Electricity Generation

If you are looking for a good read, research Steven Marks free energy device. This guys the real deal, and invented some devices which really generate energy or more precisely convert the free energy all around us, into usable energy. The reason I think this is relevant is your curiousity into where the energy comes from.

This was a fantastic read for me, and gives great insight about how the TPU works. Although he's not allowed to post schematics, he does give out the concept which seems better.
www.overunity.com...

Relevant quote from the transcript -

"Now to the question of the little pieces of wire and the magnet.
I don't remember anyone anwering this to your or Mr. Mark's
satisfaction.
Let me have a go.
When you move a magnet across a wire you generate a current in
that wire.
However, what was not iterated is that the amount of current
generated is not only a matter of the strength of the magnet, but
rather the SPEED and distance at which that magnet is moved
across that wire.
Thus when we speak of moving the magnet across a small piece of
wire at the speed of a gunshot, you generate a very sudden, high
voltage spike in that little piece of wire. Conversely, if you could
move that wire crossways through even a weak magnetic field
with few flux likes, you could generate a voltage spike.
In essence Mark is doing this in his toroid.
He states he is running at about 5kHz.
For four coils (like the one that is open on the cardboard box in his
garage with two lamps), he may be banging two opposed coils
simultaneously with spikes, with the magnet forcing one direction,
or he is running them sequentially.
For the sequential version, that would mean the "magnetic flux
North" (for lack of a better way to describe it) passes one spot in
the toroid 1250 times per second.
The RPM of the flux would therefore be AT LEAST 75,000RPM.
Can you imagine the kind of power you might generate from Neo
mgnets in an armature near windings if you COULD rev that puppy
up to 75,000RPM?
Only this toroid has no back EMF when a load is put on the wires."


Steven Mark
"I have been here reflecting on all the responses I have read and I am just
amazed at all the important things they are missing.
Some of the important ideas are so unbelievably obvious it makes me cry
to think that they could be so easily misinterpreted.
The very FIRST example I gave you was that; It is common scientific
knowledge that if you have a piece of wire and first run electricity through
it you will have a small kick when first energized.
The kick is universally attributed to the earth's magnetic field.
OK the point is; YOU CAN GET SOME ENERGY OUT OF THE EARTH!
Next point; YOU CAN DO SOMETHING VERY SIMPLE WITH A WIRE TO
SHOW THIS.
Next point; YOU CAN SEE THAT YOU CAN GET MORE OUT OF A PIECE
OF WIRE THEN YOU PUT IN TO IT.
WE are not talking about a coil or a transformer or anything developing a
primary to secondary flux.
We are just talking about a straight piece of wire, some electrons and a
method of measuring what comes out of it.
I even gave you some easy to obtain references to this phenomenon in a
few technical journals.
Did anyone look for these journals?
Did anyone look in basic scientific publications to see any of this
information?
Did anyone get some sensitive measuring equipment and do this
experiment?
Must be too simple and beneath the dignity of those on the web.
Some people just sit back and say, well that isn't very much power, we
want to make much more.
In order to run you must walk first.
I told you that the simplest form of over unity is a piece of wire and a
voltage source.
Anyone can actually connect it and measure.
See for yourself the kick.
NO coil no xmrs, just a kick.
That should tell you learned gentleman that there exists a form of energy
convertible and useable which is directly related to a simple piece of wire
and instantaneous electron flow..
No one appears to be willing to get off their asses and do anything except
ask and demand more information before they will start to experiment.
Yes I am disappointed."

[edit on 4-6-2007 by Freezer]

Yeah, someone beat me to it.

The reason we use conductive materials as wire etc, is because it has the electrons necessary to pass from atom to atom when induced by a differing charge, or, in the case of AC, a shunt from a magnetic pole.

The electrons used are already in the conductive material. And are shunted from atom to atom in one direction, then back again. This is AC.

In the case of DC, if you're using a battery, one pole of the battery has a lack of electrons (the positive pole), and the other end of the battery has an excessive amount of electrons (negative pole). This difference in electrons is typically achieved chemically, or electro-chemically in the case of rechargeable batteries.
If you're using a DC generator, the electrons are continuously pushed out the negative end of the generator, and collected again at the positive end.

You never have created electrons. You have merely pushed the pre-existing electrons around in a loop... or in the case of AC, back and forth.


Scenario AC.
Atom A has enough electrons to spare. A magnet passes along it, and knocks the electrons off of that atom, and those electrons are received by Atom B. When the magnet has passed, or the other pole comes across Atom A, the electrons are passed from atom B back to atom A. This is AC.

