1. Welcome to our site! Electro Tech is an online community (with over 170,000 members) who enjoy talking about and building electronic circuits, projects and gadgets. To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.
    Dismiss Notice

Water powered generator idea.

Discussion in 'Renewable Energy' started by Cotowar, Oct 24, 2008.

  1. Mikebits

    Mikebits Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2008
    Messages:
    6,214
    Likes:
    174
    Location:
    San Diego, Ca
    How did you arrive at that conclusion? Even the furthest star in space has a finite distance to Earth.

    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.
     
  2. allcanadian

    allcanadian New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    Messages:
    24
    Likes:
    0
    @MikebitsQuote:
    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.:confused:

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

    blueroomelectronics Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2007
    Messages:
    12,536
    Likes:
    168
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    Why Milliways is at the end of the universe.
    [​IMG]
     
  4. dave

    Dave New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 1997
    Messages:
    -
    Likes:
    0


     
  5. Mikebits

    Mikebits Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2008
    Messages:
    6,214
    Likes:
    174
    Location:
    San Diego, Ca

    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.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2008
  6. allcanadian

    allcanadian New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    Messages:
    24
    Likes:
    0
    @Mikebits
    LOL, Your right I took your words out of context, I will try a new angle:D

    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.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2008
  7. Cotowar

    Cotowar New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Messages:
    49
    Likes:
    0
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
    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. :)
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2008
  8. uaefame

    uaefame New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2008
    Messages:
    271
    Likes:
    9
    Location:
    Dubai, UAE
    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!
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2008
  9. allcanadian

    allcanadian New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    Messages:
    24
    Likes:
    0
    @Cotowar
    Now those are some excellent points:D
    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.
     
  10. Cotowar

    Cotowar New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Messages:
    49
    Likes:
    0
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
    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.
     
  11. allcanadian

    allcanadian New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    Messages:
    24
    Likes:
    0
    @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.
     
  12. ArrowHead

    ArrowHead New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    62
    Likes:
    3
    Location:
    Quebekistan
    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.
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2008
  13. Mikebits

    Mikebits Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2008
    Messages:
    6,214
    Likes:
    174
    Location:
    San Diego, Ca
    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.
     
  14. Cotowar

    Cotowar New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Messages:
    49
    Likes:
    0
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
    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.
     
  15. Cotowar

    Cotowar New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Messages:
    49
    Likes:
    0
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
    I gave you rep points because I love your avatar.
     
  16. allcanadian

    allcanadian New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    Messages:
    24
    Likes:
    0
    @Mikebits
    Quote:
    I would agree, many people like to talk physics to impress other people but where is the practical application?.

    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?
     
  17. Mikebits

    Mikebits Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2008
    Messages:
    6,214
    Likes:
    174
    Location:
    San Diego, Ca
    Oh Goodie! At last, after 2,000 years of work, the eludium pu36 explosive space modulator. At long last, my dream come true.
     
  18. ArrowHead

    ArrowHead New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    62
    Likes:
    3
    Location:
    Quebekistan
    *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.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2008
    • Like Like x 1
  19. BigIdeasNoMoney

    BigIdeasNoMoney New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2008
    Messages:
    2
    Likes:
    0
    Divert your bath and sink waste water to the system to give it a boost every now and then.
     
  20. Hero999

    Hero999 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2006
    Messages:
    14,902
    Likes:
    79
    Location:
    England
    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.
     
  21. Willbe

    Willbe New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,236
    Likes:
    7
    Location:
    MD
    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.
     
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2008

Share This Page