Tesla

Everything about Robert Distinti's Ethereal Mechanics, New Electromagnetism theories and Q-Vector Algebra.
tibor
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Hungary

Re: Tesla

Post by tibor » Thu Jul 03, 2014 5:35 am

SebastianG wrote:But how should the material get hot again? It could also just stay cool, or not?
Sebastian, how do an icecube gets melted if you just leave it on the kitchen table? Through thermal conduction from the environment.
Now, before you ask if cooling the environment will cause an ice age, think about this: the amount of energy you converted from heat to electricity will be used up by some device. That energy (through losses) will always finally end up in being converted into heat...

User avatar
Distinti
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue May 06, 2014 8:18 pm

Re: Tesla

Post by Distinti » Thu Jul 03, 2014 7:51 am

Hi Tibor,

Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_effect

This works using the principle that you describe; however, its is very inefficient.

Being inefficient means there must be a better way (ROA 30).

Essentially, they use two dissimilar materials, one with more free electrons than the other. At the junction of these two materials, the electrical pressure from the material with more free electrons is higher than the other and electron are injected ( a voltage is developed across the junction). The higher the temperature the higher the voltage. The effect is improved by cooling the material with lower electron density.

I believe that solar cells are inefficient for the same reasons.

So any improvement in this technology would be welcome. What is automobile waste engine heat could be converted to usable power?

Do you have a good reference for Henry Moray? I would like to learn more.

Regards,
RJD

Belgium
Walter Verbrugggen
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 3:36 am

Re: Tesla

Post by Walter Verbrugggen » Thu Jul 03, 2014 9:39 am

About information about H.T.Moray, here is a link http://www.free-energy.ws/t-henry-moray.html
Instead of a metal plate, he used an antenna wire to produce "free" energy...

tibor
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Hungary

Re: Tesla

Post by tibor » Thu Jul 03, 2014 10:32 am

Distinti wrote:Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_effect
This works using the principle that you describe; however, its is very inefficient.
No, that one is a quite different principle. The thermoelectric effect needs a temperature difference, it converts some of the energy from the process of heat transfer between the hot and cold side. But, if you want to create that hot and cold sides from a thermal equilibrium, you have to invest more energy than what finally you can get from the thermoelectric effect. You are right, that one is very inefficient.

The process I previously tried to explain does not need a temperature difference! That would convert heat directly to electrical energy. You can imagine it like a circuit box, which cools down (takes heat from it's environment), while outputs electrical power. Well, it clearly contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, but that law is only applicable for certain processes, not all of them. Maxwell already have found a theoretical counter-example to that law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_demon And since then, some people already constructed working devices in contradiction to that law, eg.: http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/file ... 88&aid=253

I heard about Henry Moray about 20 years ago, that time I have known someone who collected all the possible information about him. Unfortunately no usable circuit diagrams remained about Moray's device, just some obscure patents, and descriptions. As I know, Moray did not understood the working principle of his own device. He have found an effect accidentally while he tried to construct a radio. He made a device based on that effect, but he did not know where the energy was coming from, and he was not even able to control it well. Sometimes his device was not working, sometimes it worked for a few days, and sometimes it created so much energy, that destroyed parts of his device. He drove his investors to be mad at him after a while, and he did never succeed on constructing a reliable working device ready for production.
Last edited by tibor on Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

tibor
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Hungary

Re: Tesla

Post by tibor » Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:00 am

Walter Verbrugggen wrote:About information about H.T.Moray, here is a link http://www.free-energy.ws/t-henry-moray.html
On that page, this is written: "...he developed a power source that produced 50,000 watts of a cold form of electricity..."
Well, they could not measure it by a watt meter, as the device produced too high frequency for that. They estimated the output power based on the light intensity of the connected bulbs. That time the normal bulbs had about 1% efficiency. You can notice, they mention "cold form of electricity". If their bulb produced light without heat, then it was near to 100% efficiency. So, in reality that device produced only about 500 watts, but using high voltage and high frequency the bulbs worked in a much more efficient way.

Belgium
Walter Verbrugggen
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 3:36 am

Re: Tesla

Post by Walter Verbrugggen » Fri Jul 04, 2014 5:32 am

My view on Moray (and Tesla) is different from your approach, I don't think on a thermoelectric process for producing the energy.
Moray has written a book, "the sea of energy in which we flow" ore something like that.

I think the electric potential of the atmosphere is the energy providing source.
when the potential is high enough, the spark will short it to ground, producing a current (obviously) ...
The potential level of the antenna wire, as it will be shorted to ground will be 0V.
If the spark dissapears, the antenna wire will reach the surrounding potential again, until it reaches the voltage a spark will occure.

Lightning strikes the earth about 7 times a second,
The sea of energy, is the electric potential of the atmosphere.

I've spend also quite some time in investigation of Henry Moray's device.
Moray also wanted to take a patent on his invention, but couldn't explain the way it was producing the electricity. Tesla had the same problem.
The schematic representation of both differs only on the "antenna" Tesla has used a metal plate, Moray has used a wire.....

The electric models back then couldn't fill the gap between static and dynamic electricity.

There are more analogies between the two, after their patents were rejected, they left their research work and did something different.
Personally I'm not paranoid but in my opinion it is weird a scientist leaves this kind of investigation.

tibor
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Hungary

Re: Tesla

Post by tibor » Fri Jul 04, 2014 5:42 am

Walter Verbrugggen wrote:I think the electric potential of the atmosphere is the energy providing source.
Please, take a look at his picture about his device: Image
The antenna is a piece of wire held by two gentleman inside that room, so there is no high altitude atmospheric electricity involved.