Scenario DC.
Atom A had its electrons shunted, just like in AC. Those electrons are passed to Atom B, but because atom A is still being shunted by either a chemical reaction, or a passing magnet, Atom A doesn't want the electrons back from Atom B, it wants it from Atom C. So Atom B passes the electrons to atom C, and atom C gives them to atom A again.

If there was no path to give the electrons back to the start again, then none of the atoms would be able to accept those electrons from Atom A, because they have no-where to pass their electrons to so that they can pick up atom A's electrons. So no electrical movement is observed.


In short... think of it as a hose full of water, plugged into both ends of a water pump. The water pump never produced any water, it just pushed it around in the hose.

Wow excellent post johnsky!!

Viszet Oki in the hopes of preventing confusion I would also like to point out that the descriptions of electricity given by mazzroth, myself , David2012 and johnsky are only to be taken literally within the context of your question. That being electricity inside of a solid metal , in this case copper wire.

Electric current in other materials (non solid metals and certain other materials) is and can be very different , not only involving the flow electrons but also the flow of positive and negative ions and in some cases only the flow of protons and not electrons.

Another little bit that can be confusing when trying to learn about electricity is the fact that there are 2 methods of "labeling" the flow of electricity.

One being the "conventional current" method which assumes that electricity flows from + to -. This being incorrect when dealing with solid metals however it is the somewhat "industry standard" and was created by ben franklin before the electron was discovered and found to have a negative charge.

The other being the "electron flow" method which assumes that electricity flows from - to +. This being correct when dealing with solid metals.

Certain electronics symbols and "rules" were set up using the conventional current method. For this reason the conventional current method is often used.

There are so many things that can be confusing when learning about electricity due to all of the different discoveries over the years that I feel it is important to learn the basics from a single organized source. This is one of the reasons why I recommend the NEETS modules for learning the basics in the case where "formal" education cannot be attained.



[edit on 4-6-2007 by Heckman]

I have never heard of proton flow in a copper wire.
got a link to that?

I have never heard of proton flow in a copper wire.

I think you misunderstood my post.

I stated: "Electric current in other materials is and can be very different , not only involving the flow electrons but also the flow of positive and negative ions and in some cases only the flow of protons and not electrons. "

Other materials being non solid metals and certain other materials. (not copper wire)

My statement : "That being electricity inside of a solid metal , in this case copper wire"

Pertaining to the descriptions given in context to Viszet Oki's question.


[edit on 4-6-2007 by Heckman]

sorry for the confusion.
could you give some example of proton flow in other materials?
I have only read of this in biological systems of mitochondria
and in the magnetosphere of planets

I would love to learn more.


[edit on 4-6-2007 by junglelord]

sorry for the confusion.

no problem

could you give some example of proton flow in other materials?
I have only read of this in biological systems of mitochondria
and in the magnetosphere

Sure. It occurs in frozen water (ice) certain ceramics and polymers like those used as proton conductors in some hydrogen fuel cells.


Then of coarse you have electric currents which are flow of positive and negative ions such as what happens inside of batteries and to the human body during electric shock , or the flow of positive and negative ions and electrons as is the case with electric sparks (plasma).

I would love to learn more

That makes 2 of us

If your interested and have a local library look for a book called : Proton Conductors: Solids, Membranes and Gels - Materials and Devices

thanks a lot I really love this forum.
good stuff my good man
I will research this more tomorrow especially in ceramics etc.

OK.... so, the kinetic energy of the spinning magnets induces a current with a voltage. And lets say a stove element has quite a bit of resistance to that voltage. So, the material of the element reacts by getting really hot. So... in essence, the original kinetic energy gets transformed to potential energy (voltage = potential difference), and then to radiative

Excellent question, you are picking this up quicker than expected, kudos.

In the case of such things as Cathode ray tubes, and neon tubes etc (anything that emits electrons from point to point), nothing is actually lost.

Just think of a simple electric circuit, cut the wire, and hold it close enough to spark across from wire to wire. The electrons are flowing from point A to point B the same way, but using the air to finish the circuit.

However, air is VERY resistive, it has a high capacitive value. Which is why CRT's and Neon tubes are mostly vaccumes inside. (They have little to no air inside).
While this may be perplexing as you are thinking to yourself "If theres nothing inside, how does the energy pass from point to point?"
This is where you have to think backwards. Don't think in terms of what does it use to conduct, think of it in terms of 'theres nothing to resist the energy from jumping across the gap'.

In the case of neon tubes, there is a little bit of neon gas inside. Neon gas emits light radiation (a waveform) when excited by energy.

In the case of CRT's, the screen is phosphorescent (I think that the right term), which means it illuminates when electrons hit it. Magnets along the CRT guide the path of the electrons to a single point on the CRT, these magnets sweep the path of the electrons in a Z pattern until it has created an entire image on the screen. It creates an entire image 60 times a second in most cases.
Notice on older TV's that when you turn off the set, the image becomes a dot in the center, this is because the magnets have turned off before the electricity stopped flowing. The electrons then follow a perfect line, making a dot in the middle of the screen. The dot remains for a while, because the screen is still excited by so much energy being at that one spot for a bit.

With the stove, heat energy radiating from the stove can be measured in the radiation waveform given off (no electrons emitted), and of course anything that touches it (the pot, the air) conducts thermal energy into it. Thermal energy can't be thought of in the same terms as electricity, as it's not so much as electricity, as it is just excited particles.

Hope this helps.

In response to thread and post by Deezee

I don't know where this is from, but it's a complete misunderstanding in how electricity works.

Since i have quickly checked out your record on this site i am going to be as polite as i can stand to be when people do not read ( or check the records of those they are responding to) what they are disagreeing with!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The link was with the original quote and i don't know why you could not have discovered where it got it from or that those are the words of a college professor.

This person is confusing the source of the electricity with the circuit, when they say "energy has to travel trough empty space in a power source, so why should circuits have to be closed loops" (summed up)

He is in fact stating that we can observe how circuits are not required ( to connect the potentials) for energy to power a load for a small duration of time. This proves , in my lay opinion, relatively conclusively that the electrons inside the circuit can hardly be what powers the circuit.

While electricity does travel through a circuit, which therefore has to be a closed loop, it does NOT travel through the power source!

I do not see where that has been suggested.

The power source is always just the DIFFERENCE between two POTENTIALS.
And to use this potential power, you have to give it something to travel through, like a circuit.

Which is what our standard models would indicate but not what we observe in practice. You should have studied my previously sourced material more closely :

This account obviously does not explain much about the circuit. Indeed, in the Feynman lectures we read:4
‘‘We ask what happens in a piece of resistance wire when it is carrying a current. Since the wire
has resistance, there is an electric field along it, driving the current. Because there is a potential
drop along the wire, there is also an electric field just outside the wire, parallel to the surface ~Fig.
27-5!. There is, in addition, a magnetic field which goes around the wire because of the current.
The E and B are at right angles; therefore there is a Poynting vector directed radially inward,
as shown in the figure. There is a flow of energy into the wire all around. It is of course,
equal to the energy being lost in the wire in the form of heat. So our ‘‘crazy’’ theory says that the
electrons are getting their energy to generate heat because of the energy flowing into the wire from
the field outside. Intuition would seem to tell us that the electrons get their energy from being
pushed along the wire, so the energy should be flowing down ~or up! along the wire. But the theory says that
the electrons are really being pushed by an electric field, which has come from some charges very far away, and that the electrons
get their energy for generating heat from these fields. The energy somehow flows from the
distant charges into a wide area of space and then inward to the wire.’’ ~emphasis added!.

However, the result of such an application and the resulting energy transfer in the circuit apparently did
not satisfy Feynman. He wrote: ‘‘this theory is obviously nuts, somehow energy flows from the battery to infinity and
then back into the load, is really strange.’’4 Feynman, however, did not persist and left the problem for others to find a
reasonable explanation. Can we say more about energy transferin this simple circuit?

sites.huji.ac.il...

We can clearly observe that what powers the load flows into ( or more accurately into close proximity around it) the wire from all around it!

Energy does not flow through a battery. But it does flow from one potential in the battery to the other THROUGH the circuit!

I am uncertain how you arrived at the conclusion that i , or the author in question, suggested or believes that to be true.

While i hate water analogies, it might help here.



.It's the same thing with power sources. A battery consists of two different potentials in one neat package. It needs a wire or a circuit for the energy to flow through (tube in the water analogy).

where E is the electric field, H and B are the magnetic field and magnetic flux density respectively, and µ is the permeability of the surrounding medium. For an electromagnetic wave propagating in free space µ becomes µ0, the permeability of free space.

For example, the Poynting vector near an ideally conducting wire is parallel to the wire axis - so electric energy is flowing in space outside of the wire. The Poynting vector becomes tilted toward wire for a resistive wire, indicating that energy flows from the e/m field into the wire, producing resistive Joule heating in the wire.

www.answers.com...

It does not need a wire or circuit to briefly power a load. In fact with sufficient well directed power it can be transmitted wirelessly as scientist are now 'rediscovering' .

With high frequencies, Tesla developed some of the first neon and fluorescent illumination. He also took the first x-ray photographs. But these discoveries paled when compared to his discovery of November 1890, when he illuminated a vacuum tube wirelessly—having transmitted energy through the air.

www.pbs.org...

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
amasci.com...
news.bbc.co.uk...
en.wikipedia.org...:Anthony_Appleyard/Tesla's_role_in_the_history_of_radio
www.pbs.org...
www.technologyreview.com...

So we only wasted a hundred years ; not too serious a mistake really!

The only power transfer between the two potentials is THROUGH the circuit (tube) and not somehow magically between the two drums through empty space. Still, the energy flow from one potential to the other can power an electric motor (or a water wheel in the water analogy).

And that is a good summary of what i used to believe when i did a introductory ( or as well call it 'N1'; lets say the first two or three months of a three year degree) course back in high school.
Thankfully i did not continue thus missing out on the opportunity to get thoroughly indoctrinated.

The quote is a good example of what happens when people with little or no knowledge about electricity try to explain it.

Your entire response is a good example of what happens when one does not make sure of what the other person said or in fact believes!

Hope to hear from you.

Stellar

One of the most common misconceptions about electricity is the thought that electricity is electrons. That is why the common person asks, "Where do the electrons come from/go to?"

The easiest way for a layman to understand electricity is to envision a running stream. The stream bed itself (the cut in the ground where the water runs) is the wire and the water is directly analogous to electrons for the purposes of our demonstration.

So we have water running in a stream just like we have electrons running down a wire. How do we get energy out of that water? We build a water wheel! After we built the wheel, we can perform useful work with the energy already in the running water.

The important thing to notice is that even though we extracted work from the water we did not consume any water in the process. The water entered the wheel, then moved it around, and finally exited back into the stream.

Electricity is exactly the same thing. When we use the electrons in a wire to move a motor or power a light, we don't consume any electrons. We use the motion of the electrons in the wire to power the motor just like we use the motion of water to power a water wheel.

Electrons (a thing) aren't Electricity (a force)

In response to the same thread and this post by yahn goodey.

i'm trying to search--please try to be patient with me--i would just love to see all of us be given free energy--but i can only speak from my own experiences ,education, and understanding

We would all like our energy to be far cheaper if not free and it's no surprise that you and everyone else on the planet speaks from their own experiences, education and understand; that is how it's always works and how it is going to continue working for some time more! Having said that i would just like you to acknowledge that those the experiences of the masses can in many ways be manipulated , their education systems turned into indoctrination/propaganda arms of certain classes/forces and that the understanding derived from such by the victims of such processes will in fact reflect the possible warped nature of the system.

---if there is a way to free power that others can tell me/us about i am all ears--if it makes logical sense--

'Others' have been telling us about this for centuries but people rarely listen given their indoctrination with the scarcity paradigm! Since when does 'free' energy make logical sense? It still does not do so for me so why would it for you?

up till now with my limited understanding--what einstein knew and taught and the laws of thermodynamics and ohms laws that have never been proven wrong so far i have to stick with them--

Your understanding may be limited but then what matters most is what bias those limits reflects? Why don't we all just happen to know that electricity have absolutely nothing to do with burning fossil fuels? How did we all end up with the same limited and biased misunderstanding?

sorry i havent yet been allowed by my family to look at your long posts ahead of this--they are running me around doing stuff for them --

I am not going to spend even a second feeling guilty over your choices to start a family ( as i plan to do in good time) and i would ask that you do not use them as excuse for interjecting yourself into a discussion and area you lack the time to study. I understand that you thought there was nothing to it and that you could just spend your time dismissing the views of others without retribution but i do not really care for people who spends what little time they have in such aggressive ways. If you are willing to commit the type of energy i am then go ahead and be different and or aggressive but if not i suggest more constructive contributions.

some more thinking i did today while not totally asleep has caused me to realize how shallow my imagination has been limited to by my previous job----if instead of a small 4" diameter dish rotating in a magnetic field we had a 50' steel dish with a copper coating that weighed 200 tons or so spining to produce electricity--no stupid fly is going to jamb up those gears---i've been thinking small too long.

Shallow imaginations do not result by accident but why 200 ton spinning discs is important i don't know either. That being said maybe we can ask the USAF and or the Russians?

Also in 1973, a 436th C-5 crew helped promote international goodwill through scientific cooperation between Russia and the United States in June 1977. Flying for nearly 12 hours, refueling twice en route and covering almost 6,000 miles nonstop, the crew airlifted the world's most powerful magnet and its support equipment from Chicago to Moscow. The 40-ton super-conducting device was installed in a special test facility in Moscow where joint research was done on more economical and efficient ways to generate power. The crew received the 1977 Mackay Trophy for the "most meritorious flight of the year."

www.militarynewcomers.com...

