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

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Originally Posted By: Bill
No, it said the device was able to produce .006 microWatts, that's .006 millionths of a watt.


No ! it said 6mW and that equals .006 Watts

Originally Posted By: the link you posted
in one case it was able to produce 6mW of power, at a distance of 3 or 4 kilometers from the tower.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt

Originally Posted By: Bill
Also keep in mind that it is rare for a broadcast station to transmit over 50 kW, so no matter how you work it that is all you could get out of it


Im sorry but your wrong about that , the amount of energy that these devices can generate using the radio waves is not bound by the amount of power that the broadcasting station used to produce the radio waves.


Originally Posted By: Bill
and leaving nothing for the communications receivers that it is aimed at.


radio broadcast are not aimed at anything specific.

you must be thinking of microwave.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wardenclyffe_Tower

it would do about the same thing as Tesla's wardenclyffe would have done long ago if he could have found a rich man who would have invested in it.

the rich man that financed wardenclyffe pictured above just couldnt figure out a way to charge people for the use of the energy they would be getting from the air.













3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: physorg.com
0.06µW of power inside the exhibition hall,

I made one small error, it said .06, not .006. However, the direct quote above shows it as .06 Mu Watt. That is the Greek letter Mu, not an m. And Mu represents 1/1,000,000 or one millionth of a Watt.

The rest of course is as they say "not even wrong".

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
below is a direct quote from the link you posted.
it is located below the video.

Originally Posted By: the link you posted
While neither device converts very much power, the team is confident that uses could be found for such converters, or perhaps new devices created that could take advantage of small amounts of power. They also note that in some areas, such as very near the Tokyo Tower, the rectenna is able produce much more power; in one case it was able to produce 6mW of power, at a distance of 3 or 4 kilometers from the tower.


6mW = .006 Watts
the small "m" above means milli and is expressed as the three digits behind the decimal
as in .001 Watts if you go further back then you are in the micro range as in 1uW and its decimal is expressed as .000001 Watts

21,000,000,000 devices x .006 watts = 126,000,000 watts

Quote:
The rest of course is as they say "not even wrong".


I suppose you are talking about the maximum amount of power that can be generated by using multiple devices.

does this also mean that if there are 21 billion radios inside the 5.5 km circle only some of them will be capable of recieving the radio signals.

not hardly!

the way it really is Bill is that once the signals leave the transmission station the devices would not affect the transmitter at all , they would not place any type of load on the transmitter.


have you ever heard of a radio station having to increase the amount of power that the transmitter consumes because people were buying more and more radios?

that would really make no sense at all.

and if the transmission requires 50kW and you can get
126 MW by using the devices then that just means that
you can get more energy out than you put in.

21,000,000,000 devices x .006 watts = 126,000,000 watts

they call it free energy or overunity or zero point or whatever they choose to call it.


you really arent actually thinking that the number of devices that are using the radio waves to generate power that you could use would depend on the amount of power that the transmitter uses are you?

because if you are then as they also say "thats just wrong"


now getting back to what I said earlier these devices will just fade away or they will be priced so high that using them to achieve overunity or free energy would be out of the question.

as soon as the energy police find out about it your link may not even work any longer or it will be edited to withhold information that would show the possibility of free energy.

unless they can figure out a way to charge you 100 times the price that it cost them for the energy.

thats just the way the world is.
it was that way when Tesla first invented such a invention and it will be that way for years to come.

as long as there is a energy product to sell.



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Paul I don't know why I keep trying to explain things to you, I know you don't believe in TANSTAAFL*, but I keep hoping. So I give up on this effort with the following statement.

You cannot get enough power out of various broadcast RF signals to power anything but very low power specialized devices.

*TANSTAAFL - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. An acronym used by Robert A Heinlein in his science fiction stories. Out of science fiction, but very true

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
You cannot get enough power out of various broadcast RF signals to power anything but very low power specialized devices.


and you cant get much power out of a watch battery either.

but if you connect enough of them together you could power a entire city , nation , or the entire world.

I dont know what your reference to TANSTAAFL* is because I dont read sci fi.

In my world there are no boundaries , no limits , no stop signs , Im free to think whatever I want.

and I dont envy anyone who has been brainwashed into thinking otherwise.

also , if there is no such thing as a free lunch then why are billions being wasted on fusion reactors.

unless you understand that everyone could not afford to build there own fusion reactor , LOL.

