Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: tinymind
As you release the rope, the block will accelerate toward the ground. Due to frictional forces that acceleration wont be at exactly 1g. Anyway, the energy the the block will obtain will be the gravitational potential energy that was stored by lifting it to its height.

The block will loosing potential energy, this energy being converted into Kinetic energy, and the rope will be obtaining Kinetic energy as it moved.

Now, there is a difference between force and energy...

If you apply 100lbs of resistance, your net force as you describe is zero. Thus the block will maintain its current speed, and not accelerate toward the ground anymore. If you wanted to stop the block, you would need to apply more than 100lbs force, in order to produce a deceleration affect. The higher the force you apply, the faster the block will stop.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Believe it or not; I kind of figured as much.

I was hoping for a little more detailed information but I guess I should have worded my question in some more intelligible manner.

But, thanks though.

a reply to: ErosA433

Thanks.

Actually, gained more "usable" information than another response.

Hey guys, been enjoying this thread and I ran across an article that I thought I would run through the mill here.
Strange Atomic Ripples in Graphene Could Unlock Clean, Limitless Energy

Is this anything promising in your opinion(s)?

Thank you

ETA: I feel that graphene is an emerging industry that will become huge and for investing, I was curious if anyone knows of a good company that may take the lead in production/distribution?
Also, just found a thread on this I will now go read.

originally posted by: tinymind
a reply to: ErosA433

Thanks.

Actually, gained more "usable" information than another response.

Just equate the energies or the work done and you will get the distance your 100 pound force has to move to arrest the fall

a reply to: waftist
Nothing he said leads me to believe it's limitless, since he's talking about 10 microwatts which is a finite and rather small amount. He didn't mention anything about scaling it up. It may or may not turn out to be practical, but it's not something I'd invest in.

If you only need microwatts, or these researchers claim potentially milliwatts, the air is full of electromagnetic radiation from various man-made sources which can be harvested for tiny amounts of power which again would be very impractical to scale up and couldn't be used to power your house, but still I find it cool and potentially useful for the type of applications described below.

New Printable Antenna Can Harvest Ambient Energy To Power Small Electronics

A new ultra-wideband antenna printed on paper or plastic can harvest ambient energy, enabling wireless sensors to tap into electromagnetic currents in the air around them. The device captures energy from a wide spectrum of frequencies, converts it to direct current, and stores it in capacitors or batteries.

Researchers at Georgia Tech scavenged sufficient microwatts to power a temperature sensor, using the ambient energy produced by a television station signal that was a third of a mile away.

More powerful systems that tap into multiple wireless bands could generate one milliwatt or more — enough to power small wireless sensors and microprocessors. Researchers hope that when it's combined with advanced capacitor technology, the device could provide up to 50 milliwatts.

I have a fairly good understanding of the printable antenna concept though the 50 milliwatts sounds like a stretch, but I have no doubts they harvested microwatts to power a temperature sensor.

If the graphene concept turns out to be practical, it could offer the advantage of not requiring the antenna and thus one could make more compact designs which would be nice, but I have no idea if it will ever turn out to be a practical source of energy or not. I'm not always on the same page as chr0naut and quite often have a different opinion but in this one case at least, I'm on the same page as chr0naut's comment on page 1 of the graphene thread you linked to. He makes a vague reference to this EM harvesting tech as being much closer to actual realization, described in more detail in the link above, and it looks fairly cheap too.

I wonder though if enough people started harvesting microwatts from a TV station, if the people at the fringes of that TV station's range might have problems with that TV station, meaning it could effectively reduce the range of the broadcast a bit, though hopefully not much.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thank you for the reply and info on printable antenna.
I wonder if this ambient energy can be amplified in any way? Also, could the design of antenna make a difference too? I recall reading about fractal antennas being better transmitters. Any truth to that? Would a graphene fractal antenna be a better design?

As far as investment, I meant for graphene in general, and not just this application. It seems this material will be widely used for it's strength and conductive properties in numerous industries, and I feel whomever gets the jump on it's general manufacturing could be big. I will check into the NTS Innovations mentioned in thread.

Well I just wanted to get some input on the article, so again thank you.

originally posted by: waftist
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thank you for the reply and info on printable antenna.
I wonder if this ambient energy can be amplified in any way?