MOSCOW, June 20 A 40-ton American super magnet was flown into Moscow today and delivered to a Soviet research facility, opening a new phase of a joint effort to find more efficient ways to generate electrical energy.

select.nytimes.com...

Superconducting indeed...

Stellar

[edit on 12-1-2008 by StellarX]

i still havent had a chance yet to read all you wrote and scrutenize item by item but 1 thing you say that i'll part way try to answer is about you saying--

Why not do that before starting to answer specific points that are more interrelated than you seem to understand?

thats not true--concerning :ham radio operaters havent found a power channel frequency (in nature)yet with the power for just one car-(it would self destruct the scanner radio) or they would have told us.

What do you mean it would destroy their radio's? Why would it do that if it's just a carrier signal? Welcome the the science of interferometry:

Interferometry is the science and technique of superposing (interfering) two or more waves, which creates an output wave different from the input waves; this in turn can be used to explore the differences between the input waves. Because interference is a very general phenomenon with waves, interferometry can be applied to a wide variety of fields, including astronomy, fiber optics, optical metrology, oceanography, seismology and various studies of quantum mechanics. Interferometry can be applied to both one-dimensional waves such as time varying signals, or to multi-dimensional waves such as coherent images produced by laser illumination.

en.wikipedia.org...

The Russian Woodpecker was a notorious Soviet signal that could be heard on the shortwave radio bands worldwide between July 1976 and December 1989. It sounded like a sharp, repetitive tapping noise, at 10 Hz, giving rise to the "Woodpecker" name. The random frequency hops disrupted legitimate broadcast, amateur radio, and utility transmissions and resulted in thousands of complaints by many countries worldwide.

en.wikipedia.org...

So it's not like it's not a pain in the neck but why do you think the carrier signals should have the ability to destroy equipment?

i'm not a ham but was interested way back in ham radio---most of those guys are honest and wouldnt keep a secret like this to themselves.

Why do you think they would know about this 'secret'?

i dont dispute teslas genius and experiments.sure someone could power up a tesla coil from a local power station and transmitt radio power that would light up homes for miles around and fry our brains and eyeballs etc.

It did not fry anyone or anything on the few ( i really don't know ) instances it was tested for commercial purposeses :

He lit vacuum tubes wirelessly at both of the New York locations, providing evidence for the potential of wireless power transmission.

en.wikipedia.org...

With high frequencies, Tesla developed some of the first neon and fluorescent illumination. He also took the first x-ray photographs. But these discoveries paled when compared to his discovery of November 1890, when he illuminated a vacuum tube wirelessly—having transmitted energy through the air.

www.pbs.org...

at the same time but i dont think anyone is doing that just yet.do you realize how much power is required to propel one electric car say with just a 100 hp electric motor ? 1 hp =746 watts----100hp=74,600 watts.radio stations we listen to-- for instance what would be called a hi power am broadcast station transmitts 50,000 watts at its antenne which disipates to weaker levels as it goes outwards---- just one high powered radio station all its energy "would be required" for just one car assuming that you could bolt an appropriate receiving tower to the top of the car and a receiver that could pick up all that power yet not burnout instantly.same problem even if microwaves were used to power up a 100hp motor car---the health hazard to humans caught in the beams of energy would see us fried.

We are practically bathed in EM waves anyways so in the age of cellphones and the like that is hardly the reason not to investigate wireless energy transmission!

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
Since i have quickly checked out your record on this site i am going to be as polite as i can stand to be when people do not read ( or check the records of those they are responding to) what they are disagreeing with!

My entire reply to you just got lost because of a connection error, so i will have to write it again. But it will have to wait untill i completely wake up...

Besides, i wasn't disagreeing with you or commenting ON you, i only commented on ONE of the quotes you posted there. All of what i said was about that qote and none of it was about you.

In that quote it was suggested that there is a flow of electricity between the potentials INSIDE the power source, like a capacitor or a battery and that this flow occurs through empty space (or insulation between the potentials). Based on this, it was further suggested that since power sources are not closed loops, why should circuits have to be..

This is the part that was and still is wrong.

Because of that and since the thread was about free energy, i thought the quote came from one of the many self proclaimed "inventors" of free energy devices.

I apologize if my assumption was incorrect. But if a proffesor made that statement (and if i remember it correctly) he is still wrong.

I will take some time later, to go through it again, so we can discuss it further.

Originally posted by Voxel
One of the most common misconceptions about electricity is the thought that electricity is electrons. That is why the common person asks, "Where do the electrons come from/go to?"

But the point is that they don't come or go much anywhere!

Electric currents in solid matter are typically very slow flows. For example, in a copper wire of cross-section 0.5 mm², carrying a current of 5 A, the drift velocity of the electrons is of the order of a millimetre per second. To take a different example, in the near-vacuum inside a cathode ray tube, the electrons travel in near-straight lines ("ballistically") at about a tenth of the speed of light.

