Quote:
I assume there will be future advances on batteries that make them never run out. We won't need power grids because a single battery will last forever. If you doubt me, you'd better prove it.


maybe this would work for the energy that the devices would need its not a battery but if this stuff works then you could certainly charge your battery with a effectively limitless power supply , LOL.
then I would like to add your above spill would be comming true.

http://www.freesolarpro.com/weblog/125

Quote:
A group of scientists at INL have developed a thin sheet of plastic that contains billions of nano antennas that are able to collect solar energy even after the sun goes down. They are dubbing these "nantennas". The process is inexpensive and, when perfected, will revolutionize the solar industry.


and

Quote:
These are able to absorb 80% of the energy contained in infrared wavelengths.


80% , could this reduce the effects of global warming?
if you were to capture the energy and beam in out into space.

the above would be more along the lines of no cost or free energy because it uses the heat produced by our sun.
but it can use any heat source , maybe we could even wear them to power our devices because we emit heat.

something tells me that some scientist dont exactly have the belief system that most scientist have been afflicted with.




_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#39469 - 08/13/11 08:03 AM Re: Harvested TV, radio signals power devices [Re: paul]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Quote:

So what you are saying is that there would be a limited number of these devices that could be used , otherwise
... reduce or even eliminate the effectiveness of the radio broadcast itself


Yes. Buildings and hills already do this quite significantly anyway. They're effectively RF scavengers that dissipate their captured energy as heat.

Sure we could put the antennas on the surfaces of these things so the effect is no worse that it was anyway. But the space available for that it limited and it's so widely distributed that wiring them all up would be quite costly. To be more effective you'd probably have to build walls of them - blocking some of the radio signal from reaching receivers beyond the wall.


Originally Posted By: paul
the above would be more along the lines of no cost or free energy because it uses the heat produced by our sun.
but it can use any heat source , maybe we could even wear them to power our devices because we emit heat.


Solar power isn't free energy.

We can already get electricity from the sun. This is just and improvement on that. It's still not free energy. Not no cost either. Somebody has to produce the nantennas just like somebody has to produce solar panels today.

We can also generate electricity from the wind. We don't have to pay for the wind, it's just free! But that's not what free energy means either.

Top
#39470 - 08/13/11 10:17 AM Re: Harvested TV, radio signals power devices [Re: kallog]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 3527
Quote:
Solar power isn't free energy.


I dont recall ever getting a bill from the sun for using its energy , and that means that when I use it to heat my home and my water, its free , free energy.

the construction cost of the systems I use can not be counted when counting energy cost , as that cost will dimminish every hour I use them , eventually leaving me with a essentially limitless source of free energy.

my water heating system cost about $200.00 to build.
my water heater USED to use 2 4500 watt heating elements.

on the side of my water heater there is a label that says this water heater uses apx $403.00 worth of electricity per year.

but I removed the wires leading to the elements.

so I have saved in the last year $403.00 , thus my construction cost have been repaid and I now get free energy in the form of hot water.

105 F hot water

BTW , it took awhile to figure out the volumes and the cycling to keep the temperature of the water from escalating to above 190 F which is the temperature inside the collector on a sunny day and maintaining a moderate water temperature of 105 F.

my water heater will store hot water for 3 days.

Quote:
We can already get electricity from the sun.


yes we can !!!

however the greed has made that electricity out of reach for most people , I suppose I could use solar pannels to do the same job but the cost difference and the 20 year lifetime restrictions caused me to use a more affordable and longer lasting solar collector instead.

9000 Watts of the cheapest solar pannels would cost apx $150.00 per 40 Watts and probably another $50.00 per pannel installed
and would consume my entire rooftop.


9000 Watts/ 40 Watts = 225 pannels

225 x 200 = $45,000.00

$45,000.00 to do the same job heating my water as the $200.00 collector.

I choose the $200.00 version in lew of wasting the extra
$44,800.00


so yes its free energy , free in more ways than one.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#39483 - 08/14/11 03:42 AM Re: Harvested TV, radio signals power devices [Re: paul]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: paul
my water heating system cost about $200.00 to build.
my water heater USED to use 2 4500 watt heating elements.


Good on you. I have something like that too. But I still need an electric element for cloudy days.

However it's not what's normally meant by "free energy". I don't know why you're trying to make an argument out of this.

I used to live in a house with money-free energy, we paid nothing for electricity because the landlord was stealing it from the power company. But that's not what "free energy" usually means. Please don't redefine the term or it'll just cause confusion.

The sun consumes fuel. That's why it doesn't count as free energy. It won't last forever because it's always pouring away energy from "burnt" fuel.

