New Power Generator that relies on magnets

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Keeping an open mind, I pondered the question of could one make a solid state generator using magnets.

First of course, all electric power other then PV uses magnetism within a rotating field to produce electron flow. Much in the way the typical alternator takes 4 ah of field current to produce 30, 60 or 100 ah from the alternator. Of course one has to have a driving force to rotate the field polarity, such as via fan belt. So there is no violation to the conservation of energy. The mechanical energy is simply converted in a small part to electricity in the alternator field.

I pondered if one could create a solid state generator, that is no moving parts, perhaps using an oscillating field circuit that would induce a secondary larger voltage. I decided, that while it would be possible to excite electron flow in the secondary winding, there would be no net gain in energy.

So with that thought, I decided that the vacuum triode ( A very simple amplifier, that was replaced by transistors well over 60 years ago), discussed is incapable of accessing zero point energy and would not in any case be able to violate the conservation of energy (which even zero point would not do). Snake oil, by any other name is still snake oil.

And no, there is not infinite energy in a cubic cm of vacuum. Even if it was at the density of a neutron star (the only really solid matter) it would not be infinite.

Please don't try to introduce logic and facts into the discussion. You'll only annoy the true believers.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Keeping an open mind, I pondered the question of could one make a solid state generator using magnets.

First of course, all electric power other then PV uses magnetism within a rotating field to produce electron flow. Much in the way the typical alternator takes 4 ah of field current to produce 30, 60 or 100 ah from the alternator. Of course one has to have a driving force to rotate the field polarity, such as via fan belt. So there is no violation to the conservation of energy. The mechanical energy is simply converted in a small part to electricity in the alternator field.

I pondered if one could create a solid state generator, that is no moving parts, perhaps using an oscillating field circuit that would induce a secondary larger voltage. I decided, that while it would be possible to excite electron flow in the secondary winding, there would be no net gain in energy.

So with that thought, I decided that the vacuum triode ( A very simple amplifier, that was replaced by transistors well over 60 years ago), discussed is incapable of accessing zero point energy and would not in any case be able to violate the conservation of energy (which even zero point would not do). Snake oil, by any other name is still snake oil.

And no, there is not infinite energy in a cubic cm of vacuum. Even if it was at the density of a neutron star (the only really solid matter) it would not be infinite.

I was thinking Black Hole. Then again Teslar
was considered crazy. How many vacuum tubes can we fit in a chip? It is us of energy not production. I wish I thought this was more that Gulable's Travels.

[LaT]

Skipmac says:
More like a nuclear reaction e=mc2 however no one has yet demonstrated conversion of mass to energy on a small scale. Tests of the device did not show any more energy output than the energy input. . .

There are actually at least one guy who has large number of dollars invested in his Ecat (Andrea Rossi). He says he has better than 1 COP. I have not seen it but investors has and they are willing to invest more. Yes it is a conversion of atoms. It is not claimed to be like ordinary nuclear reactors - fission. It is the opposite - fusion. Way over my paygrade but I follow development closely.
Look up LENR or Adrea Rossi and Ecat and make yourself an opinion.
My tip is to sell shares in the oil companies

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by Cadence

I was thinking Black Hole. Then again Teslar
was considered crazy. How many vacuum tubes can we fit in a chip? It is us of energy not production. I wish I thought this was more that Gulable's Travels.

Ah but a black hole is simply a super massive neutron star, where the gravity acceleration exceeds light speed.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by LaT

There are actually at least one guy who has large number of dollars invested in his Ecat (Andrea Rossi). He says he has better than 1 COP. I have not seen it but investors has and they are willing to invest more. Yes it is a conversion of atoms. It is not claimed to be like ordinary nuclear reactors - fission. It is the opposite - fusion. Way over my paygrade but I follow development closely.
Look up LENR or Adrea Rossi and Ecat and make yourself an opinion.
My tip is to sell shares in the oil companies

The ecat has been proven to produce no net energy gain. Most snake oil. Rossi could sell refrigerators to Eskimos

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Ah but a black hole is simply a super massive neutron star, where the gravity acceleration exceeds light speed.

About the same as the thread?

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by Cadence

About the same as the thread?

True that!

