The Challenge...perpetual energy

[shawnnweed]

IMHO You can light CFL with no current if you have it self-made, and using high voltage and high frequency. Basically what I wanted to test (and believe it would work) is to step up 1.5V from a cap (charged from solar panel) or small battery into 400V DC and chopper using mosfet or transistor + coil or big joule thief circuit to kV. CFL's should light with almost no current, but commercial ones are build with kind of suppressor inside on walls (I don't know exactly ) which is the main reason for consuming current.
I have no time to test it now (and no solar panel), it's up to you to consider this option.

Boguslaw,
you already know a joule thief besides being an inverter pulses the current(more or less turning it on and off so quickly that the human eye can not discern the difference) to extend the input current. And since the input current is noramlly a battery it extends the life of it. If you used a solar panel then the panel will only put out what is put in. I'm pretty sure this pulsating light effect would have a huge deficit effect on the current produced by the solar cells which would have a negative total effect on the voltage? Not sure how much though!? If the voltage could be stabalized then you might be able to light a cfl. After all most CFL and normal flourecents will light when next to a joule thief without actaully receiving an input. The proximity of this effect is usually about two feet depending on the size of the Joule thief. You should check it out on you tube and already considered it but decided against it myself considering it to be just an inverter(only get out what you put in). But thanks for the mind jog.
,Shawn

Interresting idea but as

[shawnnweed]

They pop up all time, when there is a Discussion about a unusual Device,
with a lot new Topics and Forms with unusual new Ideas, Concepts or Builds.

Well pass it is may the best you can do.

joit,

Not surprised that you have classified me as the 'they' and 'those people' I.E. intellectual retards or weirdo's with strange ideas. I would have actually classifed myself in that category if I did not have a theorem or math to back it up. After all most ideas without a foundation stand as well as a house without a foundation. When the storms come they quickly fall. However, I have noticed that everyone is quick to throw out an insult, which I pick up on no matter how well hidden in innuendo's, yet I have had no one actually say how this specifically negates any of the laws of physics. And I made the math simple enough for anyone with a decent mentality to grasp it but no one has corrected it? Hmmmm. Has all the wisdom and knowlege fled the physics community so fast that all that is left is stone throwing? By the way if you care to refute it and need a refresher course I will lend you my University Physics Young and Freedman 11th edition. LOL. Just kidding. See, I have a sense of humor too.
,Shawn

[Tehnoman]

[..]And the only thing you will learn in those courses is what is already know. You will learn nothing new unless YOU push the boundaries of what is already know. And what have YOU done in all your wisdom and knowledge to add to or correct a physics book? Inquiring minds want to know?![..]

Nice. A good laugh before going to sleep is always healthy.

Indeed. There are some thoughts hidden in this post. But actually in the very first post You describe the transformer principle, just made with diodes. Changed voltage and current --> compared only currents.

You do say that You have math to back you up. Most of Your writing is text and numbers (numbers != math).

Anyway, about general education - I haven't corrected any textbook, and doubt that will in nearest future. And already existing knowledge is very vast, It does take time to understand it. But without the existing knowledge, You can not build a new one. Too big probability to repeat things. Or miss something.

You CAN NOT push the boundary if you are NOT at the boundary.

I have been down this explaining road before, won't do it again.

Ok, have a nice chat, time for good night sleep. Long live for this topic. I predict the same outcome as this "EM from scratch guy" had. No offence.

[shawnnweed]

Nice. A good laugh before going to sleep is always healthy.

Indeed. There are some thoughts hidden in this post. But actually in the very first post You describe the transformer principle, just made with diodes. Changed voltage and current --> compared only currents.

You do say that You have math to back you up. Most of Your writing is text and numbers (numbers != math).

Anyway, about general education - I haven't corrected any textbook, and doubt that will in nearest future. And already existing knowledge is very vast, It does take time to understand it. But without the existing knowledge, You can not build a new one. Too big probability to repeat things. Or miss something.

