Water powered generator idea.

[Mikebits]

But we are dealing with infinite distances so the time frame is infinite--it never stops.

How did you arrive at that conclusion? Even the furthest star in space has a finite distance to Earth.

A capacitor(s) will charge without any work input from the operator, it is free energy and it may be perpetual as far as my small life here on earth is concerned.

What? Free energy my arse. You have to put energy into it, all the while some of the input is lost. Not even free.

Speaking of nothing, this thread seems to be approaching the abysmal vortex of a black hole.

 

[allcanadian]

@MikebitsQuote:

A capacitor(s) will charge without any work input from the operator, it is free energy and it may be perpetual as far as my small life here on earth is concerned.

What? Free energy my arse. You have to put energy into it, all the while some of the input is lost. Not even free.
Speaking of nothing, this thread seems to be approaching the abysmal vortex of a black hole.

Hey Mike I posted a circuit a few posts back utilizing a capacitor and two diodes and this circuit charges the cap with NO input from you---it comes from somewhere obviously I'm just not 100% sure where. The circuit will cost you under $1 to build, why not take ten minutes out of your life and PROVE IT FOR YOURSELF.

Quote:
But we are dealing with infinite distances so the time frame is infinite--it never stops.
How did you arrive at that conclusion? Even the furthest star in space has a finite distance to Earth.

So you know as a fact there are no stars AFTER the furthest star we can see with our best telescopes? WOW

 

[blueroomelectronics]

Why Milliways is at the end of the universe.
**broken link removed**

 

[Mikebits]

So you know as a fact there are no stars AFTER the furthest star we can see with our best telescopes? WOW

That has to be one of the most absurd arguments I have ever heard. I have no doubt that there are stars in the far reaches of space that our telescopes cannot detect. That does not imply that these are infinate, rather they are just damn far away with some finite distance.

 

[allcanadian]

@Mikebits

That has to be one of the most absurd arguments I have ever heard. I have no doubt that there are stars in the far reaches of space that our telescopes cannot detect. That does not imply that these are infinate, rather they are just damn far away with some finite distance.

LOL, Your right I took your words out of context, I will try a new angle

How did you arrive at that conclusion? Even the furthest star in space has a finite distance to Earth.

What I was trying to get at is that we simply do not know where space ends, if space is curved or if space is infinite. As you say the aurgument seems absurd, one billion or one trillion light years makes little difference to us on this very small planet.

What does matter is that energy is present everywhere WE know of, as such this energy can be utilized. If makes no difference whether the machine that extracts this energy lasts a year or one hundred, the fact remains that energy can be extracted. We could say a crystal radio is a free energy circuit as it has no energy input from the builder. The next logical step is to build a device which extracts energy from a larger EM spectrum, maybe from radio frequency-microwave-infrared-visible-UV to X-rays in which case this device would produce hundreds of times more energy than a crystal radio. The problem is everyone is pre-occupied with LC circuits designed to oscillate at one frequency. If you could design a circuit to oscillate at thousands of frequencies simultaneously it should be obvious that this machine would produce major power and must work in reality because the technology is based on conventional technology---a simple crystal radio. There is aready a technology which can transmit over hundreds of frequencies at one time, it is called a multi-wave oscillator.

 

[Cotowar]

@Nigel

And there lies the ultimate question----"Who gave you the silly notion that there could ever be "nothing" anywhere at any time?". Where is this "Nothing" as you call it? If you are refering to empty space I told you physics states all space must be filled with radiation without exception, all matter must have motion thus filling the space within itself periodically. So it is a scientific fact that at no point any where at anytime can there be "NOTHING". What you call "Nothing" cannot exist because it would constitute an energy sink of infinite magnitude at which point everything that you consider "something" would rush towards this nothing at the speed of light filling it. Maybe science has missed something?, could you explain where this "nothing" is you are speaking of.

Stephen Hawking discusses this in detail I believe in chapter 8 of A Brief History of Time. Maybe its not chapter 8, but its the one on black holes. Basically he says there are particles emitted from black holes occasionally, and that these particles split into real and anti-particles if I remember correctly. basically the real ones escape, and the anti-particles get sucked back in. I can't remember the verbage, as I read the book when I was in like 8th grade, but he talks about it in great detail. He also covers what happens when these real particles collide with the anti-particles. Basically they turn into "Nothing". As its positive and negative energy canceling each other out. I'm pretty sure anti-particle is the wrong term to use here, but its the only one I can think of at the moment, as the real term eludes me. Anyways, read that book if you want to know where "Nothing" exists. Also, what would you say exists in a vacuum? I'd say nothing, especially if the vacuum were shielded from radiation. Please fill me in as to what's really in a shielded vacuum if I'm wrong though, and yes, the pun was intended.

