EEVblog #708 - Free Energy BULLSHIT!

[wraper]

Yes. And you can also calculate the vacuum energy. That doesn't mean that manofstone's oscillator taps into it, any more than a battery taps into rest mass energy. You people have wild imaginations.

Maybe try some search on the internet about battery charge and it's mass relation? Or better about chemical reaction and mass relation.

It turns out that all forms of energy, kinetic and different kinds of potential energy, have associated mass given by E = mc².  For nuclear reactions, the mass change is typically of order one thousandth of the total mass, and readily measurable.  For chemical reactions, the change is of order a billionth of the total mass, and not currently measurable.

[Andy Watson]

So if this is the case what is charging the small side battery?

The two batteries on the left. Your video clearly shows the voltage across the series battery; starts at 25.77, drops to 25.01 when loaded.

Do yourself a favour - look up Kirchhoff's laws.

[DaveWing]

is what classical electrical engineering tells us. So if this is the case what is charging the small side battery?
-Dave Wing

Should I write again that "LOL"? Reread again my first post commenting you. There is an answer:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/blog/eevblog-708-free-energy-bullshit!/msg595047/#msg595047

Or should we describe how battery charging do work? You try to claim something extraordinary while 95+% of this forum members (except some total electronics novices) do understand why this battery charges. YOU do not understand why this happens, yet try to claim some bullshit.

Explain something to me please. If you power a light bulb directly across one 12 volt battery and it draws one amp at 12 volts. Where is the current going? What gets converted into light and heat?

-Dave Wing

[EEVblog]

Explain something to me please. If you power a light bulb directly across one 12 volt battery and it draws one amp at 12 volts. Where is the current going? What gets converted into light and heat?

The potential (chemical) energy in your battery. Once all that chemical energy in your battery gets converted into light/heat, then the battery is dead, no more potential energy.

[IanB]

Explain something to me please. If you power a light bulb directly across one 12 volt battery and it draws one amp at 12 volts. Where is the current going? What gets converted into light and heat?

Notice how it's a one way journey. The light and heat disappear off into the wild blue yonder. There's no way to get them back again.

[Phaedrus]

Explain something to me please. If you power a light bulb directly across one 12 volt battery and it draws one amp at 12 volts. Where is the current going? What gets converted into light and heat?

Notice how it's a one way journey. The light and heat disappear off into the wild blue yonder. There's no way to get them back again.

Well, aside from photovoltaic cells and thermocouples.

[elgonzo]

Explain something to me please. If you power a light bulb directly across one 12 volt battery and it draws one amp at 12 volts. Where is the current going? What gets converted into light and heat?

-Dave Wing

Hilarity ensues!

Do you know that electric power is the product of voltage times current?

Electric power is energy spent per time. That is:  1W = 1 J/s

The battery supplies that energy which is converted by the light bulb into heat and light (in an amount respective to the lights power rating and the capability of the battery to provide the respective amount of energy).

I hope you realized that there is a voltage drop across the light (i have not watched your video). I really hope...

The amount of voltage drop is proportional to the power (and thus energy) spent by the light bulb as heat and light. Or saying in different words: The energy consumed by the light bulb (converted into heat+light) causes the voltage to drop. The current is the same before and after the light bulb; it does not change at all, why should it?

[Phaedrus]

@DaveWing: I think maybe you should try reading this:

Link to copyrighted material that has no relevance on the discussion removed

I *really* think you should start with Chapter 1, based on your comments here...

[Smokey]

For all the wackjobby-ness of this thread there is one missing wackjob I was really hoping would show back up... ManOfStone. 

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/profile/?u=104008

[elgonzo]

@DaveWing: I think maybe you should try reading this:
http://iate.oac.uncor.edu/~manuel/libros/ElectroMagnetism/The%20Art%20of%20Electronics%20-%20Horowitz%20&%20Hill.pdf


I *really* think you should start with Chapter 1, based on your comments here...

Hehehe, the PDF you linked misses the first chapter

[Phaedrus]

@DaveWing: I think maybe you should try reading this:
http://iate.oac.uncor.edu/~manuel/libros/ElectroMagnetism/The%20Art%20of%20Electronics%20-%20Horowitz%20&%20Hill.pdf


I *really* think you should start with Chapter 1, based on your comments here...

Hehehe, the PDF you linked misses the first chapter

lol, I guess he's SOL then

I bought myself a physical copy recently. I normally don't with textbooks, but this one is so damn useful... I'm looking forward to the 3rd edition, I hope they do a good job on the MCU/FPGA sections.

[TriodeTiger]

Thought he was a little harsh at first, but it turned in to a very informative video and he put out his thoughts on why this is BS very well 

One thought: He put this vid in the reverse engineering playlist, should it be in the debunking category as well? Or is this more straightforward BS? Should there be a BS playlist too? Heh.

[timelessbeing]

Yes. And you can also calculate the vacuum energy. That doesn't mean that manofstone's oscillator taps into it, any more than a battery taps into rest mass energy. You people have wild imaginations.

Maybe try some search on the internet about battery charge and it's mass relation? Or better about chemical reaction and mass relation.

It turns out that all forms of energy, kinetic and different kinds of potential energy, have associated mass given by E = mc².  For nuclear reactions, the mass change is typically of order one thousandth of the total mass, and readily measurable.  For chemical reactions, the change is of order a billionth of the total mass, and not currently measurable.

No thanks. That won't be necessary. I understand the relation very well, and it's irrelevance to the subject. I eagerly await batteries which extract electricity from mass.

[elgonzo]

I eagerly await batteries which extract electricity from mass.

I guess they would look similar to this one:

[DaveWing]

Explain something to me please. If you power a light bulb directly across one 12 volt battery and it draws one amp at 12 volts. Where is the current going? What gets converted into light and heat?

The potential (chemical) energy in your battery. Once all that chemical energy in your battery gets converted into light/heat, then the battery is dead, no more potential energy.

Ok according to Kirchhoff's current law what is going on in the circuit I posted below. I am asking an honest question here.
If you were to put the light bulb across the negatives of 24 volt and a 12 volt battery system? What results can we expect to find?

-Dave Wing

[GrandTheftAuto4life]

Just for the interest of how the circuit designer/simulator we use at work, my friend built this circuit up and we found the result interesting as every pulse is slightly different:

Screenshot from National Instruments Multisim 13:

[IanB]

Ok according to Kirchhoff's current law what is going on in the circuit I posted below. I am asking an honest question here.
If you were to put the light bulb across the negatives of 24 volt and a 12 volt battery system? What results can we expect to find?

You really should be able to tell by looking at the picture what will happen, you shouldn't need anyone to explain it to you, even if you don't understand all the details. You can also do the experiment yourself to find out, maybe by using small rechargeable batteries instead of big 12 V ones.

Assuming batteries 1 and 2 start out fully charged, and battery 3 starts out empty, and assuming the blue circle is a bulb, then:

Initially the bulb will light brightly. Over time the bulb will grow dimmer and dimmer until the combined voltage of batteries 1 and 2 equals the voltage of battery 3. At that time the bulb will go out and the system will stop changing.

When the system has stopped changing, battery 3 will contain some of the energy that was previously contained in batteries 1 and 2. The rest of the energy that was contained in batteries 1 and 2 will be lost to the environment, either as light or heat. Some of the heat energy will be lost by the bulb, and some of the heat energy will be lost from the batteries due to their internal resistance and other inefficiencies.

If you do a total accounting of the energy present in the system at the start and the energy present in the system at the end, the energy at the end will be less than the energy at the start by the amount of energy lost to the environment.

[rs20]

Just for the interest of how the circuit designer/simulator we use at work, my friend built this circuit up and we found the result interesting as every pulse is slightly different:

Can you be sure that that's not just some sort of numerical instability? The time domain is necessarily quantized is this sort of simulation; so obviously every pulse's sampling phase will be slightly different and any resulting inaccuracies in the simulation will manifest themselves in different ways each time. Try configuring your simulation to use smaller time steps, and see if the pulses become more similar to each other.

[flyt100]

First time poster here.  I've found this to be an interesting place!  I haven't been around long enough to know if DaveWing is serious, but if so, here is my attempt at simplifying it.  As an aside, I have spent most of my career doing analog/power/battery/charger designs in a position where I am required to assist/teach design engineers with a wide range of experience from rookies to the most Sr. Engineers.  I've learned patience

In your example, let's make the following assumptions (you can change any of them and rework the math, it doesn't change the results, this just makes the numbers work out simply in your head).
1.  Let's ignore parasitics (battery ESRs, charging efficiency, etc.)
2.  Your "source" batteries on the left are 1.5V each.
3.  Your "charging" battery is at 1.5V

This means 1.5V across the motor (3V -1.5V).  Let's say that with the mechanical load and 1.5V across the motor, the current is 1A.  This means 1A through everything in the loop.

So, you are sourcing 3V*1A=3W.  The motor is using 1.5V@1A=1.5W and the "charging" battery is also using/accepting 1.5V@1A=1.5W.  You are sourcing 3W, and using 3W.  What is the mystery?

[GrandTheftAuto4life]

Just for the interest of how the circuit designer/simulator we use at work, my friend built this circuit up and we found the result interesting as every pulse is slightly different:

Can you be sure that that's not just some sort of numerical instability? The time domain is necessarily quantized is this sort of simulation; so obviously every pulse's sampling phase will be slightly different and any resulting inaccuracies in the simulation will manifest themselves in different ways each time. Try configuring your simulation to use smaller time steps, and see if the pulses become more similar to each other.

It seems pretty consistent.

[EEVblog]

If you do a total accounting of the energy present in the system at the start and the energy present in the system at the end, the energy at the end will be less than the energy at the start by the amount of energy lost to the environment.

And to do that you could discharge the batteries completely after the test and log the results to find out how much energy was left in them. And along with knowing how much energy was in the original batteries to begin with, and also the log of the load power over time, you'll get the result as IanB states.
For a ballpark measurement you could likely ignore the battery and charging losses.
DaveWing should do this before talking any more about this subject, it's just getting painful.

[EEVblog]

I haven't been around long enough to know if DaveWing is serious

He's serious, he just has no ability to understand what is happening here.

[DaveWing]

I haven't been around long enough to know if DaveWing is serious

He's serious, he just has no ability to understand what is happening here.

I have the ability to learn and understand... My pride does not get in the way of learning something new or being corrected if and when I am wrong. I will do the required testing and report back my findings.

-Dave Wing

[mswhin63]

I have the ability to learn and understand... My pride does not get in the way of learning something new or being corrected if and when I am wrong. I will do the required testing and report back my findings.

-Dave Wing

DaveWing, I think you need to go back to school. You have really missed the plot. I noticed that your 12V battery left any longer without a load would have exploded especially after seeing the voltage rise above 15V. Maybe it would have been a good idea to leave it running and let the out gassing pour and maybe would have seen some sense.

The only thing that allow people to believe there is something else mysterious is that there is no real interrelating theory between the large and the small. What you are trying to do here is say you have proved it. Don't bring this kind of shit to an engineering forum instead it needs to go back to science forums, tell them you have cracked the theory of the small and watch them laugh you out of existence.

 

[steve_w]

Thanks Dave,

Haven't had such a laugh in a long while.

regards

Steve w