Author Topic: Another Free Energy craft project  (Read 1103 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline erikg

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 25
  • Country: us
Another Free Energy craft project
« on: October 21, 2017, 12:43:43 AM »
Here's another "free energy from XXX" youtube video.  This one is apparently for people who don't know that semiconductors generate a small current when exposed to light.  Semi annoying music, but otherwise good for short term amusement and face palming.



On the plus side, this does give people something to do with old CDs and lots of spare time, and frankly a rooftop covered with CD/magnet wire "flowers" would be kind of pretty (for a while, anyway).

Maybe Dave should do a video on how photovoltaics work, and demonstrate other semiconductors as solar cells?

 

Online bd139

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1920
  • Country: gb
Re: Another Free Energy craft project
« Reply #1 on: October 21, 2017, 12:51:01 AM »
Joy. You could take the magnet wire and the CD away and it'd still generate a few tens of mV.

Source impedance? HUUUUUGE.

Now you wait until I introduce my top secret project, LSD's (Light Sucking Diodes)  :-DD
 

Offline schmitt trigger

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 309
  • Country: us
Re: Another Free Energy craft project
« Reply #2 on: October 21, 2017, 01:02:00 AM »
Thanks for posting.

Some times when I'm bored and don't know exactly what to watch, I also look for outlandish YouTube videos.

Between "free energy", "flat earth" and "moon landing hoaxes", there is an almost limitless amount of entertainment.

WARNING: watching too many of these videos is hazardous for your health, permanent brain loss and erectile dysfunction may occur. Youngsters younger than 18 years old must be accompanied by an adult. Pregnant women should talk to their doctors before watching these videos. NSFW content.
 

Offline IanMacdonald

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 378
  • Country: gb
    • IWR Consultancy
Re: Another Free Energy craft project
« Reply #3 on: October 22, 2017, 09:32:14 PM »
Moat of these scams rely on the fact that the public mostly have no idea how to measure the quantities involved. Thus, the scammer takes a tiny (but real) quantity and makes impossible claims for what it can do.

I would include most of the climate change 'science' in that category. Carbon dioxide is indeed a greenhouse gas, that much is true, but when you see how little effect it actually has compared to other factors, you see that the alarmist claims are nonsense. It's not as if the equations which determine its action were in any way obscure either. They are well established and easy to apply. The alarmists rely on the fact that most people have not the slightest clue how to do so, and therefore have to take their word for it that the planet is about to explode.

The IPCC counter this by claiming that 'positive feedbacks' increase its effect, but anyone who's worked in electronics knows that it is hard to achieve stable amplification by positive feedback. That's in a circuit with a regulated PSU. Imagine doing so in the Earth's weather systems. Plausible? Nope.

The same thing applies to peripheral claims like sea level rise and ocean acidification. Sea level is indeed rising. However, the amount is something like 3mm  per year, whereas twice daily tides are up to a thousand times larger. Moreover, it's been going on for longer than human industrialization anyway.

Meanwhile the oceans are not acid but alkaliine, and the reduction in alkalinity is about 0.11 of a pH unit. pH works to a log10 scale, and anyone who's tried doing a titration in a chem lab knows how incredibly small a change that is, when near to neutral.

In the land of the numerically challenged, the man with the nixie-tube calculator is king.
The rest just have to believe what they are told to believe.
 

Offline donotdespisethesnake

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 492
  • Country: gb
  • Embedded stuff
Re: Another Free Energy craft project
« Reply #4 on: October 22, 2017, 09:45:19 PM »
In the land of the numerically challenged, the man with the nixie-tube calculator is king.

And the Irony of Year Award goes to ... climate change denier   :-DD

I think I am going to frame that one!
Bob
 
The following users thanked this post: DenzilPenberthy

Online bd139

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1920
  • Country: gb
Re: Another Free Energy craft project
« Reply #5 on: October 22, 2017, 10:16:46 PM »
You can’t label someone a denier. That’s about as anti science as you can get! Imagine if general relativity was squashed by such claims from backers of competing theories.