Top
#39492 - 08/14/11 10:28 AM Re: Harvested TV, radio signals power devices [Re: kallog]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 3527
Quote:
The sun consumes fuel. That's why it doesn't count as free energy. It won't last forever


but I dont have to pay for the fuel the sun burns.

so , as long as I live and as long as the sun shines my
water heater system and my home heat will be using the
free energy from the sun.

until the republicans can figure out a way to charge us for the suns energy that is.

maybe they will build a sphere that surrounds the entire earth that blocks sunlight and you can rent a window that will allow sunlight through that will shine on your property.



Quote:
Good on you. I have something like that too. But I still need an electric element for cloudy days


No worries , your not beyond the black stump.

what you need is a water heater that has really thick insulation.

calculate the volume of hot water you use in a single day.

then if you use 50 gallons per day then you would need 1
of the 50 gallon waterheaters per day of cloudy days.

you can get the water heaters really cheap if they dont work
(the electric part) just go to your local salvage yard.

if they are not the thick insulation type just build a box
and allow 5-6 inches space between the box and the water heater.

then buy the cans of foam to fill in the space.

voila , you no longer need to run your element.











_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#39504 - 08/14/11 09:17 PM Re: Harvested TV, radio signals power devices [Re: paul]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: paul
but I dont have to pay for the fuel the sun burns.

Just stop using word games. Stop using the term "free energy" because it will always result in miscommunication.



Quote:
what you need is a water heater that has really thick insulation.

No, what I need is an electronic control to activate the element at appropriate times so I don't have to pay attention to it. You might have forgotten that electricity is so cheap it's practically free. $400 per year? Sure that might be important if your income was $1000/year, but it's not.

Top
#39516 - 08/15/11 09:08 AM Re: Harvested TV, radio signals power devices [Re: paul]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/30/10
Posts: 1386
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Your water heating isn't free. You say you spent $200 dollars on your water heating system. So no matter how long you use it that will not drop to $0.00. There is that cost for hot water, small but still there. Then there is the question of how much work you put into it. If you had put that work into a job that paid you would have had more money, so that has to be figured into the cost of your hot water. And how about maintenance? There has never been a system built that didn't have long term maintenance costs. So they have to be factored in. I believe that you're in Florida, USA. So you may not have to worry about freezing weather, but most of the US isn't that lucky, so other people would have to add some costs for freeze proofing. In fact I used to live in Florida and had my water freeze up, so you aren't completely free from that concern. So no matter what you claim your hot water isn't free. There is a cost to it. In fact TANSTAAFL.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#39522 - 08/15/11 03:11 PM Re: Harvested TV, radio signals power devices [Re: Bill]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 3527
Quote:
There is that cost for hot water, small but still there.


1/2 year after it was built it paid for itself.

it did originaly cost $200.00 but after the first year it has paid me $200.00 and paid for itself.

do you somehow think that it should just magically appear and start saving me $400.00 a year?

BTW , construction cost is not considered when calculating energy efficiencies.

and when I say free energy Im not talking about construction cost , it is the cost of the energy that I am talking about.

do you include the price of your car or truck or the work that the manufacturers put into building it when you determine the energy that it delivers carrying you around.

I didnt include the cost of my water heater or the cost to the manufacturers when they built the water heater , I only included the $403.00 per year in electrical bill that I no longer pay.







_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#39523 - 08/15/11 03:24 PM Re: Harvested TV, radio signals power devices [Re: kallog]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 3527
Quote:
No, what I need is an electronic control to activate the element at appropriate times so I don't have to pay attention to it.


your still going to use the same amount of electricity to heat your water to a given temperature even using a timer switch , but heres one that would do the job.

http://www.google.com/products/catalog?h...ved=0CDUQ8wIwAQ

these things are only good if you are away from your home a day or so all the time.

for instance you could switch your water heater off on friday and then back on on monday using the above timer.

but as I said what you really need is good thick insulation
so that your water heater does not loose the heat that you are paying for when your not using it.

Quote:
You might have forgotten that electricity is so cheap it's practically free. $400 per year? Sure that might be important if your income was $1000/year, but it's not.


It may be cheap , but I get a kick out of lowering my monthly bills , and lowering the amount of pollution that I would normaly be causing.

and if things keep going the way they have been and another republican gets in as the president we might all have to save every penney we can as the republicans seem to want us to lower our expectations concerning wages and living conditions in general.

so in a way Im also expressing my opinion of republicans.

and Im showing just how much I think about their constituents
by lowering my energy bill.


_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >



Moderator:  Amaranth Rose II, Kate, Mike Kremer 
Newest Members
Gareth, hussen, charliechucks7, tom, albert
700 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2013 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.