However, we know that electrical signals are electromagnetic waves which propagate at very high speed outside the surface of the conductor (moving at the speed of light, as can be deduced from Maxwell's Equations). For example, in AC power lines, the waves of electromagnetic energy propagate rapidly through the space between the wires, moving from a source to a distant load, even though the electrons in the wires only move back and forth over a tiny distance. Although the velocity of the flowing charges is quite low, the associated electromagnetic energy travels at the speed of light.

en.wikipedia.org...

And as i have mentioned before we can CLEARLY observe how energy falls into close proximity to the circuit wires from outside of it and that loads can briefly be powered without any electron flows thus destroying the argument that EM flows can or should be associated with electron flows.

The generator moves an electric current, but does not create electric charge, which is already present in the conductive wire of its windings. It is somewhat analogous to a water pump, which creates a flow of water but does not create the water inside. Other types of electrical generators exist, based on other electrical phenomena such as piezoelectricity, and magnetohydrodynamics. The construction of a dynamo is similar to that of an electric motor, and all common types of dynamos could work as motors.

en.wikipedia.org...

But as Feynman and others have observed :

This
account obviously does not explain much about the circuit.
Indeed, in the Feynman lectures we read:4
‘‘We ask what happens in a piece of resistance
wire when it is carrying a current. Since the wire
has resistance, there is an electric field along it,
driving the current. Because there is a potential
drop along the wire, there is also an electric field
just outside the wire, parallel to the surface ~Fig.
27-5!. There is, in addition, a magnetic field
which goes around the wire because of the current.
The E and B are at right angles; therefore
there is a Poynting vector directed radially inward,
as shown in the figure. There is a flow of
energy into the wire all around. It is of course,
equal to the energy being lost in the wire in the
form of heat. So our ‘‘crazy’’ theory says that the
electrons are getting their energy to generate heat
because of the energy flowing into the wire from
the field outside. Intuition would seem to tell us
that the electrons get their energy from being
pushed along the wire, so the energy should be
flowing down ~or up! along the wire. But the
theory says that the electrons are really being
pushed by an electric field, which has come from
some charges very far away, and that the electrons
get their energy for generating heat from
these fields. The energy somehow flows from the
distant charges into a wide area of space and then
inward to the wire.’’ ~emphasis added!.

However, the result of such an application
and the resulting energy transfer in the circuit apparently did
not satisfy Feynman. He wrote: ‘‘this theory is obviously
nuts, somehow energy flows from the battery to infinity and
then back into the load, is really strange.’’4 Feynman, however,
did not persist and left the problem for others to find a
reasonable explanation. Can we say more about energy transfer
in this simple circuit?

sites.huji.ac.il...

In the battery, the Poynting vector is outward, indicating
the direction of energy flow. ~Note the sensitivity of this
result to the sense of the current through the battery.! In the
vicinity of the conducting wires and next to the positive terminal
of the battery, S is parallel to the wire. Perhaps surprisingly,
S is directed from the battery on both sides of the
battery. Along the resistor R, the change of direction of E
outside the resistor causes S to change as well, gradually
turning from parallel to perpendicular to the resistor axis
~and entering it!, at its middle point ~zero surface charge!.

sites.huji.ac.il...

we can observe that energy falls into close proximity to a conductor from all around it and that this logically means that there is far more energy ''emanating' from the generator than can be explained by the most commonly accepted physics 'laws'.

The easiest way for a layman to understand electricity is to envision a running stream. The stream bed itself (the cut in the ground where the water runs) is the wire and the water is directly analogous to electrons for the purposes of our demonstration.

It is not as the water is already in motion while the process of burning fossil fuels is allegedly required to create the directed flow motion of electrons.

So we have water running in a stream just like we have electrons running down a wire. How do we get energy out of that water? We build a water wheel! After we built the wheel, we can perform useful work with the energy already in the running water.

The example does not logically follow as human activity may or may not be required to set the water in motion in the first place.

The important thing to notice is that even though we extracted work from the water we did not consume any water in the process. The water entered the wheel, then moved it around, and finally exited back into the stream.

Which is not entirely inaccurate but does not include mention of the important fact that loads are powered far faster than the electron flow would indicate.

Electricity is exactly the same thing. When we use the electrons in a wire to move a motor or power a light, we don't consume any electrons. We use the motion of the electrons in the wire to power the motor just like we use the motion of water to power a water wheel.