I think you need to read the source papers. Most of them don’t actually even apply any analytical approach and are selected colllations of other papers’ citations which are selected to provide the conclusion that is demanded by the sponsor. Some of the papers are even quite honest about this!. These are picked up as sound bites by news publishers and that’s how opinion is built. Now if someone comes along with some new evidence or a corrected mathematical model it has to support the consensus or they are labelled a denier. Many a legitimate scientist has been silenced or been unable to speak. This leads to an opinion driven consensus rather than facts. Not to mention the ability to model a vastly complicated system with thousands of not millions of feedback paths is somewhat overstated. We can’t even model the weather on a local basis accurately with over a hundred years of data.

This is not science. Science must be open to challenge always. Every crackpot and crazy needs their theory disproven by analysis not by labelling. The moment you start calling someone names, the argument is lost. You are no better.

Fundamentally I can no longer accept or deny climate change because the above is a crap fest of monumental proportions.  I have no opinion and on that basis any action without evidence is not appropriate unless it has some logical improvement in the short term. Get rid of diesels, yes, stop cutting down trees, yes, reduce emissions, yes, but don’t do it under the name of science because it doesn’t deserve that label.

In any land, the main who applies critical thinking to anything, is the king.
 
The following users thanked this post: IanMacdonald

Offline IanMacdonald

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 378
  • Country: gb
    • IWR Consultancy
Re: Another Free Energy craft project
« Reply #6 on: October 23, 2017, 06:51:43 PM »
The label 'Denier' is based on holocaust denier, in other words neo-Nazi. As such it is an extremely offensive tag.

When people resort to such tactics, is is usually because they have exhausted all forms of rational argument and have only attacks on the man instead of the message left as their last resort. 

Thing I find paradoxical is that climate change is mostly supported by hippie types who are opposed to big business, politicos and the wealthy, but they seem to overlook that the whole thing was started by one very wealthy and very political Mr Gore. With a little help from one wealthy and political Mrs Thatcher. If they hate the Koch brothers so much, how come they worship at the feet of their jet-hopping guru Al Gore? Makes no sense.
 

Offline frog

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 41
  • Country: nz
Re: Another Free Energy craft project
« Reply #7 on: October 23, 2017, 07:25:08 PM »
I believe that the term 'denier' pre-dates the holocaust.  While there could be an assumption that an inference should or should not be made, it remains an assumption, unless the author would like to clarify their intention.

Meanwhile I am sure that the inhabitants of the Pacific islands that are submerging day by day will sleep a little easier with the sea sloshing round their ankles, knowing that we are deliberating the possible causes while watching ships sail unhindered across the North Pole.
 

Online bd139

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1920
  • Country: gb
Re: Another Free Energy craft project
« Reply #8 on: October 23, 2017, 07:35:49 PM »
Perhaps they should consult with Tama-nui-te-ra and ask about the modern maximum and solar cycle activity over the last 400 years or so and buy a boat.
 

Offline frog

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 41
  • Country: nz
Re: Another Free Energy craft project
« Reply #9 on: October 23, 2017, 07:57:57 PM »
At the risk of digressing from the OP, here's a short history lesson:
600 to 450 million years ago the land masses were covered with forests that turned the vast majority of Earth's carbon into fossil fuels.
Then a bunch of stuff happened, the dinosaurs came and went, all that stuff.
About 150 years or so ago people started mining fossil fuel in significant quantity, and since then the amount of carbon extracted is more or less equal to the amount that was in the biosphere prior to the industrial revolution.  That is to say, the amount of organic matter knocking about has doubled, something that hasn't changed significantly for hundreds of millions of years.
The idea of 'business as usual' is unlikely to work for long; it is established that the fifth mass extinction is under way.  While arguments about the calibration of rain gauges may not be entirely without merit, we are nevertheless facing interesting times ahead.
 