You CAN NOT push the boundary if you are NOT at the boundary.

I have been down this explaining road before, won't do it again.

Ok, have a nice chat, time for good night sleep. Long live for this topic. I predict the same outcome as this "EM from scratch guy" had. No offence.

Tehnoman,

It's true that I compared only currents. Yet only because I thought that we all had the same understanding that it is the current that is the most difficult to produce in solar cells. I should have been more thorough so as to not cause confusion. And I know I am describing the transformer principle of inversion. I use it because it is proven to work and I thought would gladly accepted here. Guess not?!?
(Led input - pv output = +1) The Led input would technically be 200 watts and the output would be 130 watts or (200watts - 130 watts= 67% of perpetual.) However this is for the 200 volts and 1000 ma set up. This is 100 perpcent possible now and no one is really refuting it because in their minds it does not break any of the laws of thermodynamics. However my theory is that if we used a transformer effect of inversion to raise the voltage and lower the amperage then we would be getting out more than we put in. However no physicist will accept this because they are trapped behind the glasses of efficiencies. But it's like I said this is not possible through efficiencies. This is only possible through inversion. I'll give an example. If I set a 12 ounce glass in front of you and gave you a gallon of milk and told you to pour me 20 ounces, is this possible...no because 12 ounces is 100% of its capacity. For me to say that I could fill the 12 ounce cup with 20 ounces is simply impossible and against the laws of physics. 12 ounces will not quench your thirst and there is not a bigger glass available so what can be done? I could give you stomach surgery to make your stomach only hold 9 ounces. Now the 12 ounce cup will fill you up and you will have excess. Did I break any laws of physics in doing this? No! So If we made the diode 400 volts and 500 miliamps then you would still get your 16,000 lumen and still get your 670 milliamps and the full voltage. 200 watts in and 268 watts out. I now everything in you is screaming 'impossible' but I say to you that an LED like this does not exist but ask yourself, "What is to physically stop this from happening? Is this modification impossible?...no. Is it impossible if this LED existed for it to produce 16,000 lumen...no. Is it impossible for this 16,000 lumen to produce 670 milliamps in the solar cells, technically yes...but only because you will have to divert 1000 lumen to create your voltage with the Amorphous silicon. Now your amperage would drop to about 640 milliamps but it is till over the top of your 500ma input. It is still perpetual.
and by the way not to discount all the time and effort you have put into your education. I respect your opinion as long as it is based on facts and is respectfull. And if I have disrepected you then... sorry. Guess I would be the one with the buck teeth...lol.

[arKzeRo]

New types solar cells

I have nothing to add to this discussion just wondered about the following

What do you think about these New Solar Cells being worked on atm? From what i am reading they will be about 85% efficient.

It leaves me wondering about he past claims of this sort of efficient cell being done and being suppressed and subsequently locked away

Do you think that these technologies might see the light of day for the normal consumer?

I also wonder what ludicrous price they will tag them at if they do! Bearing in mind that the inventors of these new cells claim them to be dirt cheap to make!

some stuff on them.....
New Solar Technology Could Break Photovoltaic Limits

New solar cell technology greatly boosts efficiency

Sorry to go off topic kinda!

Best Regards

[shawnnweed]

[QUOTE=arKzeRo;141841]I have nothing to add to this discussion just wondered about the following

What do you think about these New Solar Cells being worked on atm? From what i am reading they will be about 85% efficient.

It leaves me wondering about he past claims of this sort of efficient cell being done and being suppressed and subsequently locked away

Do you think that these technologies might see the light of day for the normal consumer?

I also wonder what ludicrous price they will tag them at if they do! Bearing in mind that the inventors of these new cells claim them to be dirt cheap to make!

