It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Unbreakable laws of physics? (regarding power generation)

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 12:51 PM
link   
I would guess that many who read this forum have a conversational knowledge of the science behind power generation, and that some may have quite a lot of knowledge of the physics behind that science, so, it is here, in thi forum, that I post a theory regarding power generation.

Is the Law of Conservation unbreakable? Most everyone believes that it is. Countless experiments have been done to try and break this law, and all have only served to strengthen it. As yet, there is no one theory or device that can actually break this law. However, I have my doubts as to the solidity of this law. Remember, 100 years ago, human flight was impossible and splitting an atom was impossible (in fact, very few had even heard of atoms, let alone looked into ways to harness them). 500 years ago, North America didn't even exist. 700 years ago, the Earth was the center of the solar system. As time has progressed, many steadfast laws of physics and general science have been broken. Why not the Law of Conservation?

(For those of you who are not familliar with the Law of Conservation, it is a law of physics that states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. It states that no device can create more energy than used to power it.)

I think the simple existence of the universe is proof that the Law of Conservation can be broken. The universe is full of energy, but where did it come from? It had to be created at some point.

I feel that the Law of Conservation can be broken now, with current human technology. Nikola Tesla, arguably one of the most important electrical physicists of all time, was rumored to have done much research into "cosmic energy", wireless energy transmission, and energy amplification that produced a greater amount of energy than needed to run the device. The major problem with his research is that the majority of his notes on such research have never been found. They were gone when his nephew discovered him dead in his New York apartment in 1946. There are many theories on the circumstances surrounding his death and the disappearance of his notes, but that's a different thread for a different forum. Fact is, none of Tesla's claims of free energy can be backed up. However, I feel that following his known and provable research, and given an open mind in that endeavor, I feel that we may be able to unlock his secrets.

Tesla created a device around the turn of the century called a Tesla Coil. This is, in essence, a highly efficient high voltage transformer. It has fascinated many a physicist, professional and armchair alike since its creation. The bolts of lightning that issue off of the toroid at the crest of the Tesla coil have been recorded of having 5,000,000 volts or more, and carrying 100 or more amperes of current. The devices that have provided these incredible results have, more recently, been powered off of a standard household 120 volt, 20 ampere circuit. If the Law of Conservation holds true, how is this possible? The problem with the Tesla coil, is that the voltage produced by it is very difficult to harness and convert back to usable energy. Tesla also addressed that issue in his wireless energy transmission tests, where he was able to produce highly electrically charges particles in the atmosphere, and then collect them with a reciever several miles away. The reciever ran through a series of step-down transformers, until the signal was at a level to power ordinary devices. Obviously, in doing this, there will be significant power loss in the airbourne transmission of this energy. However, what if we were able to use this electrical current to turn a turbine, in lieu of water or steam (such as the Tesla Turbine)? How about an immediate collection and conversion of the energy within the Tesla coil? I have devised a design for a Tesla coil that will output roughly 500,000 volts and 50 amps, and run off of nothing more than a 12 volt, 18 amp wheelchair or motorcycle battery (meaning it will be able to charge the battery, while providing enough additional power to run 2-3 household electrical circuits). Will this not break the Law of Conservation?

It has long been my belief that it won't be a major electrical engineering firm sich as Westinghouse or GE that will discover the next generation of electrical power generator, but rather an electrical hobbiest with a lesser knowlede of the physics behind it. Without the blinders of the steadfast laws of physics, that hobbiest will be willing to try things that are "completely impossible" in the eyes of better educated physicists. Who knows? They might succeed.




posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 12:07 PM
link   
A very interesting theory O. Just a few comments.

First, the Law of Conservation has yet to be broken and I believe that with the energy crunch the globe is currently experiencing, we would break this law if we could.

Second, though our tech may not be there yet, I expect this law to be broken by using crystal oscillators and amplifiers. A crystal ocillator does not take much energy to begin frequency production. I think you can see where Im going with this.

You should include some links to further explaine the Tesla Coil for those who may not be familliar with its working principles.

Anyway, just wanted to say good job on posting an intresting and enlightening idea.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 04:07 PM
link   
I tend to agree that its only a matter of time before the laws will be re-written.. As an example of simple amplification look at a Bose wave radio. It is a simple enough design that uses a small speaker but the sound goes through a 6 foot tube that has an expanded ring in the tube that amplifies the sound. No electronic marvel. just a remarkable design.
It would be similar for any device application, it is only our development that is lacking and not the capability. IMHO



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
First, the Law of Conservation has yet to be broken and I believe that with the energy crunch the globe is currently experiencing, we would break this law if we could.