If you ever heard of a crystal radio, it allows you to hear the radio station without any batteries powering an amplifier. Other types of radios use electronic amplification with transistors, which need to be powered by a power source such as batteries or plugging it in to the wall outlet.

But what you probably had in mind was getting more power from the radio, TV or other EM signal. The closer you are to the transmitter, the more power you have available, but if you're several miles from the transmitter, there's just not much power there to collect. You could use multiple antennas which technically isn't amplification, but I don't think you can power your house with it even if you had a room full of antennas.

Also, could the design of antenna make a difference too?

Of course. If you read the link about the printable antennas, the researchers are trying different designs, and when they mention the higher power figures (by higher power they mean a full milliwatt instead of just microwatts), they say an antenna design that can collect a broad frequency range of EM might achieve that.

I recall reading about fractal antennas being better transmitters. Any truth to that?

If you post your link I'll read it and give you an opinion, but I doubt that "fractal" alone ensures better performance. I suspect I could make a fractal antenna that performs better than a non-fractal antenna, and I also suspect I can make a fractal antenna that performs worse than a non-fractal antenna, so just to say it's fractal doesn't directly imply how well it will perform to me. There are many things to consider, such as whether you want to use the antenna for a narrow frequency range or for a broad frequency range.

Would a graphene fractal antenna be a better design?

These graphene RFID tags sound interesting, but the article doesn't say anything about them being fractal, you have some obsession with fractal?

Graphene antenna ‘could deliver cheap, flexible sensors’

As far as investment, I meant for graphene in general, and not just this application. It seems this material will be widely used for it's strength and conductive properties in numerous industries, and I feel whomever gets the jump on it's general manufacturing could be big. I will check into the NTS Innovations mentioned in thread.

The graphene RFID antennas have apparently already been commercialized though I don't have any idea how successful the company is, but I see the board includes the 2010 Nobel prize in Physics winners for graphene research.

Well I just wanted to get some input on the article, so again thank you.

You're welcome. Post the fractal antenna link if you want some feedback on that.

Hey i think have a implant on th back of my left wrist as a result of ET abduction on 4th Jan. What could it do or where does it obtain its power

Wrong forum?

Also kept it rather quiet for what... over a month? Not posted anything in what would be the relevant forum areas?

What could it do?

The cynic in me says
1) Maybe it gives you a fall back to later stories in which you say "Im being tracked man! I have secrets but am afraid to tell anyone", opens the door to make random posts about crazy inventions or make believe technology
2) Preparation for a disappearing act and rebirth as a new profile?

The logic in me says
1) There are loads of better places to put implants in the human body, the back of the wrist seems a rather unintelligent choice of location, if (assuming it was an implant) it was for anything nefarious like biological monitoring the wrist is not a good location
2) Iv never seen any credible evidence that says any bits of random metal removed from peoples bodies have ever been more than bits of shrapnel or debris

The Scientist in me says
1) Power source, I can think of several, if something requires very low power it could easily use a tritium nuclear battery?, movement, chemical reactions across its surface.

a reply to: ErosA433

Yes movement and body heat could be a power source.
Dont think you read my thread on these happenings

a reply to: ErosA433

I'd go with movement and maybe some sort of thermal differential based power generation scheme hybrid system...

Then it would make perfect sense to embed it in that part of the body even.

Not saying that I feel this has actually happened or anything, but if you did make something like that and implant it in this area you'd have consistent baseline power from the thermal differential stuff (and some interesting secondary ability to monitor vital signs to boot) regardless of whether the subject was awake and or moving around. Even better though is you'd tend to get more power from this to run whatever you're powering based on the physiological reactions of the subject ie when they're stressed and thus something interesting is likely happening you'd have more power to run whatever.

Throwing in the kinetic stuff on top probably could give you enough for accelerometers and etc too.

Sorry for geeking out on this stuff but I've actually been looking into power harvesting and etc in order to power stuff for projects not involving implants I'm working on, and one realization I quickly came to was that a hybrid multitiered harvesting system could actually be made such that you need to generate less power to begin with by making the actual harvester arrays double as sensors.

As I've mentioned before, I'm trying to model the Lorentz Force Equation (LFE) from my two component aether model and I want to give everyone a status update on the effort.