 

[uaefame]

what would you say exists in a vacuum? I'd say nothing, especially if the vacuum were shielded from radiation. Please fill me in as to what's really in a shielded vacuum if I'm wrong though, and yes, the pun was intended.

As allcanadian stated, Even vaccum contain radiation in it. Therefore, Vaccum can't be classified as nothing.

For Good reasons, can someone stop this thread!

 

[allcanadian]

@Cotowar

He also covers what happens when these real particles collide with the anti-particles. Basically they turn into "Nothing". As its positive and negative energy canceling each other out. I'm pretty sure anti-particle is the wrong term to use here, but its the only one I can think of at the moment, as the real term eludes me. Anyways, read that book if you want to know where "Nothing" exists. Also, what would you say exists in a vacuum? I'd say nothing, especially if the vacuum were shielded from radiation. Please fill me in as to what's really in a shielded vacuum if I'm wrong though, and yes, the pun was intended.

Now those are some excellent points
One thought I would have concerning the particle/antiparticle is does this sound reasonable? can you see something like this happening in reality? An analogy I would make is a stretched elastic band. If an elastic band is stretched out equally from the center producing two equally opposed conditions from the center. Then when the tension on the elastic band is released the opposite conditions cease to exist but the elastic band remains. There is a possibility that the particle/antiparticle are like the opposed conditions of the stretched elastic band, they are not something but a condition of something. When the particle/antiparticle collide the electrical tension or opposite conditions will cease to exist thus the particle/antiparticle will cease to exist. But---and this is a big but, you have to assume all space is fiiled with something. You would have to assume space is fiiled with charge carriers immersed in an insulating fluid having mechanical properties and what we call particles are not something in themselves but conditions of something hundreds of times smaller than an electron. If this is the case then a vacuum chamber can never be completely shielded from radiation because the radiation may not be travelling in matter but is travelling in "what" matter is made of on a scale so small it would be hard to comprehend. This is essentially wave theory, everyone has an opinion and I respect that, I like this theory because it makes more sense to me. The problem I have with Einstein's theory's is that there are too many inconsistencies and there are many things which make no sense like fantasy particles appearing out of nowhere without cause, I think every effect we measure or prove must have a cause we can prove.

 

[Cotowar]

@Cotowar

Now those are some excellent points
One thought I would have concerning the particle/antiparticle is does this sound reasonable? can you see something like this happening in reality? An analogy I would make is a stretched elastic band. If an elastic band is stretched out equally from the center producing two equally opposed conditions from the center. Then when the tension on the elastic band is released the opposite conditions cease to exist but the elastic band remains. There is a possibility that the particle/antiparticle are like the opposed conditions of the stretched elastic band, they are not something but a condition of something. When the particle/antiparticle collide the electrical tension or opposite conditions will cease to exist thus the particle/antiparticle will cease to exist. But---and this is a big but, you have to assume all space is fiiled with something. You would have to assume space is fiiled with charge carriers immersed in an insulating fluid having mechanical properties and what we call particles are not something in themselves but conditions of something hundreds of times smaller than an electron. If this is the case then a vacuum chamber can never be completely shielded from radiation because the radiation may not be travelling in matter but is travelling in "what" matter is made of on a scale so small it would be hard to comprehend. This is essentially wave theory, everyone has an opinion and I respect that, I like this theory because it makes more sense to me. The problem I have with Einstein's theory's is that there are too many inconsistencies and there are many things which make no sense like fantasy particles appearing out of nowhere without cause, I think every effect we measure or prove must have a cause we can prove.

Yea, and to be honest, I can't even begin to explain the theory I stated earlier. My high school physics teacher was a former professor at UIUC, and was telling me someone in his PhD class did research on something similar to this. You can actually see the anti-particle in certain situations. You can do some stuff at ultra low temps, and you can get the particle to separate from the anti-particle. Tehy counter rotate, and shoot away from each other. I don't know a lot about this stuff,mostly because I don't see any practical application for it, but somone out there does, and the information is pretty interesting.

I personally believe all the theories are at elast partially correct, just in different forms. I guess a similar comparrison would be calling light a wave or a particle. In the right conditions, light can be either, so neither theory is absolutely correct. They both, however, express views that are at least somewhat true.

The only theory I don't believe in is creationsim, mostly because its based solely on wishful thinking, and there is no physical proof, no experiment, and no factual evidence that proves its existence. That's a different debate though, and one that I'm not going to start on this forum.

 

[allcanadian]

@Cotowar

I personally believe all the theories are at elast partially correct, just in different forms. I guess a similar comparrison would be calling light a wave or a particle. In the right conditions, light can be either, so neither theory is absolutely correct. They both, however, express views that are at least somewhat true.
The only theory I don't believe in is creationsim, mostly because its based solely on wishful thinking, and there is no physical proof, no experiment, and no factual evidence that proves its existence. That's a different debate though, and one that I'm not going to start on this forum.