Arkzero,

These are just two, there is a third, which is Caltech. All of these universities are wagering that nanocore technology will be the key to unlocking the most untapped and largest region of the spectrum; infrared. However, their problem is more difficult than you could image. It has become fairly easy for them to catch the infrared spectrum considering that the nanowires are intrensicaly the same size as the photons of light. And the reason they are focusing in on CdTE or cadmium Telluride as a catalist is because if you have ever seen the color it is deep red / black (infrared) or redish-black in color. As we all know dark colors absorb heat much easier which is why most photovoltaic cells are covered in a black or dark blue film. The problem however is not so much in catching the infrared photons but in converting these photons into electricity. I can stick a black t-shirt out in the sun and it will be at least 80% efficient at catching the suns rays but it will not make electricity. And because 80% of the suns spectrum is infrared(remember that it is burning) then all of these companies can instantaneously claim 80% right of the bat and be 100% accurate in this estimate yet that doesn't mean that they have figured out a way to harvest/convert that into usable energy. Remebering that nanotechnology, a cool word for chemicals, has been around for a very long time; which means because it is chemicals we are really talking about here then the solar cells should be fairly inexpensive when made in bulk. However the cost of the prototypes will be through the roof. This is really not much different from the concept of multi-junction cells but has not been perfected yet. Normally I am more optomistic than this but let me simply say, don't hold your breathe on anything that efficient coming out soon. Most of these articles have been rehashed for the past three years.

,Shawn

[ewizard]

I made it about half way through this thread so I might have missed something but I do know LED's very well and I know that even if you had a 200 watt LED that you are only going to be able to illuminate so many solar cells with it. Even if the cells were a sphere and the LED inside in the middle of the sphere which would be maximum efficiency you are very unlikely to be able to cram enough solar cell in close enough to the light source to be able to get a high enough voltage that you will exceed the wattage used to create it. The fact is you have nothing that is tapping zero point energy or anything pulling in power from a source other than your LED and with efficiency as you stated in post 1 never being able to be 100% than this simply cannot work IMO. I'm rarely a naysayer but if you think it can work go for it. Good luck but I cannot see how it can possibly work. Do you understand what I have stated above? BTW I have spent many years studying LED's. Can you give the source of your 200 watt LED? Must have cost a pretty penny

[shawnnweed]

I made it about half way through this thread so I might have missed something but I do know LED's very well and I know that even if you had a 200 watt LED that you are only going to be able to illuminate so many solar cells with it. Even if the cells were a sphere and the LED inside in the middle of the sphere which would be maximum efficiency you are very unlikely to be able to cram enough solar cell in close enough to the light source to be able to get a high enough voltage that you will exceed the wattage used to create it. The fact is you have nothing that is tapping zero point energy or anything pulling in power from a source other than your LED and with efficiency as you stated in post 1 never being able to be 100% than this simply cannot work IMO. I'm rarely a naysayer but if you think it can work go for it. Good luck but I cannot see how it can possibly work. Do you understand what I have stated above? BTW I have spent many years studying LED's. Can you give the source of your 200 watt LED? Must have cost a pretty penny