Offline sv1eia

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 8
  • Country: gr
Re: Another Free Energy craft project
« Reply #10 on: October 23, 2017, 09:11:03 PM »
Is the video available to view?
It shows as not available here..
« Last Edit: October 23, 2017, 09:16:30 PM by sv1eia »
 

Offline IanMacdonald

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 378
  • Country: gb
    • IWR Consultancy
Re: Another Free Energy craft project
« Reply #11 on: October 23, 2017, 10:12:50 PM »
The really large scale use of fossil fuels only started around 1950. Remember that prior to WW2 only the 'first world' nations were industrialized. Now, heavy industry is just about everywhere. Yet, the recent warming trend began in 1910. An effect cannot begin before its cause. If that seems to be the case, then the theory is faulty.

The CO2 level has increased from 270ppm to 400ppm. The amount of warming that should cause, if CO2 were the only greenhouse gas, is easily calculated from Arrhenius' equation of infrared absorbtion. There is no mystery about that, it's a relatively simple equation. Yet, how often do you see a climate propagandist going through the calculation?  NEVER! Why not? Go figure.

The actual equation output is about 1.7C. Which is significantly more than the warming which has been observed.

However, CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas. There is more than ten times the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere than CO2. As with resistors in parallel, you cannot just add the effects of greenhouse gases working in parallel. Consider a  10k and a 1k resistor in parallel. If the 10k resistor goes out of tolerance by, say, 10%, how much difference does that make to the overall value? 10%? Nope. More like 1%.

In the atmosphere, if an infrared photon leaving the surface has been deflected (absorbed then re-emitted in a different direction)  ten times by water vapour molecules, then it makes no real odds if the same happens once more with a CO2 molecule. Each time there is a 50/50 chance of it being re-emitted upwards or downwards. Increasing the number of molecules beyond a certain point where most photons are deflected a few times enroute through the atmosphere, has little effect on those odds. That point is reached with about 40ppm concentration, for CO2.

You can experiment with the variables here: http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/

Notice how tiny a change in the absorbtion band is caused by changing CO2 from 400 to 270ppm.  (There is another CO2 absorbtion band not shown here, but it is not relevant to outgoing radiation. Also we call it absorbtion but scattering would be a better term. Absorbtion, because a dark line in a spectrum results when one wavelength in a beam of light is scattered around while the rest travel in a straight line.)

Prof. Nahle of Monterey has calculated that the mean free path of an outbound photon, between encounters with a  CO2 molecule, is a few tens of metres at 400ppm. That is a surprisingly short distance for such a low concentration of gas molecules, but the proof is well documented. It is therefore unsurprising that further increases in CO2 concentration have only a small effect on the number of photons which escape the atmosphere to space.  Its consequences match the results of Arrhenius' equation and MODTRAN, so the evidence is overwhelming that it is correct.

The IPCC claim that this tiny effect of CO2 will be increased by 'feedbacks' in the climate system to several degrees Celsius. There are two problems with this hypothesis. Firstly, creating stable gain by positive feedback is extremely hard. Secondly, since there is no known way that the presence of CO2 could itself trigger a feedback,  the input to AND the output from any such feedbacks would have to be the air temperature.  Therefore, this is like having an opamp with the + input directly connected to the output, or a better illustration might be a guitar amo on which the guitar and speaker are connected by the same pair of wires. (Don't try it, you'll blow it.) Commonsense tells us that such an arrangement cannot work. As soon as you have slightly more than unity gain, the whole thing oscillates uncontrollably.

When I challenged a climate scientist over this, he replied that the feedbacks in climate science are not the same as those in electronics. To which I said that feedback is a concept in the broader sphere of physics, not specifically in electronics. Therefore if he means something other than  the physical concept of feedback, then he is simply repurposing the word to have an undefined meaning.  In which case he might as well call it whatever he likes, phlogiston, aether, or whatever, because it means nothing.

The alarmists claim that the science regarding greenhouse gas effect is settled, and that no debate is possible. Well, they are right. It was settled over 100 years ago and has not significantly changed since.