It is true that the law of conservation has yet to be broken, yet most physicists with the funding needed to break the law, and do it reliably and efficiently are often also blinded by the laws of physics, and accept them as hard truth, and thus don't bother trying to break them. Given my basic to intermediate understanding of physics, and good understanding of electricity, I feel that it can be done now, with current tech (actually, 60-100 year old tech, as I'm basing my personal research on Tesla's work, which ended with his death in 1943).


Second, though our tech may not be there yet, I expect this law to be broken by using crystal oscillators and amplifiers. A crystal ocillator does not take much energy to begin frequency production. I think you can see where Im going with this.


I wasn't aware (well only peripherally aware) of crystal oscillators until you mentioned them. After doing a little cursory research to refamiliarize myself with them, I will say, it's an interesting idea, and certainly merits some research. I will look into this along with my Tesla coil research - perhaps the two can somehow be conjoined to make an even more efficient power plant.


You should include some links to further explaine the Tesla Coil for those who may not be familliar with its working principles.


Good point. Well, here's a few to get someone who may be interested started (and, before posting them, I must also issue the warning: Tesla coils are extremely high voltage devices, and can be DEADLY (contrary to popular belief, amperage isn't the only form of electricity that can kill). Use the information within the following links at your own risk. Heed the warnings listed at each link.

Tesla Coils at Wikipedia
Tesla Memorial Society of New York
Tesla Coil Safety
General Tesla Coil information, including schematics
Tesla Coil and Lichtenburg Figure photos (Lichtenburg figures are images of high voltage discharges captured in a specialized glass - the look like lightning bolts, captured in time)
Bare bones Tesla Coil plans. If you use these plans, please heed the warnings, and make use of the safety devices listed at this site.


Anyway, just wanted to say good job on posting an intresting and enlightening idea.


I'd like to extend the same 'good job' to you. The oscillating crystals is an angle I hadn't previously considered, and may prove to be a very helpful means of constructing my device. If they prove to be useful (or integral) to my device, you are certain to get credit.



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by keybored
I tend to agree that its only a matter of time before the laws will be re-written.. As an example of simple amplification look at a Bose wave radio. It is a simple enough design that uses a small speaker but the sound goes through a 6 foot tube that has an expanded ring in the tube that amplifies the sound. No electronic marvel. just a remarkable design.
It would be similar for any device application, it is only our development that is lacking and not the capability. IMHO


As a live sound professional, I will agree that it is quite a remarkable design for sound amplification. Unfortunately, it's not usable as a power source. Sound waves make very poor energy generators. I have done a little theoretical research into the use of amplified sound as a source for power generation, and while the sound waves themselves can be quite effective as a weapon (brings new meaning to "bass cannon"), the resulting loss of energy when trying to use sound waves to power an energy source has an energy loss around 80%, just in powering the device, and about 99% loss overall.

Although, with the oscillating crystals that kidfinger mentioned in the post above yours, it is possible that sound could be used to excite the crystals. If siginficant energy capture can be achieved using crystals as the catylist, this might work.



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 05:33 PM
link   
For my third post in a row on this thread, I just want to post another suggestion for possible low-loss power amplification.

In responding to keybored's post, I remembered the physics of waves in certain popular surfing spots in Hawaii. These spots are known for remarkably large waves. The cause of these waves is the fact that the beaches are at the end of a natural funnel created by rock boundaries on either side. These natural funnels start wide at the ocean side, and become narrow at the beach side. The result is that the normal sized waves are forced to compress once they enter the funnel, and since the energy carried cannot be dissipated, it causes the waves to swell to enormous proprtions.

If applied to electrical theory, it would be able to increase the intensity of an electrical current, though frequency would remain the same. The result would be a higher wattage capacity, without increasing voltage or amperage. This could be used to make a standard circuit more resistant to overload.

As it is, a standard American household circuit can handle up to 120 volts and 20 amps. Using the wattage to amperage conversion equation, this states that a standard household circuit can handle up to about 1500 watts. Perhaps, in using this theory, I could improve the wattage handling of a standard household circuit to 2000 or more watts, without increasing overall energy consuption (that circuit can never output more than 20 amps and 120 volts). That might very well be yet another breech of the Law of Conservation. At the least, it would significantly improve the efficiency of household electrical systems. (you'd be able to plug more into a single circuit without risk of overloading).