ewizard,

To create the voltage I am using 1"by 1" amorphous silicon solar cells. Each one produces a maz of 7 volts yet because amorpous silicon is designed to work well in low light(to produce voltage) they can even hold a steady 6 volts from a 300 lume light source that is 5 inches away.Which means you could run a 5" by 5" square of these each producing 6 volts each. or 25 pieces times 6 volts whic gives you 180 volts. Obviously I'm running a few more, than that, to create 200 volts. But you get the picture of how simple it is. Also I am maxing out the cells becuase I am using 16,000 lumen and not 300. I go these cells from a website called 'deal extreme.' They were rated at 4.5 volts and 5 ma apiece but produce way more voltage than rated under this amount of light. You can find the two hundred watt led by going to google images and typing in "200 watt LED" You will see that it runs of roughly 33 volts and 7 amps to create 20,000 lumen or more. At 6 amps it would create about 16,000 lumen. And it is a wee bit expensive but worth it. It is every bit as bright as the specs say. On most of the products from china you get an over rating of the 5mm, 8mm and 10mm led's but they underrate the high power LED's for some reason. Haven't figured that one out yet. And by the way I have a 9" by 9" mirrored box that I place my cells in. In that amount of space I could easily place a 8"by 8" grouping of cells which would net 64 pieces x 7 volts to create 448 volts. I haven't tried it yet but pretty sure it is possible. And it should be pretty safe; alot of voltage and nearly no amperage. It will give you a good shock if your not careful but nothing more than getting hit with a stungun. So the voltage is easy. And of course you will have to run that voltage through a series of mono or poly cells(used to create the amps). It is extremely easy once you know how. And 16,000 lumen of light maxes out the voltage on all the cells and causes twice the amount of amerage than you will get under the sun at zenith. So the idea is simple but unprovable as of right now. But If you could get a an LED to operate off of 400 volts and 500 ma then this would produce 16,000 lumen. I have already proven in two seperate instances that 16,000 lumen will cause the cells to produce 670ma(and of course the full 200 volts) required. By using an inversion process to raise the voltage and drop the amperge off of what already exists (200 volt and 1,000ma LED) to create an LED of the same 200 watts(400 volts and 500ma) then it would be possible to create more energy than you use. Of course if you just think about it you will see that I am right. Although everything you have been taught screams out 'not possible' the numbers simply prove it. Obviously I do not have alot of support in this theory simply due to the fact that everyone can not get pas the fact that I'm not trying to achieve it using efficiencies. Through Efficiencies it is impossible through inversion it is. Anyway, have a nice night and thanks for responding.
,Shawn

[ewizard]

I guess it would help if you could say or theorize where the extra energy will come from (into the system). If you are getting more than 100% out of a system the energy has to come from somewhere even if it's ZPE. I just can't understand what there is about the setup that would tap ZPE or get energy from an unseen source unless you believe the LED itself is OU.

[boguslaw]

One way (from many ) is to route energy back to source. In case of amperage you need a way to handle it (charge capacitor or battery) without mixing with original out flow (that means unidirectional energy flow)
Second way is to use passive amplifier , like this one YouTube - ‪SOLAR PANEL WITH A FRESNEL LENS CPV CONCENTRATED PHOTOVOLTAIC PV SOLAR CONCENTRATOR FREE ENERGY‬‏

It all works because electricity is longitudinal wave (well at least main part, there is also transverse and electrons which complicate situation a lot)

Of course it can work due to clever usage of Newton third law, action vs reaction. Reaction is not working against action but supporting it, because energy form is changed into light (meaning process is unidirectional).


P.S. Now you know why ordinary solar panels are so inefficient.

I recommend Vladimir Utkin paper on free energy devices.

[boguslaw]

ewizard
when you scream at mountains why that could create avalanche ?

P.S. That remembrance from childhood was one of the most creative in Tesla life.

[shawnnweed]

I guess it would help if you could say or theorize where the extra energy will come from (into the system). If you are getting more than 100% out of a system the energy has to come from somewhere even if it's ZPE. I just can't understand what there is about the setup that would tap ZPE or get energy from an unseen source unless you believe the LED itself is OU.

I understand what you are asking but you are stating it wrong. You are under the assumption that just because there is 500ma going in and 630ma coming out, that there is more energy coming out than going in when that is a wrong assumption. The amount of energy never changed. In both scenarios that I presented the energy amount never changed;(both 200 volts/1000ma and 400volts/500ma) both of these are two hundred watts. Two different LED's using the same amount of wattage. Both LED's creating 16,000 lumen and both having the same effect on the cell yet with a slightly different output; so slightly it is almost indiscernable. The reason why? Because of the voltage. The voltage was the only thing that changed in each scenario. I'll explain...In scenario 1 the two hundred volt led, that operates from 1000ma, requires you to have 28 (7-volt) ammorphous silicon panels to create 196 volts along with the added 12 monocrystaline solar cells to create 6 volts and 650 ma for a total of 202 volts and 650ma. Of course the amount of energy required to run the LED is 200 volts and 1000ma which means that you do not have enough total energy due to the fact that you can not create enough current.
With the second setup of 400 volts and 500ma you need 57 (7-volt)LED's and 12 monocrystalline solar cells to create a total of 405volts and 630ma. Take note that the only thing that changed was the amount of amorphous silsicon solar cells; i did not add any more mono. Because I did not add any more mono cells the amount of current never really changed that much. In the first scenario the 28 (7-volt) amorphous silicon panels required 500 lumen to create the 200 volts. 16,000 lumen-500 lumen = 15,500lumen. The 15,500 lumen of light was then converted into current by the mono cells to produce 650ma. yet 650 ma, as stated earlier is not enough; the led requires 1000, which means that the process never can start. (Now you must be wondering where the initial energy to start the process must be coming from. You have to jump start the process with another big led and seperate power source. Much the same as one car battery jump starting another car battery. Once the intial energy transfer is completed and the car is started then the inital source is no longer required because the alternator is charging and the battery; the battery is being repleated and restored. you can now disconnect the jumper cables. However in scenario one it is poinless because the aternator is dead. There is not enough current to keep the process going.
In scenario two there are 57 (7-volt) amourphous silicon cells. To power these to full power will require 1,000 lumen of light. 16,000 lumen-1,000 lumen is 15,000 lumen. These 15,000 lumen will be converted into 630ma. In this case 630ma is sufficient enough to power the 500ma LED and still have extra current left over. If this scenario is jump started by an outside source then it should continue to run for several years when you take away the ignition source. Each sceanrio requires a jump start through electricty or light. Both ignition sources are adequate but will immediately need to be removed within about 30 seconds or the LED's will quickly burn out. Scenario one was an ouput of 200 volts and 650ma. The second scenario was an ouput of 400 volts and 630ma. (650ma/630ma) The current never really changed a discenable amount and that is due to the amount of light being converted. 15,000 lumen and 16,000 lumen do not have that much of a discenable effect on the ouput current of mono cells. WHere as a small amount of light has a huge effect on the amorphous silsicon cells to prduce voltage. Much the same way as small amounts of current can be inverted to great amounts of volts. This is why it is possible. I hope I have explained everything in a manner that is comprehensable. In essence I borrowed 20ma of current(1000lumen of light) to invert into 200 volts of electricity. If I have failed to be clear then I apologize for my inadequate ability to convey my thoughts. All of these figures are ball park but for the most part are very accurate and addequate to convey he message without having to go into mindbending calcualtions.
,Shawn

[shawnnweed]

I guess it would help if you could say or theorize where the extra energy will come from (into the system). If you are getting more than 100% out of a system the energy has to come from somewhere even if it's ZPE. I just can't understand what there is about the setup that would tap ZPE or get energy from an unseen source unless you believe the LED itself is OU.

Actaully to be a little more accurate it would be more like I borrowed 40ma(1000 lumen) to create 200 volts. Which would bring it down to a total of 610 ma vice 630. However the 610 ma is still greater then the required 500ma by the LED. Sorry for the inaccuracy.
,Shawn

[boguslaw]

Something related ? YouTube - ‪Running a 240v lightbulb of one AA battery. Very real and very usefull. With full how to. 100% real‬‏

[shawnnweed]

Something related ? YouTube - ‪Running a 240v lightbulb of one AA battery. Very real and very usefull. With full how to. 100% real‬‏

Boguslaw,

Thanks for posting this vid. Just goes to show you that my theory is sound in the fact that small amounts of current can be inverted into large amounts of voltage and 'safely' run for hours on end. If you take that same concept and replaced the direct current power source(battery) with another direct current current power source(PV cell) then if you could produce enough light you could sustain the cycle. But like I said I went with the led because you can derive more total lumen for less current expenditure. Cool vid.
,Shawn