Electrons (a thing) aren't Electricity (a force)

reply to post by StellarX


Ok, i found that qoute again. Here it is:

Objection 3: although some books say that you have to have a complete conducting loop before a current can exist, that is just another misconception. Electrons do not travel across the insulating gap in a capacitor nor do they jump across the space between the primary and secondary windings of a transformer. This is so even when the energy source is a battery; I have constructed circuits like those in figure 2 that show that the lamp lights up briefly when the switch is closed. No matter how the energy travels in those examples, it must be able to get through empty space. (It is true that if you want to maintain a steady current in a circuit, then a continuous conducting loop is required.)

The reason i responded to this quote was, that it seemed to be the basis of the theory.

I did in fact remember it partially wrong. I will try to explain why i understood it, the way i described it previously:

although some books say that you have to have a complete conducting loop before a current can exist, that is just another misconception.

"
The books i learned from said there has to be a conducting PATH from one (higher) potential, to the other (lower) potential. A COMPLETE loop does not exist, because the two different potentials are insulated from each other inside the power source. If they weren't, they would discharge into one another immediatelly and wouldn't be able to hold a charge.

So i don't understand, why he's saying that most books claim there has to be a COMPLETE loop. The circuit or a load is just a path for the flow of electricity between the two potentials.

Electrons do not travel across the insulating gap in a capacitor nor do they jump across the space between the primary and secondary windings of a transformer.

This is true. They don't travel across the insulating gap in a capacitor. That's why the insulation is there. But i never heard or read they do.

A transformer is something else entirelly. Changing magnetic fields from AC in one winding cause the flow of electricity in the other winding through induction. Again, i don't understand, why he would even mention the exchange of electrons here, but he is right when he says it doesn't happen. The books i learned from never said it does.

This is so even when the energy source is a battery;

Again, true. A battery is two different potentials in one package. They are insulated from one another, otherwise they wouldn't be able to hold a charge. The only flow of electricity again only occurs when a circuit or some load connects the two potentials and gives the current a path to flow through.

I have constructed circuits like those in figure 2 that show that the lamp lights up briefly when the switch is closed. No matter how the energy travels in those examples, it must be able to get through empty space.

Ok, this was the part that confused me initially. First he claims there is no flow of electrons between the two potentials in a capacitor or battery.

Now he is saying, energy has to be able to somehow get through empty space in order for the lamp to light up briefly when the switch is closed.

Because of this, i assumed, that he is now claiming there IS a flow between the two potentials inside a power source.

But then he says:

(It is true that if you want to maintain a steady current in a circuit, then a continuous conducting loop is required.)

Again, this is true.

But from the last two quotes it would appear to me, it is possible that the brief flash of light he saw was simply coming from equalisation of two slightly different potentials, one of them being the load in this case.

But before i can comment on it further i will have to analyze his circuit diagrams. If i can't make sense of it i will consult one of my employees, who has much more experience than me in electrical engineering.

I think the effect can most likely be explained by known laws. If i am wrong, i will gladly say so. In fact, i would love to be wrong in this case.

No matter what you may believe about me, i would love to see a working device that opposes the known laws and teaches us something new about electricity (or anything else in science for that matter).

It is just that your post was in a thread about free energy, so i thought it was from one of the inventors of perpetuum mobile or ZPE devices... That was how i saw that quote and because i saw some contradictions in it i commented on it.

Now that i read it again, i see i might have partially misunderstood it.

This

Electrons do not travel across the insulating gap in a capacitor.

and this

No matter how the energy travels in those examples, it must be able to get through empty space.

made me believe he is suggesting that electrons DO flow through the insulating gap in the capacitor. I mistakenly thought these two sentences were related. It took me a couple of times rereading it now to see how i understood it the first time.

The quote in it's entirety is still a bit odd. It's mostly correct but it says the books claim something they don't, which is another reason i got the impression he doesn't really understand it all. But maybe we just learned from different books.. I don't know

In any case, it is true that i misunderstood it the first time, which made me comment on the wrong aspect of it.

What i still don't understand is, why he is relating the lack of flow of electricity between the two potentials inside the power source, to the alleged flow of electricity through empty space in his circuits.

This is what confused me initially and lead to my response.


Before commenting on it further i will first take some time and try to understand everything he has to say.

When i'm done, and if you're still interested, we can continue this conversation.

[edit on 12-1-2008 by deezee]

Originally posted by StellarX
And that is a good summary of what i used to believe when i did a introductory ( or as well call it 'N1'; lets say the first two or three months of a three year degree) course back in high school.
Thankfully i did not continue thus missing out on the opportunity to get thoroughly indoctrinated.

Actually i understand, why you might equate learning as much as possible about a subject to indoctrination. But this is much more depending on the person than on the subject he is learning.