I give up Bill hardheaded people are just hardheaded you present them with the data and facts that show how things are and if they dont think its possible they just continue to spam out the teachings that have been brainwashed into their hardheads.

the brainwashing forms a kind of force field around their brain that will not allow anything to penetrate there brain that goes against what they have been taught , or what they cannot comprehend.

sorry Bill but thats just the way it is.









3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: paul
so now we know that free energy is available in this type of device at least , that brings us back to the UGT plastic printed devices , put them everywhere you can find room for them and no more power plants at all.


I can get 1000W of free power when I plug my vacuum cleaner in. The energy just appears in the vacuum cleaner. If we put 1 billion vacuum cleaners in a city then we're getting 1TW of power! More than the power plants that run the city use!

No, it's not free energy. No you cannot get more power than radio transmitters use. No you can't do away with power plants.

Last edited by kallog; 08/08/11 12:46 AM.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: paul
the brainwashing forms a kind of force field around their brain that will not allow anything to penetrate there brain that goes against what they have been taught , or what they cannot comprehend.


A bit like how you designed a reactionless drive that was practical and affordable for anybody to make at home. But you didn't bother to make it? Something put a stop sign in your head and said "Paul, deep down you know this can't work, you'll feel like a fool and waste your money. Better to just talk about it instead so you can keep believing what you enjoy. Don't let reality make life boring."

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: paul
also , if there is no such thing as a free lunch then why are billions being wasted on fusion reactors.


Fusion energy is not free energy. Do you know why?

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
not that it matters , or that you would be honest about it
but why?

on fission the following is known.

Quote:
fuel relatively abundant, can be operated in breeder mode for essentially limitless supply


does that mean that if opperated in breeder mode the fuel is created as it opperates?

and in breeder mode you are essentially getting something for nothing and eating your lunch for free , and then to get up from the dinner table you just reach down and pull yourself up by your bootstraps.

but I guess it wouldnt be free energy if it is owned by a large corporation that charges for the free energy thereby making the energy not free.

LOL

but even though fussion has not yet been achieved for any sustained period of time , please tell me why fusion would not be free energy.






3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: paul
breeder mode for essentially limitless supply


"essentially" means for somebody's expectation of practical uses. We can also say coal is an "essentially limitless source of free energy" We just dig it up and get energy from it. There's so much buried in the Earth that it'll practically never run out.

Nuclear reactions that produce more energy than they consume cannot leave their fuel in the same state it was in before they started. It always ends up with less energy available for further reactions. It'll always run out eventually.

Stop confusing "free energy" with "no cost energy". That's not what the term means, and I'm sure you know it.

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Stop confusing "free energy" with "no cost energy".


OH , LOL , no cost energy is what I call free energy , just because science wants to find a way to confuse the public with its definition of free energy does not mean that the free energy in a nuclear reaction isnt free energy.

when I say free energy I mean no cost energy as in free.

lets get this point clear however , the actual energy is free but the cost of making the material and then storing the used material far outweighs the payment that the energy companies get paid for the energy.

this causes subsidies to be paid by governments which are simply more public debt.

the radio station would not cost a fraction of the cost of a nuclear power station , it would be buying the 21 billion plastic devices that could be placed on rooftops
and sides of buildings and then connecting them all together that would be extremely costly.

but this does cause free energy to be possible and is easily understandable , you really can eat your lunch for free.

Quote:
limitless


is coal limitless? NO

in fact if we tried to burn coal from now on out till it runs out we would not last a portion of the time it would take to burn it all up.

but using nuclear power we could live side by side until we ran out of fissionable material.

we could even use a electromagnet rail gun to shoot the used nuclear material into our sun.

and that rail gun could be solar powered.

another free energy device is the mintos wheel that utilizes the difference of temperatures to move a gas from one point to another to produce potential energy.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=36a_1188612843

this could be built as a small working machine that would produce energy , and once you build it the energy is free as long as you have a differential of temperatures to move the gas.

a hydrogen engine that is sealed that uses the same volume of water to produce energy would be a example of a thermodynamic free energy machine.

however a radio station that produces radio waves could only be explained as the point of origin of the waves it generates , and the energy that the radio station itself consumes could in no way restrict the amount of energy that can be taken from the radio waves it produces.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: paul
when I say free energy I mean no cost energy as in free.

free but the cost of making the material and then storing the used material far outweighs the payment that the energy


So it's not free. In that sense all energy is free. Energy from oil is free, if you don't count the cost of the oil and the machines that use it.


