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: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 08:41 PM
link   
And if you do, could you please send me a copy of the design too?

If it based on Tesla´s cold electricity circuit I mentioned before?

Thank you very much in advance....!!




posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Well, the basic circuit design is nothing more than a simple Tesla coil (plans are widely available on the internet - some are better [and safer] than others, so please be cautious when using plans from the internet - I don't recommend that anyone with no high voltage experience try building one - a Tesla Coil can kill you).

The more advanced part of the design is based loosely on other Tesla designed elements, as well as modern electrical and electro-magnetic engineering. The basics of the design I propose is to capture the electrical arcs from the toroid of the coil within a vacuum space, via a form of electrical reciever (based loosely on a Faraday Cage - a device invented in the mid-1800s, still used to deflect electromagnetic energy, and can be modified through reverse polarization to attract electromagnetic energy) in order to harness the full extent of electrical energy released from the toroid on the coil. Through VERY robust wiring (using a room-temperature superconductive material), this energy can be sent through a series of step-down transformers to convert it to usable electricity (either 120v, 240v, or 480v). Each step down in voltage provides more amperage in the conversion, and thus provides the same (or higher) wattage (original wattage coming from the toroid being somewhere in the neighborhood of 10,000 watts or more - I haven't tested that yet). On paper, this circuit can actually provide as much as 10,000 or more watts through a basic household 120v, 20 amp circuit.

The trick will be in getting the exotic and VERY expensive superconductive materials for construction of both the Tesla Coil and reciever device, as well as for the step-down transformers.

Copper is possible to be used for the coil itself, as it's already yielded pretty amazing results, though superconductors with a much lower resistance will yield far better results.

I do not have any diagrams scanned into my computer (as I don't own a scanner), but I suppose that anyone with a modicum of electrical engineering experience should be able to create a diagram from my explanation here (and it's probably better that I don't post actual diagrams, so I can keep the novices from killing themselves).

All I ask from anyone using my concepts to create an actual device is that they credit me for the concept if they make it big with the invention, or don't mention me if they "disappear" because of the device. *laugh*

On paper, this could be a huge breakthrough. I won't say anything about how it may be in practice, as I've never had a chance to test it.



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Reading along here, it seems like a lot of you are confusing power and energy. They are not the same thing, although it is a common mistake.

Take this Tesla coil thing for example. The peak power in the discharge may in fact be 500kV at 50Amps. That would be 'power'. If the discharge lasts for, say, 1 microsecond, then that would be energy. Energy terms always have a power component and a time component. In order to get energy, you have to multiply that output by the time it can be produced. And, hey, guess what? That Tesla coil discharge doesn't last long.

If I put in 100 Watt-hours to run the coil, that's energy. If I get 30 Watt-hours back out, that's energy. The power coming out of the coil can be much higher than I put in, for brief instants. That doesn't matter. The energy will be less.

This is the same thing as the capacitor someone else mentioned. Yep! You can charge one up, and if it's got a low ESL and ESR, you can get one hellacious power output when you discharge it. Much more than you ever put in. Put in a Watt of power for 10 seconds, get 1000 Watts out...for a microsecond. Which had more energy?

Ever wonder about those stories you read, where they claim something like "the lasers that converge on the fuel pellet in Shiva will deliver more power than all the generating capacity of the US"?

There's that word, "power" again. Yes, for half a nanosecond, they DO put out more power than "all the generating capacity in the US". But what's the energy...when you start factoring in that half nanosecond time duration? Not much.

You have to be careful that you're not comparing apples to oranges. The units matter. You can't say you're creating energy, then compare power as proof.



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 11:14 PM
link   
The fastest thing in our reality is "Recolection" we have memories and we reconstruct our very thinking. There is a "Matter" that is beyond us as of right now, "But it has it's impact to each and everyone of us every day." They say the speed of light is impossible, "who Know's?" But I will garauntee you that the point of "Remembering" is instenanious at the very least. Figuring out the firing order of the "Synapse" of the mind, you will have your coorilation of the physical attribute's of being able to decipher all of these thought's..(That was a good 'Joke'!!)
tesla was the fore most "Great thinker " of great technologies. If it wasn't for him, "WE wouldn't be doing what we are doing right now!!"

