AC:
some day you may understand that it is not always the magnitude of the interactions but the quality of the interactions with nature that matter the most.
Can you explain what you mean by the "quality of the interactions with nature"?
if you did your homework you would understand that most of the people who have succeeded in FE technologies did not follow science they made their own.
Can I assume that you have "done your homework"? Please cite some examples of you doing your homework and FE successes and "new sciences."
Rosemary:
If you were to take this argument to its logical conclusion - then - in terms of this a natural diamond would have less energy than an artificial diamond. There is no more or less potential energy in a lump of pure copper than there is in a mixed aggregate of the same weight. Nor is more potential energy added to the mix as a result of applied heat or galvanisation or anything else. Mainstream claim that the energy from mass is from the atomic mass. It's just that in a refined state - it's likely to be more useable as required. Bear in mind that the galvanic interaction does not compromise the mass of either the copper or the iron. Theoretically, they'll be there - into infinity. So. Also theoretically - if there's an induction process going on in Laser's rig - which clearly there is, then that too could be there for infinity.
I am only talking about chemical energy being converted into electrical energy. I'm not talking about atomic energy. The "induction process" in Lasersaber's setup is a direct result of the releasing of the chemical energy and it's finite. It would be more appropriate to say that there is an inductance associated with the geometry of the battery.
Laser claims that the rotor can turn with distilled water.
Like I stated before, there is no distilled water. You put distilled water into the galvanic battery and there are guaranteed to be impurities in the battery itself that dissolve into solution and render the water impure and capable of conducting electricity.
Bill claims that his rig works best if the sand is dry.
Bill is not thinking this one through. I once got into a discussion with him where he equated "dry soil" with days where it did not rain and "wet soil" with days that it rained. This is over-simplistic to the extreme. What Bill thinks is "dry" is in all likelihood not dry. You can't forget the humidity in the air either.
Unlike a sealed battery it would never go flat.
When all of the metal corrodes away then the battery goes flat. The energy comes from current produced by the corroding metal.
Also. Regarding your applied math to this general effect - I think you're out by a tad. If you take a battery say with a rating of 12 x ampere hours - then what the manufacturer is saying that it will deliver 12 amps for 1 hour or 1 amp for 12 hours - or whatever combination required between these numbers. So. 12 amps x 12volts = 144 watts. Then x 60 seconds, x 60 minutes x 1 hour = 518,400.00 joules. We can't yet quite rate Laser's rig - but - just to follow general protocol and your example of applying numbers here. Let's say that the rotor is turning with a ridiculously conservative dissipation of 0.2 watts. 0.2 x 60 seconds x 60 minutes x 24 hours x 115 days = approximately 1,987,200.00 joules. Technically it's alreadly out performed your standard lead acid battery. AND it's NOT going flat. AND that was an absurdly small wattage figure at kick off.
You start with an estimated power consumption and then factor in the run time and arrive at an estimated amount of energy in the galvanic battery. For a case like this you start with an estimate of the amount of energy in the battery and use the run time to estimate the power consumption. So your calculations are correct but you are approaching the problem from the wrong direction.
You estimate almost two megajoules in the battery. That's equivalent to a big beefy car battery, it does not make any sense. I estimated between 2000 and 4000 joules in a hypothetical battery roughly equivalent to Lasersaber's galvanic battery.
For the power consumption of the rotor you estimated 0.2 watts. That is way too high. Working my calculations back from the estimated energy in the battery and a run time of more than one year, I estimated the power consumption of the motor between 5 and 50 microwatts.
It's not easy to estimate the power consumption of a given device. You have to use your intuition and real-world experience. You know the power consumptions of mundane things like toasters and hair dryers and TVs and transistor radios. You can take a resistor and put exactly one watt of power through it and hold it between your thumb and index finger and feel what one watt of heat production feels like. You can measure the power consumption of small circuits that you are working with on the bench, and so on.
The power consumption of Lasersaber's "motor" is comparable to the power consumption of an analog wristwatch powered by a battery, it's minuscule.
Lasersaber's motor demo is a nice small project and it's elegantly done. It's a good exercise to understand how it is done and how it works. Beyond that, there isn't much more to say. There is no free energy "angle" associated with a galvanic battery.
MileHigh
Author
Topic: Magnacoaster (Read 133078 times)