It is true, that many scientists, after they learn about something, start thinking they now know everything about it. Completelly believing in a theory can indeed limit a person from ever discovering something new, something outside that theory, an exception to the rule, if you like.

But in my view of science, theories do NOT proffess the truth. Only the best known description of observed facts SO FAR, while ALWAYS on the lookout for a better one.

When a better theory does appear it can show us when, how and why exceptions occur, but also has to offer an improoved explanation of the old laws, thereby allowing us to better understand what's going on all around us.

Real science is an allways progressing and never ending process of finding better and better explanations for the workings of the universe we live in.

In my oppinion, this is the only way of ever getting close to the truth, while believing we already know everything, only does the opposite.

For this reason i believe we should always have an open mind to new possibilities, but before that, we should also make sure we learn as much as possible about these subjects, by studying the best theories science has to offer so far.


On the other hand i have seen what you would call indoctrination in action many times when communicating with one of my employees. He has a much better understanding of electrical engineering than me, simply because of his many years of experience.

Sometimes, when we are developing an unusual new device, he has problems with understanding how it should work. He sees problems with a part of it's operation, simply because it's different to what he's used to. Then i start bouncing ideas off him, on how we might overcome this problem and many of them simply don't work, but eventually i come up with one that makes him think in a different way and he suddenly finds a way to make it happen.

But then again, i don't pay him for his ideas, but for his knowledge and expertise in designing the devices.

So in a way, you are right. Sometimes "too much" knowledge can be limiting. But without it, he wouldn't be able to do the work he does. And he is really good at it, once he accepts that it is possible.

This is very similiar to science in general. Often something is believed impossible. Then someone comes along, who thinks it is possible and makes it work and as soon others realize it really IS possible, suddenly many of them can also find a way to make it work.

It is allways the beliefs, that can be limiting and the lack of the same beliefs that allow new discoveries. But as long as you don't take science and theories as a belief system, you can learn from them without limiting yourself.

[edit on 12-1-2008 by deezee]

Originally posted by deezee
My entire reply to you just got lost because of a connection error, so i will have to write it again. But it will have to wait untill i completely wake up...

It's far better to learn the few commands you need to know thus enabling to type in another window ( spell-checker or wherever) and thus never risk having all your words/eggs in one basket. If that seems like too much trouble at least copy whatever you wrote to a doc or something before you post as ATS does experience occasional problems that will result in the loss of however much you typed; i have wasted entire days due to that type of nonsense so save yourself the pain.

Besides, i wasn't disagreeing with you or commenting ON you, i only commented on ONE of the quotes you posted there. All of what i said was about that qote and none of it was about you.

Since i employed the quote and still think it accurate i do consider it a criticism of my ideas/thoughts and will defend it in the same way i do everything else i at this time believe to be accurate.

In that quote it was suggested that there is a flow of electricity between the potentials INSIDE the power source, like a capacitor or a battery and that this flow occurs through empty space (or insulation between the potentials). Based on this, it was further suggested that since power sources are not closed loops, why should circuits have to be..

This is the part that was and still is wrong.

I think your following comment explains why you felt you needed to criticize instead of just presuming that the author knew what he was talking about and used short hand or explained it poorly; if you knew you were talking to a trained professional you would have given him more credit.

Because of that and since the thread was about free energy, i thought the quote came from one of the many self proclaimed "inventors" of free energy devices.
I apologize if my assumption was incorrect. But if a proffesor made that statement (and if i remember it correctly) he is still wrong.

I think you clarified your point of view later on so i will address it there.

I will take some time later, to go through it again, so we can discuss it further.

If i have all year so take your time and read or check whatever you need to.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by deezee
My entire reply to you just got lost because of a connection error, so i will have to write it again. But it will have to wait untill i completely wake up...

It's far better to learn the few commands you need to know thus enabling to type in another window ( spell-checker or wherever) and thus never risk having all your words/eggs in one basket.

If that seems like too much trouble at least copy whatever you wrote to a doc or something before you post as ATS does experience occasional problems that will result in the loss of however much you typed; i have wasted entire days due to that type of nonsense so save yourself the pain.

While i'm very gratefull for your concern, you shouldn't worry too much about my computer skills. Other than building all sorts of electronic devices, i also have to program them and the computers they connect to.

Besides, if you read what i wrote, you would notice i wasn't even completey awake at that time and for some strange reason, this connection error is most likely to happen when i forget to make a copy of the text.

The discussions could be so much more pleasant, if you wouldn't try so hard to to be condescending, every chance you get.

From your other posts i get a strange feeling you like to argue a lot. But again, this is another example, where i would love to be prooven wrong.

Maybe then, we could focus on the subject at hand.

[edit on 13/1/08 by deezee]