Belgium
Walter Verbrugggen
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 3:36 am

Re: Tesla

Post by Walter Verbrugggen » Fri Jul 04, 2014 6:42 am

This info comes from wikipedia:
Experiments have shown that the intensity of this electric field is greater in the middle of the day than at morning or night and is also greater in winter than in summer. In 'fine weather', the potential, aka 'voltage', increases with altitude at about 30 volts per foot (100 V/m), when climbing against the gradient of the electric field.[3] This electric field gradient continues up into the atmosphere to a point where the voltage reaches its maximum, in the neighborhood of 300,000 volts. This occurs at approximately 30–50 km above the Earth's surface.[4] From that point in the atmosphere up to its outer limit, nearly 1,000 km, the electric field gradient produced in the lower atmosphere either ceases or has reversed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_electricity

I know you can't compare electric potential in a room to electric optential in open space, but 100V/m is high enough for sparks..

on the foto indeed you see two men helding an antenna wire in a room. (on which floor?)
The ceiling of the room is not higher than the doors?

In Henry Moray's work, there are also indications toward electric potential, such as "in night time the power is a bit less than during daytime".
He did an experiment in the desert, far away from the power lines, (this is open air)
Image
I only wanted to give my point of view, and this also could be wrong.

User avatar
Distinti
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue May 06, 2014 8:18 pm

Re: Tesla

Post by Distinti » Fri Jul 04, 2014 9:13 am

There are two separate trains of thought here

1) Atmospheric potentials introduced by Walter.
2) Electric pressure (for lack of a better name) introduced by Tibor.

111111
It seems from the wiki article that the atmospheric potentials are the electric fields due to the charge imbalances in the atmosphere.
unfortunately, this 100V/m is unusable as a power source because electric fields are conservative (Kirchhoff's law).
If there are actual working devices that pull energy from the atmosphere, they must work on some other principle.
Could it be that our present models of the electromagnetic theory are incomplete? Perhaps, the only way to know for sure is to obtain a working device and study it.
So lets see if we can't find a reasonable schematic and build one.


222222

Note: The thermoelectric effect does not require a temperature differential (think thermocouples) -- it just works better with one.

The reaction between two dissimilar metals (Seebeck effect I think) is the basis of the thermoelectric effect as well as other well known devices such as batteries, semiconductors. The interesting point is that a thermoelectric junction can be operated in reverse. Meaning that electricity is applied which forces heat from one side of the junction to the other. Such devices are used for electric cooling and refrigeration (very inefficient though).
With all of that said, I have never been 100% satisfied with the models and theories of how these things work.

The following is me thinking outloud:

I think Tibors idea to harness the electric pressure has merit. The trick would be to make it work at ambient temp (or heated with sunlight). the second trick (if possible) is not to use dissimilar metals. Lets call the part the emits the electrons the cathode and the part the receives the electrons the anode.
In the cathode, we have free electrons that are darting about in all different directions (thermal noise). This thermal noise is very broad frequency.
Is it possible to construct the cathode in such a manner that thermal energy is concentrated at one point such that a surface electron will be ejected? I'm thinking something along the lines of a cone (this is just off the cuff) where the tip of the cone would "concentrate" the wave energy such that an occasional electron is ejected. The question is how big or how small should this cone be? How far away should the anode be to collect this ejected charge? Perhaps a whole bunch of cones stacked end to end would magnify the effect. Perhaps a magnetic field applied could help separate the forward and back motions in the free charge. It would probable have to be done in a vacuum. There is a lot of work here.

tibor
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Hungary

Re: Tesla

Post by tibor » Fri Jul 04, 2014 2:09 pm

In Henry Moray's work, there are also indications toward electric potential, such as "in night time the power is a bit less than during daytime".
Well, that can be also due at night the temperature was a bit lower than during daytime in that desert.

I think, it may be possible to harvest atmospheric electricity somehow. But I think Moray's device had too much power output for such a small antenna in such small altitude difference relative to it's grounding.
Note: The thermoelectric effect does not require a temperature differential (think thermocouples) -- it just works better with one.
That is not true. If you connect two different kind of metals, there is a junction voltage between them. But when you close the circuit on the other side, you get the same junction voltage, but opposite polarity, if both junctions are at the same temperature. Current only flows, if there is a temperature difference between the junctions. Please check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_effect
This thermal noise is very broad frequency.
And the distribution of that frequency range is dependent on the temperature. AFAIK it is almost the same as the black body radiation frequency distribution: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... dpi_en.png
That diagram shows wavelength instead of frequency, but you can calculate the frequency using vacuum light speed. Inside the metal the wavelength will be different, but the frequency remains the same.

I'm not sure if I described my idea clearly enough. What I wanted to tell about is a circuit, where in every cycle I charge up a piece of metal slowly, and discharge quickly. It have to be charged to a very high negative voltage, and the discharge should be very quick to get usable power. It should work at almost near to absolute zero degrees too.

Robert, what you described with the different shaped cathode and anode, that works too. I heard about some Chinese gentlemen who created a diode like that: http://www.google.com/patents/US6768177 I don't know why didn't they make a commercial product yet.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest