It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Electricity collected from the air could become the newest alternative energy source

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 12:54 AM
reply to post by Ex_MislTech

Hi Ex_MislTech,

I was referring to the current generation of solar cells which has been developed over the previous few decades. They're extremely expensive and unreliable, albeit they're also getting better. You are correct in that thin-cells could be fantastic.

Also, Solar thermal is unlikely to be economical for over a decade, or decades depending on who you listen to. And even then it won't come close to the economics of depreciated coal plants, nuclear plants, or hydroelectric dams.

[edit on 27/8/2010 by C0bzz]

posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 10:25 AM
for gods sake after reading the posts on here, did anyone pay attention at all to the telsa, atmospheric energy production concepts, it had nothing to do with this hydroelectricty technology at all. Tesla planned to charge the ionosphere, by sending EM waves at it. He discovered that when energy was sent into the ionosphere it would go around the world and when it came back had gained energy for free at an exponential rate. HARRPs potential is not limited to weather manipulation, plasma shields, communication disruption, submarine detection and earthquakes, but could be used to charge the ionosphere. Tesla thought that if this was done at the correct amplitude all that people would need is an antenna on the roof of thier house to recieve this power.

and as for most other types of emerging energy sources IE solar, wind, tidal, geo thermal , the costs are to high, they are inefficient , therefore bad ideas.
Until there is mass automated infastracture to build and implement these techs they will not be effective period. I strongly believe in clean energy but with the manufacturing to implement them they are worthless.

I say build on coal plants and provide the third world with electricity and then have new emerged third world develop further by building us a new clean energy industry that is cost effective. or we can continue to force the poorest nations in the world to wait for electricity because we wont allow them to have the only energy they can afford. How is the third world suppose to pay for exotic clean energy, how ?

posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 10:34 AM
reply to post by believeyoume

I've never heard Telsa's theories stated as clearly as you did (albeit, I haven't done a ton of research).

If that is true, that is incredible. Assuming that this theory was proven through Telsa's experiments and that he documented a manner in which to 'charge the ionosphere' to sufficient levels, one would speculate that it would surely be possible to successfully market and finance the undertaking of creating any devices necessary.

With enough exposure (accomplish-able through the Internet) and operating through means similar to those such as Wikileaks, the logistics seem plausible to me... Is the science?

posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 11:23 AM
reply to post by believeyoume

You're right, but Tesla also explored the concept of "radiant energy" quite heavily, and built devices to collect it. This was also known as "ether energy" at the time.

Tesla was the pioneer in demonstrating that radiant energy could be harnessed, and this is quite different from the experiment you describe, which has more to do with capturing the energy of shockwaves in a way similar to John Keely's work.

I should say Tesla was the modern pioneer, because similar systems were being used in Egypt and Atlantis. Tesla also had a prolonged ET contact in Colorado Springs.

If you want to build a free energy device, remember that Telsa did it more than 100 years ago with nothing much more complicated than cotton-covered wires.

[edit on 27-8-2010 by the_journey_in]

posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 02:35 AM

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by Gorman91

Btw, solar+thermal = fairly efficeint stirling setup in my garage.
Now if only I could actually get the dual metre to "legally" produce electricity

You just need a synchronous inverter.

It matches the frequency and the peak to peak mapping of sinewave

Here in the US you can actually get paid by the power company
for power if you produce clean sinewave, not squarewave
and get a perfect match on frequency and timing.

For most ppl thou this is not worth it, and ppl just chose to use
the extra power for other things.

OEM synchronous inverters are quit a bit more than cheapy square
wave non synch ones.

posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 02:50 AM

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by peck420

We both can say that if the world's energy demand doubled, or God forbid tripled, the world would be destroyed. But 15,000x? Think about that number.

All of that said, you have to realize something else. Humanity is a viral species. We will always be using more energy than we "should be". The world was never meant to have more than 20,000 Humans on any continent. But we far exceeded that.

The world would not be destroyed if we used the power of
the sun, wind, and other natural forces to 300% of current usage.

Those forces already break down material on earth now.

Matter can neither be created or destroyed, only transformed.

The 15,000x number seems spooky in some ways, but if it is
already energy here on earth see the above statement again.

Any one saying the energy already here for free blowing around
is going to blow up the earth if we use it has bought into the
Neo-malthusian brain washing of the neo-druidic GAIA worshiping
Georgia Guidestones crowd.

20,000 humans per continent ???