[LaT]

Hey sailorchic34,
You are way to categorical!
How do you know anything about Rossi's character?
If you have followed the discussion and read Lewan's book "An impossible invention" - I just do not know how you can be so sure.
To skipmac - yes, it is hard without some deeper definition of existing physical theories. An open mind is my only contribution so . . . You know as late as several years after the Wright brothers showed that flying was possible, most people believed it was not. Just a thought . . .

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by LaT

Hey sailorchic34,
You are way to categorical!
How do you know anything about Rossi's character?
If you have followed the discussion and read Lewan's book "An impossible invention" - I just do not know how you can be so sure.
.

Here's one link for ya: Andrea Rossi E-Cat Scam (Energy Catalyzer)

there are more links at the bottom

I would love a new "free" energy source. But Alas I have a engineers mind. Even if it's a blonde one.

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Ah but a black hole is simply a super massive neutron star, where the gravity acceleration exceeds light speed.

What are you trying to say here because this simply makes no sense.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

What are you trying to say here because this simply makes no sense.

Gee makes sense to me...

Here's a link from Nasa. Black Holes - NASA Science.

A black hole is not a hole. It's a rather large neutron star. A small neutron star has a gravity acceleration of roughly 2×10^11 times stronger then the earth.

A black hole is a massive neutron star who's gravity acceleration exceeds the speed of light. It not a hole, it just looks like one. The only thing that escapes a black hole is gravity. The xray and other emissions occur at the event horizon which is not the surface of the black hole, where the atoms are striped on protons and electrons.

[Caribbeachbum]

Originally Posted by LaT

You know as late as several years after the Wright brothers showed that flying was possible, most people believed it was not. Just a thought . . .

There were people, including congress-people, who believed a rocket couldn't fly in space because there'd by nothing to push against! But, like the Wright Brothers' deniers, these were not science people, they were (and remain) faith people. No science people believed this, because no one had shown it to be impossible. The question remained open, and most already had an inkling of the concepts of fluid dynamics, just not yet a good grasp of how to apply it.

These are the same people who believe vaccines cause autism, jesus rode dinosaurs, and that thermodynamics, like evolution, is just a theory.

Always follow the evidence no matter where it leads, no matter how unpalatable the path it follows might be to your faith in something you want to be true.

Believing is easy, and requires only faith. Science is hard; and worth it.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by LaT

. . . You know as late as several years after the Wright brothers showed that flying was possible, most people believed it was not. . . .

This is not true.

Flying was developed gradually over several hundred years, based on well-known principles. The Wright Brothers were not the first to fly, but were the first to finally create a practical flying machine. They were entirely open about the techniques they used, and there was very little skepticism about what they had achieved.

[LaT]

sailorchic34, long time ago I was educated an engineer. Lost some, but the mind is still there
Well, you gave an example with Krivit and for some reason he has decided that Rossi is no good. The picture of Rossi he uses is just a good sign of what is going to come out of his mouth. I think Krivit is rather alone with this type of critic. I know only one person in that mind his name is Pomp at the university of Uppsala Sweden.
There are other sources. Take Lewan's book or go to a blog about LENR. It will be less of cut and dry judgment.
As I said; I do not have the answer but an open mind.
I would like to have a silent generator and use electrical propulsion for maneuvers. (I still would prefer to sail.)

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

Gee makes sense to me...

Here's a link from Nasa. Black Holes - NASA Science.

A black hole is not a hole. It's a rather large neutron star. A small neutron star has a gravity acceleration of roughly 2×1011 times stronger then the earth.

A black hole is a massive neutron star who's gravity acceleration exceeds the speed of light. It not a hole, it just looks like one. The only thing that escapes a black hole is gravity. The xray and other emissions occur at the event horizon which is not the surface of the black hole, where the atoms are striped on protons and electrons.

Think about what you are saying...gravity acceleration exceeds the speed of light. Makes no sense as you are mixing units of acceleration and speed.

Einstein realized that a gravitation field distorts the fabric of space and time causing the path of electromagnetic radiation to appear to an outside observer to bend when under the influence of gravitation field. This effect is routinely observed by astronomers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens. We also compensate for this distortion by adjusting the clock speed on the GPS satellites.

Roughly speaking then, at the event horizon of a black hole, the space/time continuum is warped sufficiently enough to prevent electromagnetic radiation from escaping.