Hmm... must look into that further.



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 07:13 PM
link   
I'm 16 and I am just starting to take physicis in high school, and my information about Tesla is also limited, I read about him as a kid but my comprehensive abilities were weak.


But with the information I know at the moment, I seem to think that friction could have a large impact on efficiency. Would it be helpfull to reduce electrical friction by having currents travelling on something other than a copper wire. Doesn't adsl use magnetism to transfer information at higher speeds. What if you used your funnel amplification and with a magnetic feild.

I'm probably totally off and have no idea what I'm talking about but I just thought I would try.



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by enthuziazm
But with the information I know at the moment, I seem to think that friction could have a large impact on efficiency. Would it be helpfull to reduce electrical friction by having currents travelling on something other than a copper wire. Doesn't adsl use magnetism to transfer information at higher speeds. What if you used your funnel amplification and with a magnetic feild.

I'm probably totally off and have no idea what I'm talking about but I just thought I would try.


Friction does have an impact on efficiency. The lower the ohms (resistance) in a circuit, the higher the efficiency. Copper is typically used because it has a relatively low resistance, and is fairly cheap to manufacture. Aluminum is quickly replacing copper in general usage wiring because it's even cheaper, though the resistance is a little higher.

The best efficiency is achieved with more exotic (read: pricy) metals such as gold and platinum.

ADSL doesn't use magnetism. The transmission speeds in DSL lines (ADSL is only a variety of DSL transmission, meaning Asynchronous Digital Subscriber Line - or one direction transmits faster than the other, or download speeds are faster than upload speeds) is determined by the protocol and the proprietary data compression. DSL in general simply uses the broad spectrum of non-audible frequencies within a standard telephone line (an average phone call only uses about 10-15% of the transmission capability of the line).

Magnetism may help transmission within a circuit slightly, by aligning the atoms such that all North ends point in the same direction, giving a path of slightly less resistance. The downside, however, is the amount of power needed to provide proper magnetism to the line would quickly deplete the extra power produced.

What I've proposed is using power transmitted using a basic 16 guage wire, using a superconductor to concentrate that power into a smaller wire, thereby increasing the frequency and intensity of the electrical pulse, and transmitting the increased power along a more robust, yet smaller guage line (this is where exotic metals may come into play).

Magnetics come into play when talking about wireless power transmission. In this means, there is no resistance from wires, and a slight magnetic field (typically induced by a low voltage current) is used to attract the now airborne power to the reciever. Eventually, as the power is attracted to the reciever, the electrical fields will synchronize between the transmitter and reciver, and a link will be established.

This link is rich with links, and will better explain wireless power transmission than I can: en.wikipedia.org...

So, in short, magnetic fields can be used to increase transmission, but not in the manner you thought.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 01:54 AM
link   
The Law of Conservation can not and will not be broken. That is why it is call the "Law of Conservation of Energy" instead of the "Theory of Conservation of Energy".



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by wild_cat
The Law of Conservation can not and will not be broken. That is why it is call the "Law of Conservation of Energy" instead of the "Theory of Conservation of Energy".


Scientists are constantly disproving concepts that were once thought to be laws of science. There is no reason that this should be any different. Keep in mind, it was once a scientific law that the Earth was the center of the universe. It was once a scientific law that the Earth was flat. It was once a scientific law that man could never fly. All of these have been thoroughly disproven, often by people who thought quite radically for their time.

Additionally, if you took every bit of knowledge from every member of the human race, put it all together, and compared it to everything there is to know, the entire human race would know less than one tenth of a percent of everything there is to know. In that remaining 99.9% of knowledge to be learned, there is certainly many things that can break just about every scientific law we have ever had.

I'm just proposing a theory that may or may not work. On paper, it works. There have been some experiments further suggesting that it'll work. The only way to truly prove it is to actually build the device and test it out. If it can be replicated several times by different people, then it will become an accepted theory. If the theory, after years of testing still holds true, it will become a law of science, that disproves the Law of Conservation. That law will probably also be broken over time.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 09:58 PM
link   
The reason why it is called a law is because it is unbreakable. Tests and tests have been performed and the same results happen each time. It wasnt called the law of flat earth or the law humans cant fly. It was a theory that the world was flat and we couldnt fly. Sorry



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Let's think "Out side the Box"?