I am afraid you must go on my foes list, you are right in there
with Science czar holdren and professor pianka.

Where things could get dicey is if we start running thousands
of Fusion Reactors putting off Tera-watts.

That is where we are headed and that truly could warm the planet
as they are nuclear forces unlocking the nuclear energy slowly
but it something that only naturally occurs on a star.

Current much weaker fission reactors already have changed
ecosystems of rivers due to them making rivers warm enough to
give off visible water vapor in the winter.

Fusion on the scale I mentioned at 100k - 1 Mil. times current usage
could cause serious issues here on earth.

We'd either need man made cloud cover or some way to process
the extra heat that much power usage would generate.

[edit on 28-8-2010 by Ex_MislTech]

[edit on 28-8-2010 by Ex_MislTech]

posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 02:59 AM

Originally posted by againuntodust

I wish I could be alive for this period of time, when 'fossil fuels' will be a primitive history.

If Dense Plasma Fusion can get its funding, or the Polywell catches up
or the method being funded by Paul Allen catches up then you
likely will see it in your lifetime.

I think DPF could have a running protoype in a few years.

The ppl at the University of Wisconsin already have a star in a jar
running off helium-3 years ago.

The SPAWAR ppl working on navy projects confirmed Cold Fusion as
I posted in my other post.

posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 03:11 AM
reply to post by Gorman91

I think this is the best goal as hawking said.

He thinks that humanity will be wiped out with one of the many
very likely planet killers.

He said we get into space or we will be wiped out, and I think he is right.

He is a pretty smart guy, I will take his word on a lot of things.

There is evidence of a DNA bottleneck about 74,000 yrs ago
about the same time the Super Volcano Toba went off.

We have several of those on the planet, and at least two of them
have not erupted in quite awhile and still considered geologically
active, some have even called them over due.

To me the logical progression is as follows:

1) Moonbase or L5 space station.

Moonbase can get helium-3 from regolith of the moon to power
a helium-3 reactor like the one they have running at Univ. of Wisconsin.

The L5 space station is where you build your space craft that travels
between planets but does not land on them, it stays in space.

Most of the space junk in orbit could be cleaned up and recycled to
this task, likely need more than that though.

Let solar powered robots do most of the work as humans require
food, water, and medical care and solar power is several times
stronger outside the atmosphere.

2) Mars base or Ceres base.

I lean toward Ceres for one very simple reason.

It may have more freshwater than earth.

Mars would be good for mineral mining, but to be honest we'd be
better off just recycling all the junks yards and mothballed warships.

Ceramic coated canisters for heat shields would allow us to rail
gun material it into space.

3) Europa is likely to have water as well and would make a good
next base in my books.

Out past Jupiter it is going to get VERY cold, I think we'd need
time just to deal with trying to do things pretty close to absolute zero.

On pluto it gets as cold as -400 F.

Most things become brittle and do not work well at those extreme

We'd need a very durable material for the space craft.

[edit on 28-8-2010 by Ex_MislTech]

posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 03:15 AM
Very cool. And why not? Mountain ranges conduct electricity and play a roll in the creation of Ball Lightning. Why can't we use those Mountains as a power source? The lightning strikes and Earths Magnetic Fields is what charges it. It all deal's with we think to be particles. I am more then open to this concept being I get shocked everyday.

[edit on 28-8-2010 by InformationAgent] flames, misspelled cool.

[edit on 28-8-2010 by InformationAgent]

posted on Aug, 28 2010 @ 07:40 AM
reply to post by Ex_MislTech

Never said 15000x was unmanageably if we utilized the sun. That is the amount of energy that hits the Earth. I said that dedication to any single energy source is a big risk. From an evolutionary perspective, specialized species die first.

In primitive times, the world usually had about 20,000 people on every continent. This was the time period between early farming and the birth of cities. Africa originally had something between 5,000 to 1,000 after the Toba catastrophe that spurred human evolution. 20,000 was the maximum of ecological preservationism. This was an example not a belief. The ecological fact of what the maximum non-condensed population of man would look like.

If you like the city, like me, or more appropriately, the idea of arcologies, the world population limit is theoretically over 11 billion. Probably around 15 billion.

As for spacecraft, you are looking at somebody who actually designed something worthy of warp drives, presented it here, and nobody could really prove it wrong. materials? Carbon nanotube fiber with liquid diamond poured into the tubes. You can fly through the outer sun in that.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in