I would agree, many people like to talk physics to impress other people but where is the practical application?. How can you justify spending billions on physics experiments like the particle accelerators which have never benefited mankind in any way. It is said some people have produced the same results from a table top device, which would amount to a "slap across the face" to any respectable physicist.LOL, History has proven that the greatest benefits to mankind were often developed in someones garage in there spare time.

 

[ArrowHead]

Well without the “useless” quantum physics, flash memory wouldn’t be nearly as good as it is.

Things that the general public think are useless often end up being very useful.

 

[Mikebits]

I would agree, many people like to talk physics to impress other people but where is the practical application?.

Only someone who does not understand physics would make such a statement.

How about you do this. Stick your finger in a powered light socket, and after you get up, return with a rebuttal to potential energy.

 

[Cotowar]

@Cotowar

I would agree, many people like to talk physics to impress other people but where is the practical application?. How can you justify spending billions on physics experiments like the particle accelerators which have never benefited mankind in any way. It is said some people have produced the same results from a table top device, which would amount to a "slap across the face" to any respectable physicist.LOL, History has proven that the greatest benefits to mankind were often developed in someones garage in there spare time.

I'm going to make the first self contained robot to beat the turing test. I'm going to do it in my bedroom though, as the garage is smaller, and more full of junk. LOL.

 

[Cotowar]

Well without the “useless” quantum physics, flash memory wouldn’t be nearly as good as it is.

Things that the general public think are useless often end up being very useful.

I gave you rep points because I love your avatar.

 

[allcanadian]

@Mikebits
Quote:
I would agree, many people like to talk physics to impress other people but where is the practical application?.

Only someone who does not understand physics would make such a
statement.
How about you do this. Stick your finger in a powered light socket, and after you get up, return with a rebuttal to potential energy.

Oh, I understand physics well enough to get the job done, I like to practice physics rather than preach it.
You know if I was utilizing the reactive component of electricity I "could" stick my finger in a light socket with little effect, in fact I have immersed an operating 20w bulb under water and it worked just fine. Maybe in your infinite wisdom of physics you could tell me why reactive current acts in such a manner? Or maybe to start how reactive current can be produced?

 

[Mikebits]

Oh Goodie! At last, after 2,000 years of work, the eludium pu36 explosive space modulator. At long last, my dream come true.

 

[ArrowHead]

@Mikebits
You know if I was utilizing the reactive component of electricity I "could" stick my finger in a light socket with little effect, in fact I have immersed an operating 20w bulb under water and it worked just fine. Maybe in your infinite wisdom of physics you could tell me why reactive current acts in such a manner? Or maybe to start how reactive current can be produced?

*Sigh*

You know, that’s “not even wrong”. Add reactive power to the growing list of things you don’t know •••• about but don’t the shame not to fake it.

Honestly, I don’t know how you think you can get away with pulling electrical buzzwords out of your ••• on an electronics forum.

As for the lightbulb, Assuming the contacts and conductors are isolated from the water and/or the water is fairly pure, immersing the bulb in water and then closing the circuit will do no harm. Immersing an already lit bulb in water could destroy the bulb, but it would have nothing to do with electricity and everything to do with thermal shock.

 

[BigIdeasNoMoney]

Divert your bath and sink waste water to the system to give it a boost every now and then.

 

[Hero999]

@Nigel

And there lies the ultimate question----"Who gave you the silly notion that there could ever be "nothing" anywhere at any time?". Where is this "Nothing" as you call it? If you are refering to empty space I told you physics states all space must be filled with radiation without exception, all matter must have motion thus filling the space within itself periodically. So it is a scientific fact that at no point any where at anytime can there be "NOTHING". What you call "Nothing" cannot exist because it would constitute an energy sink of infinite magnitude at which point everything that you consider "something" would rush towards this nothing at the speed of light filling it. Maybe science has missed something?, could you explain where this "nothing" is you are speaking of.

Of course there is no such thing as nothing, energy is all around us in the form of heat but it isn't energy that doesn't work it's energy gradients - look up the second law of thermodynamics.

 

[Willbe]

Okay, basically here's my idea. Have falling water turn fly wheels, that will spin wires in magnetic fields and generate electricity.
I was thinking a reservoir with holes in the bottom, connected to tubes containing fly wheels (similar in design to a flow meter in a water cooling system). the fly wheel can be geared to increase the output speed, and will spin tightly coiled wires through strong magnetic fields. I was thinking about using neodymium magnets for this, as they can be smaller and still have a good field.

Figure out how many pounds of water will drop how many feet. This is the kinetic energy that you will convert to elec. energy. I've seen links to turbines for 500w.