Quote:

is coal limitless? NO

You still didn't notice the word "essentially".


Quote:

generates , and the energy that the radio station itself consumes could in no way restrict the amount of energy that can be taken from the radio waves it produces.

Where did you get that idea? It's wrong.

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Energy from oil is free, if you don't count the cost of the oil and the machines that use it.


yes but the cost of the oil or coal can be many times the cost of the oil burning boiler or coal burning boiler that burns up the fuel that once burned is gone.

so once you have purchased $1.00 of oil or coal and burned it you have nothing left over.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

However a breeder reactor is a nuclear reactor that generates more fissile material in fuel than it consumes.

the fuel is free , the energy is also free.

so once you purchase $1.00 of fissionable material and burn it , you still have more fuel than you started with.

everything that goes into the construction of the reactor is the construction cost , and should not be confused with energy efficiency.

Quote:
Where did you get that idea? It's wrong.


and the moon is made of cheese.

and cows jump over the moon made of cheese.

where did you get the idea that its wrong?

or just explain why the amount of energy these
devices could generate would be limited to
the amount of energy that the radio stations consume.














3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: paul
However a breeder reactor is a nuclear reactor that generates more fissile material in fuel than it consumes.

the fuel is free , the energy is also free.


I really can't understand how your mind works. How do you reconcile these two facts?

1. Breeder reactors exist and are widely understood and accepted.
2. There are no widely accepted violations of the law of conservation of energy.

Are you saying those nuclear scientists build free-energy machines then turn around and say "yes, here it is, but it's not possible, but it works, but it's not possible."?

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: paul
or just explain why the amount of energy these
devices could generate would be limited to
the amount of energy that the radio stations consume.


1st law

Why do you expect to use a radio station at all? Why not just put a single paper antenna in the middle of the desert and generate 1MW? What's stopping you?

Why use an antenna at all? Just get two ends of a piece of wire and connect them to your TV to power it for free. The energy doesn't have to come from anywhere. The possibilities are limited only by your imagination.

Have you tried that? Ever wondered why it didn't work? No matter how much you willed it to work, no power came out of the wire. Why not? Everything's possible you say.











[/quote]

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

Quote:
A breeder reactor is a nuclear reactor that generates more fissile material in fuel than it consumes.[1] These reactors were initially (1940s and 1960s) considered appealing due to their superior fuel economy: a normal reactor consumes less than 1% of the natural uranium that begins the fuel cycle, while a breeder can burn almost all of it (minus re-processing losses), also generating less waste for equal amounts of energy.[2] Breeders can be designed to use thorium, which is more abundant than uranium. Currently, there is renewed interest in both designs of breeders because of the increased price of natural uranium.

Fissile material is produced by neutron irradiation of fertile material, particularly uranium-238 and thorium-232. This happens to some extent in most reactors. Towards the end of its life, a uranium (not a mixed oxide fuel or MOX, just uranium) pressurized water reactor fuel element is producing more power from bred plutonium than from the remaining uranium-235. In a breeder reactor, fertile materials are deliberately provided, in the fuel and/or a breeder blanket surrounding the core. Historically, a machine specifically designed to create more fuel than it consumes is called a breeder.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
1st law


thats not much of an explanation.

explain why the devices cant output more than the radio station consumes , but dont quote any laws or point to any laws.

if you can.



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: paul
explain why the devices cant output more than the radio station consumes , but dont quote any laws or point to any laws.


No, that's impossible. Without using laws, you can't make claims about things that don't yet exist. Sure the laws might be wrong, but in this case if they were wrong it would have been discovered during the previous 100 years of radio experiments.

You say they can. You show why they can.

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: paul

Quote:
A breeder reactor is a nuclear reactor that generates more fissile material in fuel than it consumes.



That doesn't answer my question. How do you reconcile those apparently contradictory beliefs?

Or do you think breeder reactors are some kind of secret that only you know about? How did they get on Wikipedia?

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
You say they can. You show why they can.


I already have.
21 billion x .006 watts = 126 Mega Watts !

and I could safely say that the above is a low figure because radio stations can broadcast much further than 5.5 km.

even if the signal strength gets lower as the distance from the transmitter increases the amount of devices would also greatly increase as the distance increases.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5