Read this and see what your present thought's can change to , it is an inquiry of major implication's of some very important and recognized figure's from our scientific community. It is a "WOW!" theory, but at the same time, very "Eye Opening" to say the least. The implication's seem to touch every aspect of anyhting to "Propetual Mechanics" to "Green house effect's" and it is a real scary scenario, "If we keep our eye's closed to this possibility."


Tesla's experimental earlier detection notwithstanding, what Whittaker theoretically demonstrated years after Tesla was that future electrical engineers could also take Maxwell's original 4-space, quaternion description of electromagnetic waves (the real "Maxwell's Equations"), add his own (Whittaker's) specific gravitational potential analysis (stemming from simply returning Maxwell's scalar quaternions in Heaviside's version of "Maxwell's Equations"...), and produce a workable "unified field theory" (if not technology!) of gravity control ...
Unless by now, in some government "black project," they already have--


The content's of this summary are not far getched, and there seem's to be other people that are on a higher side of science's that think that there are "Thing's" that other people do not want the general public to know, by way of "Technological Advance's". It is only a theory, but if you read the summary in it's entirity, you have your eye's opened up to whole new way of "Thinking Out Side the Box."

www.enterprisemission.com...

Great thread and I hope there is some one out there to get us a little closer to the definate "Truth's" that are nesseccary for future technologies.



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 04:29 PM
link   
You guys might want to check out the discovery that Tesla made with regards to "radiant energy" or cold electricity.

This discovery made Tesla remark that the Law of conservation of energy is wrong, or at best incomplete.

There is a physicist who rediscovered this called Dr. Peter Lindemann.

He reads his book in this presentation

Look for Free Energy Secrets Of Cold Electricity (pdf) on P2P like Edonkey if you wish to read along. This principle is what Edwin Gray based his engine on.

The theory is that if you charge a high voltage capacitor and release the energy through short pulses, a surplus of energy is created. Where is it coming from? Tesla claimed the Aether (ether).

This circuit can be built quite easily it seems.

[edit on 16-7-2006 by HardToGet]



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Tesla also stumbled upon a theory that he believed and tested that electricity could be wirelessly transferred from one continent to the next. Yet he was not able to finish it among others.



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   
I had the opinion that we don't know enough about the laws of the universe to say there are any unbreakable laws as yet.

At every turn they are rewritng physics at this point in our young understanding.



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 05:43 PM
link   
The law regarding the "Conservation of Energy" CANNOT be broken.

It's IMPOSSIBLE!

I believe pretty well anything is possible, however unfortunately this is one rule that cannot be broken.

If anyone is making a claim to the contrary then I would suggest they do more research on "Open" and "Closed" systems.

Cheers

JS


[edit on 29-7-2006 by jumpspace]



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 05:49 PM
link   
If you want to learn more, ahve a read at Tom Bearden's website:

www.cheniere.org...

Cheers

JS



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 05:53 PM
link   
obsidian, just think about this: where have all of our scientific experiments been performed? earth, or in close orbit. a couple on mars and a moon landing or two. none have been done @ absolute zero and none in a black hole.

face it, we're still noobs, so the law was written by a noob (in laymans terms).



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by obsidian468
I have devised a design for a Tesla coil that will output roughly 500,000 volts and 50 amps, and run off of nothing more than a 12 volt, 18 amp wheelchair or motorcycle battery (meaning it will be able to charge the battery, while providing enough additional power to run 2-3 household electrical circuits). Will this not break the Law of Conservation?


Hi Obsidian, are you saying you have something buildable on paper? How far have you got with this? Is there more you can tell us?


[edit on 29/7/06 by Prote]



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 08:31 PM
link   
Hi obsidian468:


I have devised a design for a Tesla coil that will output roughly 500,000 volts and 50 amps, and run off of nothing more than a 12 volt, 18 amp wheelchair or motorcycle battery (meaning it will be able to charge the battery, while providing enough additional power to run 2-3 household electrical circuits). Will this not break the Law of Conservation?


The energy is coming from the vacuum. This link:

www.cheniere.org...

will give you all the info you need.

Also, if possible, can you please provide the design for this as I would be very interested in building it. U2U?

As far as I'm concerned Tesla and Moray were the two people who could have saved this planet from the state it is today if their inventions weren't "swept under the carpet".

Cheers

JS



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join