Thing they avoid mentioning is, the settled science doesn't support their claims.

Without going into too much detail, sea level rise claims are similarly based on a true principle, but the figures are out by factors of thousands.

Ocean acidification claims are worse. They typify propaganda. They are expressed that way to make them sound scary. If it were accurately stated that the alkali in the oceans was being neutralised, leaving something nearer to pure water, would that be scary?

That's even before you consider how small the change in alkalinity is.

Science is about measurements. If there are no measurements, or no proof of where those measurements came from, then it is not science.
 
The following users thanked this post: bd139

Online HighVoltage

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3425
  • Country: de
Re: Another Free Energy craft project
« Reply #12 on: October 23, 2017, 10:34:23 PM »
Here's another "free energy from XXX" youtube video.  This one is apparently for people who don't know that semiconductors generate a small current when exposed to light.  Semi annoying music, but otherwise good for short term amusement and face palming.
On the plus side, this does give people something to do with old CDs and lots of spare time, and frankly a rooftop covered with CD/magnet wire "flowers" would be kind of pretty (for a while, anyway).

Maybe Dave should do a video on how photovoltaics work, and demonstrate other semiconductors as solar cells?

Almost 3.5 Million views and mostly positive feedback.
It really seems that our societies lag education!
There are 3 kinds of people in this world, those who can count and those who can not.
 

Offline schmitt trigger

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 309
  • Country: us
Re: Another Free Energy craft project
« Reply #13 on: October 24, 2017, 03:50:00 AM »
Well, that video has a redeeming feature: it has given me fresh ideas about what to do with old CDs.

For instance, a few SMT LEDs and it would make a nice Christmas ornament.
 
The following users thanked this post: kalel

Offline kalel

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 768
  • Country: 00
Re: Another Free Energy craft project
« Reply #14 on: October 24, 2017, 03:59:35 AM »
Well, that video has a redeeming feature: it has given me fresh ideas about what to do with old CDs.

For instance, a few SMT LEDs and it would make a nice Christmas ornament.

Reflected from the CD, or on the CD? I'm not sure how easy soldering would be. Perhaps conductive glue onto some tape... If you explore your idea further, share it.
 

Offline schmitt trigger

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 309
  • Country: us
Re: Another Free Energy craft project
« Reply #15 on: October 24, 2017, 04:04:38 AM »
Well, that video has a redeeming feature: it has given me fresh ideas about what to do with old CDs.

For instance, a few SMT LEDs and it would make a nice Christmas ornament.
I'm not sure how easy soldering would be. Perhaps conductive glue onto some tape...

Hmmmmm....you are right. I don't think polycarbonate would have the same heat resistance  capabilities of FR4!!  :-[
 

Offline erikg

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 25
  • Country: us
Re: Another Free Energy craft project
« Reply #16 on: October 24, 2017, 05:40:50 AM »
Quote
For instance, a few SMT LEDs and it would make a nice Christmas ornament.

Don't stop there... this thing should be interactive.  Include sensors and some ability to react to the environment.

This might be a great idea for a project contest here... winner is the person who posts the best design for a CD holiday ornament with attached circuit.  "Best" is defined by point totals for the following, with 5 points for the category winner, 3 points for runner-up:

Lowest/highest part count

Visual appeal (blinken lights, shinies)

Power use highest/lowest

Largest power storage capacity

Largest data storage capacity

Functionality - defined as what the ornament does (moisture sensor, radio receiver, free energy generator, time machine)



Winners in each category will be decided by popular vote, simple majority, all EEVBLog members can vote, tie breakers or other voting issues to be decided solely by Dave. :)

Other rules:  Ornament must not end up thicker than 5x the CD thickness total, must not be hazardous to human life or pets, must include exactly 1 CD or DVD disk, and should be a hanging ornament that weighs no more than 2 kg.


Any other categories people can think of?