Tesla:

There is a well-known "rule of thumb" in science, perhaps best expressed by a late Noble Laureate, physicist Richard Feynman:
"You can recognize truth by its beauty and simplicity. When you get it right, it is obvious that it is right -- at least if you have any experience -- because usually what happens is that more comes out than goes in ... The inexperienced, the crackpots, and people like that, make guesses that are simple, but you can immediately see that they are wrong, so that does not count. Others, the inexperienced students, make guesses that are very complicated, and it sort of looks as if it is all right, but I know it is not true because the truth always turns out to be simpler that you thought ..."



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 04:11 AM
link   
its easy , limited power keeps us under control and on this planet , even bush is pawn in that game, i mean how would your dishwasher cope if it caught on to the fact that its whole purpose was to wash your dirty dishes ?



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Well, I gotta say, I'm a believer that The Law of Conservation will never be broken.

And here's why I say that.

Every action and energy release has an equal and opposite reaction. This holds true for everything. When you release energy, something had to happen prior to contain that energy. Not only that, but every action releases energy - and will only not do so if it's at absolute zero (but an object cannot be acted upon nor can it act whilst at absolute zero, otherwise it gains energy to be acted upon).

Even the universe.

You say that here we are, and that the universe breaks these laws. Perhaps...

But perhaps not. What if this existance is merely a pocket of inequilibrium - a cosmic spark of energy transfer? Or, what if there's an equal amount of negative matter (matter with a negative mass), or even perhaps negative energy?


Mind you, I'm not saying that we can not find LOOP-HOLES in the Law of Conservation. We can get energy out of almost anything, and then have the byproduct as well. We burn oil, we get energy and carbon dioxide (and some other fun/not so fun stuff). In essence, it costs us less energy to burn the oil, and we get MORE energy out of it. But this is only because the energy was ALREADY THERE - just unharnessed.

By the same token, we may be able to perform some miracles of science and get energy from extremely common sources, or sources that are already packet with a mountain of energy. Could you imagine the energy contained in an electron? And electrons are more than numerous!

Imagine we found a way to harness the energy of the electron - fully. The electron ceases to exist around that atom when we're done with it. In that case, we might be able to get huge amounts of energy, but we'll also start winding up with a cold plasma with strange, unknown properties (inso far). We could harness energy that's already there, and end with a byproduct.

Heck, this byproduct should be able to attract electrons to it, and perhaps by exposing it to energies that we cannot control, we would be able to reuse those electron-less atoms, for a small cost to OUR energy.

So, remember, the universe may be a closed system, but earth is open - we have a lot of space around us to use. Sure the Law of Conservation may not be breakable, but there may be a lot of loopholes that we can use to get energy for US - even if we're taking energy away from somewhere else.



An electron here, and a proton on the other side of the universe, still equal out to a neutral charge.



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by freeourminds
its easy , limited power keeps us under control and on this planet , even bush is pawn in that game, i mean how would your dishwasher cope if it caught on to the fact that its whole purpose was to wash your dirty dishes ?


Well I would keep it in line by sending it mental pictures of a dishwashing machine that had been turned into a pile of twisted scrap metal.



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 09:08 PM
link   
When solid magnesium is burned in excess oxygen, a chemical reaction takes place. The product, magnessium oxide with the left over oxygen are in the same proportion as the reactants. There is no loss or gain in either magnesium or oxygen. What did any of this have to do with Nokola Tesla?



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 01:12 PM
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".


There is no meaningful difference between a 'law' and a 'theory' and the word 'law' is nothing but a adjective used by those who consider themselves above making mistakes.

========================


Originally posted by Revelmonk
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.


JP Morgan discovered that his 'tower' was not a communication device but a energy distribution center and promptly withdrew his funding. Tesla poured everything he had left into completing the complex but in the end could find no one to help complete it...

=============================================


Originally posted by jumpspace
The law regarding the "Conservation of Energy" CANNOT be broken.

It's IMPOSSIBLE!


That's a very big word and while i am not going to disagree with you i would advise some caution in it's general use.



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


They ALWAYS say that about their pet theories.



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


Shockingly i did and the only closed system we can consider at this stage is our universe. Since we do not really have much data on that we have no reason to consider anything in our known universe ( or the 'thing' itself ) to be closed.

'Closed' system are thus at this stage a theoretical construct....

Stellar



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by wild_cat
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


The only way this would appear to be "broken" is to launch into a new direction in that general area of science.

The Law of Gravity wasn't broken for planes to fly, we just found a new law, in Aerodynamics, to compensate against gravity. Basically, we use air pressure over the wings to exert more force than gravity does, so the plane goes up.
Gravity is still there, but there's a greater force working on the plane than gravity.

For us to overcome the barrier that is such a law, we have to find a new rule that basically states: with a reduction in A, B no longer cosntanst the same strength, and then can be overcome with C. For us to get to that point, we first need to get as close to that barrier as possible. We're not even close to that law's barrier. (friction, heat loss, etc.)

We don't even build machines that are 90% efficient yet; we'd probably need some machines that are about 99.998% efficient before we could even test this barrier to find out what laws overcome the laws already in place.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yarium
Well, I gotta say, I'm a believer that The Law of Conservation will never be broken.


I applaud the fact that you specified the nature of the attachement to the theory.



Every action and energy release has an equal and opposite reaction. This holds true for everything. When you release energy, something had to happen prior to contain that energy.


Well we assume that is so but since we do not know about the original creation event ( of the universe) we are just working with the fact that everything is in motion already....


Not only that, but every action releases energy - and will only not do so if it's at absolute zero (but an object cannot be acted upon nor can it act whilst at absolute zero, otherwise it gains energy to be acted upon).


Or consume?


Even the universe.


Release to where?


You say that here we are, and that the universe breaks these laws. Perhaps...

But perhaps not. What if this existance is merely a pocket of inequilibrium - a cosmic spark of energy transfer? Or, what if there's an equal amount of negative matter (matter with a negative mass), or even perhaps negative energy?


Well according to what the physics we currently employ suggest we are missing ( don't know where to find or look for it) 90% of the 'mass' of the universe...


Mind you, I'm not saying that we can not find LOOP-HOLES in the Law of Conservation. We can get energy out of almost anything, and then have the byproduct as well. We burn oil, we get energy and carbon dioxide (and some other fun/not so fun stuff).


We do pretty well when it comes to breaking former 'laws' of physics to our general benefit.



In essence, it costs us less energy to burn the oil, and we get MORE energy out of it. But this is only because the energy was ALREADY THERE - just unharnessed.


Like all the wind and solar power we have failed to use since the day of the first sailboat and windmill...


By the same token, we may be able to perform some miracles of science and get energy from extremely common sources, or sources that are already packet with a mountain of energy. Could you imagine the energy contained in an electron? And electrons are more than numerous!


Cold Fusion is with us today but even thought we have 600 experiments in major labs proving it we are still focusing our scientific efforts on stupid old high energy fusion... The energy is there but since energy means freedom the leaders of the world would rather we not have us use more of than is useful to them. God forbid me might suddenly no longer need anything but administrators...


Imagine we found a way to harness the energy of the electron - fully. The electron ceases to exist around that atom when we're done with it. In that case, we might be able to get huge amounts of energy, but we'll also start winding up with a cold plasma with strange, unknown properties (inso far). We could harness energy that's already there, and end with a byproduct.


Plants and Animals do it so i suppose humans could ( and have ) devised technology to manage the process to our general benefit.


Heck, this byproduct should be able to attract electrons to it, and perhaps by exposing it to energies that we cannot control, we would be able to reuse those electron-less atoms, for a small cost to OUR energy.


Alchemy.
Newton spent more time on that than he did on what we are using today and funnily it turns out the man got even that right. We are such dupes....


So, remember, the universe may be a closed system, but earth is open - we have a lot of space around us to use. Sure the Law of Conservation may not be breakable, but there may be a lot of loopholes that we can use to get energy for US - even if we're taking energy away from somewhere else.

An electron here, and a proton on the other side of the universe, still equal out to a neutral charge.


Good post and i am happy to agree with someone when it comes to physics ( it's a rare event).

Stellar



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 08:27 PM
link   
A few thoughts on this. Some misconceptions need correcting.

1) The argument that energy must have been created because the universe is here, is flawed by thinking in terms of a time before the creation of the universe, when the amount of energy was less (or zero). As time is a part of the universe, defined by changes in the state of its processes, the beginning of the universe was also the beginning of time. There was no time before the universe began, and so there was no time without energy, and so energy was not created.

2) The argument by reference to truisms that have been abandoned, e.g. that humans cannot fly, employs an improper comparison. There was never any scientific principle that required that humans be unable to fly. We simply had no technological means to do so. It was an engineering problem, not a scientific one. Birds and insects are every bit as subject to the law of gravity as we are, but they fly, using principles of aerodynamic lift that we also used in designing airplanes. Science never said we couldn't fly; on the contrary, science said that we might be able to if we applied the principles in the right way.

3) It is impossible to perform experiments at absolute zero. Absolute zero means no energy, no motion, no activity, and hence no conducting experiments. It is possible to perform experiments at very, very low temperatures, increasingly close to absolute zero, but not at absolute zero itself. A similar argument applies, though with slightly less confidence, about black holes.

However . . .

There may be one principle of science that allows the law of energy conservation to be, well, warped. Technically, energy would still not be created, but for practical purposes it might as well be. I'm referring to the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics. Nonetheless, using that principle to effectively "create" energy would require doing something that science hasn't the first clue how to do or even whether it is possible: alter the fabric of probability itself.

Here is how it would work:

Measurement of energy depends on measurement of force over time, and force and time are a Heisenberg pair subject to the uncertainty principle. The energy of a system, therefore, does not exist as an absolutely precise value, and so when we say that energy of a closed system remains constant, what we mean is that it remains constant within the limits of uncertainty. With respect to any particular quantum event, the required uncertainty is small -- the uncertainty of the force times the uncertainty of the time is at least equal to Planck's constant, whose value is approximately 6.626 x 10 to the -34 J/s. But considering that any measured quantity of energy is the product of vast numbers of quantum events, this tiny uncertainty in each such event becomes potentially a very large uncertainty in any amount of energy that can be measured.

So why is it that we do not observe fluctuations in total energy? Why is the law of energy conservation confirmed by every experiment? Because of probability. The variations and uncertainties of the multitude of quantum events making up any measurable amount of energy tend to cancel each other out. Crudely put, it is just as likely for any given quantum even to be on the high end of its possible-energy scale, as for it to be on the low end. Put vast numbers of these events together, and the aggregate outcome hews so close to the main probability line that deviations cannot be measured.

But what if probability could be altered, so that it became more likely, within a particular volume of space, for the wave functions to collapse on the higher side of the probability distribution rather than the lower? It would not take a very great shift in normal probability for quite a lot of energy to be "created."

As I said, technically the energy wouldn't be "created," it would just always have been there unmeasured and unnoticed. (Isn't physics a grand mind-bender?) But for practical purposes, it might as well be popping out of nothing.

Now, as to how probability can be shifted in this way -- no comment for the present. You ball, play with it as you will.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
There may be one principle of science that allows the law of energy conservation to be, well, warped. Technically, energy would still not be created, but for practical purposes it might as well be.


We do not 'create' wind power after all but what we do not tap is 'wasted' ; same principle applies.


I'm referring to the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics. Nonetheless, using that principle to effectively "create" energy would require doing something that science hasn't the first clue how to do or even whether it is possible: alter the fabric of probability itself.


We assumes creation instead of simply directing the 'flow'?


As I said, technically the energy wouldn't be "created," it would just always have been there unmeasured and unnoticed. (Isn't physics a grand mind-bender?) But for practical purposes, it might as well be popping out of nothing.


And both Maxwell and Heaviside knew that this was true for electrical circuits 125 years ago. Nothing new or substantial to 'bend' one's mind around even if one, oddly, want to involve quantum physics.


Now, as to how probability can be shifted in this way -- no comment for the present. You ball, play with it as you will.


Making the problem rather more complex than it is!

Stellar



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
We do not 'create' wind power after all but what we do not tap is 'wasted' ; same principle applies.


No, that's a different principle altogether. The wind is part of the energy system of the sun-earth complex, whose total energy is constant. Wind power is not creation of energy, it is tapping energy potential from the sun that already exists.



We assumes creation instead of simply directing the 'flow'?


It's not an assumption. And it's not creation, exactly. It's a statement that we cannot measure energy precisely -- it doesn't HAVE an exact quantity -- and so the law of conservation of energy has to be revised to say that energy of a system is constant within the limits of uncertainty.



And both Maxwell and Heaviside knew that this was true for electrical circuits 125 years ago.


There is nothing in the work of Maxwell or Heaviside that calls the law of energy conservation into question.

[edit on 28-8-2006 by Two Steps Forward]



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Wind is actually considered a form of solar energy. The problems with using wind energy is energy storage and the variability of wind speeds, especially in the United States. In most areas of the United States that have viable wind speeds, this are reached in the winter and spring months, when energy demand is at its lowest. In the summer months, when we have peak energy demands, viable wind speeds are least available.

This is the reason why many proposed plans have wind energy used in conjunction with a hydrogen generation.

At best, given wind energy resources, we could obtain 10-15% of a local areas grid demand. Even then, we would have to have backup systems installed.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThaiKV
Wind is actually considered a form of solar energy. The problems with using wind energy is energy storage and the variability of wind speeds, especially in the United States. In most areas of the United States that have viable wind speeds, this are reached in the winter and spring months, when energy demand is at its lowest. In the summer months, when we have peak energy demands, viable wind speeds are least available.

This is the reason why many proposed plans have wind energy used in conjunction with a hydrogen generation.


All true. Actually, hydrogen energy transmission would have to be a part of any energy system that doesn't involve petroleum.



At best, given wind energy resources, we could obtain 10-15% of a local areas grid demand. Even then, we would have to have backup systems installed.


Also true at present levels of demand. But the most important component to meeting our future needs, IMO, is improvement in energy efficiency, which would reduce demand by reducing waste. We currently waste about 90% of the energy we produce. It would be entirely feasible to improve that 10% efficiency to 40%. Doing so would in effect quadruple the supply of energy available from any given source, so that your 10-15% figure becomes 40-55%. Much better, no?

Of course, wind power alone would still not suffice, but it would become a much bigger piece of the pie if we approach things properly on the use end.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   
People tend to get hung-up on the need to break the Law of Conservation of Energy in order to achieve what we call an 'over-unity' device. That may not be true. Physicists are regularly identifying new energy states and re-defining the way the universe 'works'. If you happen to develop a device that extracts energy from an unknown source it would appear 'over-unity' when in fact it is just collecting energy from some change in energy state in its environment. No energy was created or lost just converted. Think solar cells but using an energy state or some combination of energy states not yet understood.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Tesla's name is often used in "we'll break the conservation of energy law" threads. That's probably because his figure is somewhat mystical, having invented a few important things at the dawn of the electricity era.

Conservation of energy is not a nuisance, but a rather fundamental property of the Universe. It has to do with uniformity of time. Find noether's theorem on Wiki.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
No, that's a different principle altogether. The wind is part of the energy system of the sun-earth complex, whose total energy is constant. Wind power is not creation of energy, it is tapping energy potential from the sun that already exists.


The Sun Earth energy exchange is NOT constant and it depends on quite a few environmental factors. Whichever way you look at wind it's still 'for free' as no humanity paid no price for the creation or maintenance of the sun. It is as free as anything in terms of a human life span and so is nearly everything that happens on the planet proving that entropy is only true MIGHT be true on a universal scale but quite irrelevent on a human scale.


It's not an assumption. And it's not creation, exactly. It's a statement that we cannot measure energy precisely -- it doesn't HAVE an exact quantity -- and so the law of conservation of energy has to be revised to say that energy of a system is constant within the limits of uncertainty.


It is the statement that we do not what energy 'is' or where it comes from or in fact how we can tap or direct it. We really do not know much if anything and i can provide you with the direct quote of the best and brigthest minds in the field saying as much.


There is nothing in the work of Maxwell or Heaviside that calls the law of energy conservation into question.


Both pointed out that energy seems to be diverged into the circuit/wire from a flow that moves perpendicular to the wire and that energy radiates from the 'source' in 360 degrees. Thus the absolute massive majority of any energy that flows from the terminals of generator is NOT diverged and thus completely lost as in the windmill example.

Are you at all familiar with their work or is this the first time you hear about what they really said and how the knowledge were suppressed?

Stellar



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 10:21 PM
link   
More Tesla talk: aether has perpetual energy, aether has the energy not mass

Tesla said the A bomb energy came from UV rays not the mass.

Ha Ha Ha haaaa, wait in the 50s there was a big to do about cosmic
radiation, a pet theory of Tesla's.

And A bomb explosions were thought to explode the atmosphere and
doom everyone , well thats what I recall hearing.
Guess they were still listening to Tesla on that one.

Perpertual Energy is more of a total picture when resources are exhausted
but some atomic phemoneon like K shell transmutation and electrical interaction
in gases that have been talked about by Lyne might be true.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join