When expressed in terms of potentials the LFE has three terms: -q grad phi -q dA/dt + q grad'(v dot A), where grad' operates on A but not on v. I have a physical model consistent with my Maxwell Equation model for all three terms and have worked out the derivation for the first two terms, but have not worked out the derivation for the third term yet. As part of this I am back to an aether where one of its two components has negative mass. If both have positive mass it causes additional terms to arise that are not now part of Maxwell's Equations nor the LFE. Now it could be that the effects of those additional terms have simply not yet been observed, but I am trying to model the existing equations at the present time.

I mentioned earlier on this thread that with a negative mass component, both aether components move together transversely. (In my modeling, the vector potential is the transverse displacement of the aether.) Hence, a solenoid simply rotates the aether, and I didn't see how that would lead to forces on moving charges within it. But I've now realized that a rotation can either be a simple rotation or it can be a shear, and in the latter case forces will ensue so this again makes physical sense to me.

When I've derived similar things in the past, sometimes the physical models fail to reproduce the needed math, and I have then needed to alter the models. That may happen here too. Right now things are looking good, but until I derive that third term there is still the possibility that it will just all fall apart. Nonetheless I wanted to give all of you an update on my progress. My busy time is nearing an end and I hope to get back to work on this in March and April.

On a separate matter, the editor of Physics Essays has kindly allowed me to republish my absolute quantum theory on InfoGalactic, and that will be coming soon as it hasn't been taking that much time just to reformat a paper. I plan on a new thread here once that is ready. I'd love to have my work on Wikipedia, but there is a policy that you can't publish your own work there.

a reply to: delbertlarson

I think you should devise something tangible that proves your aether model then publish this whereever you choose along with your math and word salad

originally posted by: Hyperboles
a reply to: delbertlarson

I think you should devise something tangible that proves your aether model then publish this whereever you choose along with your math and word salad

All of my theoretical works have three courses. Math appetizer, word salad and the entree. The entree consists of the proposed tests of the theory that differentiate it from the status quo. For the aether, there is even the promise of a fourth course, the dessert: possible practical ramifications. But first the appetizer, then the salad, then the entree, and only then can we get to dessert.

a reply to: delbertlarson

Lol good one mate

a reply to: delbertlarson

I've never seen someone type so much and not get across a coherent thought. You sir have talent that many politicians would envy.

My favorite line from you.

"Hence, a solenoid simply rotates the aether, and I didn't see how that would lead to forces on moving charges within it."

I'm still laughing at this got to love those magic forces interacting with a non existent aether. I highly suspect you've been huffing aether that may explain this post.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: delbertlarson

I've never seen someone type so much and not get across a coherent thought. You sir have talent that many politicians would envy.

My favorite line from you.

"Hence, a solenoid simply rotates the aether, and I didn't see how that would lead to forces on moving charges within it."

I'm still laughing at this got to love those magic forces interacting with a non existent aether. I highly suspect you've been huffing aether that may explain this post.

Often new (or out of favor) physics ideas are indeed hard to grasp, and can appear incomprehensible if one does not wish to take the time needed to study them. I do try to make things clear, but it may take more time than most people want to spend. You can take a look at this encyclopedia article and see if it is coherent to you. It is based on a peer-reviewed work, and while my theory certainly is not very popular, those few who have studied it (including reviewers) have found it sound. If you see anything to be improved upon, or anything you see that is inconsistent with experiment, or any logical or mathematical flaw, please let me know.

Also, the aether is far from a new concept. The aether was assumed to exist for millennia, and the more specific luminiferous aether was believed in by many giants of physics in the past. Only with Einstein did it lose favor. But certain stubborn physics problems, such as the problem of quantum philosophy discussed at the very top of this thread, as well as the results of Bell's Theorem tests, should encourage thinking physicists to reexamine the aether.

Ps. I got a chuckle about your huffing aether line. I am also happy that you and hyprboles wrote. It is the silence that kills.

question, a decent one this time. no trolling.

apparently intact bottles of wine and or champagne were salvaged from the titanic wreck.

potablity issues aside. how did the bottles or cork not get compromised with the crushing pressures of sitting for 90 years (likely ) at 12,500 foot depths

a reply to: BASSPLYR

a glass bottle is extremely strong to compressive forces