 

Offline IanMacdonald

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 378
  • Country: gb
    • IWR Consultancy
Re: Another Free Energy craft project
« Reply #17 on: November 03, 2017, 02:21:33 AM »
Get rid of diesels, yes, stop cutting down trees, yes, reduce emissions, yes, but don’t do it under the name of science because it doesn’t deserve that label.

In any land, the main who applies critical thinking to anything, is the king.

There is also scant evidence that diesels pollute any more than other IC engines. The transport-related NOx and PM2.5 pollution figures for most countries have consistently fallen during the diesel sales boom era.  Currently asking a few Greens if they can account for this anomaly in their campaign to ban diesels.

Let us not forget that it was the Greens who promoted diesel as a 'low carbon' planet-saver. 



 

Online bd139

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1920
  • Country: gb
Re: Another Free Energy craft project
« Reply #18 on: November 03, 2017, 02:32:35 AM »
Good points there. I’m going to have to dump my diesel when they van driving into London city with them.
 

Online paulca

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 275
  • Country: gb
Re: Another Free Energy craft project
« Reply #19 on: December 05, 2017, 11:49:03 PM »
Fundamentally I can no longer accept or deny climate change because the above is a crap fest of monumental proportions.  I have no opinion and on that basis any action without evidence is not appropriate unless it has some logical improvement in the short term. Get rid of diesels, yes, stop cutting down trees, yes, reduce emissions, yes, but don’t do it under the name of science because it doesn’t deserve that label.

I like to ask environmentalists what we are actually trying to achieve.  My argument presented to them goes like this.

Man is but part of nature, not the other way around.
By this undeniable fact anything man does is natural and part of the planets normal evolution.
Many species and chemical processes through Earth's history has rapidly and aggressively changed the planet.
Consider that until organisms evolved photosynthesis Oxygen was rare and a DEADLY POISON to most life on Earth.  When plants started to photosynthesize in a largely N2/CO2 atmosphere they released massive quanities of oxygen and promptly wiped out most other of life on Earth.
How are humans different?

Then I throw the question.

Are we trying to "fix" or "change" how the world is developing with our help because we want to "save the planet" or are we making changes because we don't want to mess up the planet for ourselves, "save ourselves"?  The former is batshit and later is selfish.

Basically the planet has been here, seen it, done it, wears the T-Shirt in the form of trees and coal.  It really won't care.  It will just move on.  We might perish however.

We care because... where are the main global economic, industrial, financial and population centres of the world?  On the coast.  So there is now money behind preventing sea level rise.

On renewable energy... what we need is a device which:

* absorbs sunlight
* chemically stores that energy
* resists discharge
* stable over decades
* allows the energy to be released to produce heat and electricity
* is carbon neutral

It's funny but this was invented some like 600 million years ago.

It's called a tree.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2017, 11:52:22 PM by paulca »
"What could possibly go wrong?"
 

Online NANDBlog

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3606
  • Country: be
Re: Another Free Energy craft project
« Reply #20 on: December 06, 2017, 12:09:18 AM »
Get rid of diesels, yes, stop cutting down trees, yes, reduce emissions, yes, but don’t do it under the name of science because it doesn’t deserve that label.

In any land, the main who applies critical thinking to anything, is the king.

There is also scant evidence that diesels pollute any more than other IC engines. The transport-related NOx and PM2.5 pollution figures for most countries have consistently fallen during the diesel sales boom era.  Currently asking a few Greens if they can account for this anomaly in their campaign to ban diesels.

Let us not forget that it was the Greens who promoted diesel as a 'low carbon' planet-saver. 

It just shows, that the Euro 2-3-4-5-6 restrictions are effective way to reduce the pollutants in the environment. You should ask this: Is it necessary to emit NOx into the environment? No? Then maybe we should stop doing it?
Besides, they smell bad. I have to place my AC into internal circulation when I'm driving behind these pathetic excuse for a cars. What I'm really surprised, they didn't start cranking up the tax on diesel. It just shows that politicians are demagogues.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf