Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: World's first real Free Energy Flashlight - no shaking - no batteries! No Solar  (Read 186783 times)

txt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
Standard NiMH batteries do not contain any silicon wafers, antennas, coils, circuits, or other electronics that ADGEX tries to make us believe they contain to receive wirelessly the energy from the "resonator". So by opening the battery and finding the same content as in ordinary NiMH batteries, the manipulative maneuvering of ADGEX would be seriously limited.

Of course, I'd expect you doing it only in case ADGEX refuses the refund, or offers the refund without asking you to send back the flashlight.

skywatcher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 441
Standard NiMH batteries do not contain any silicon wafers, antennas, coils, circuits, or other electronics that ADGEX tries to make us believe they contain to receive wirelessly the energy from the "resonator". So by opening the battery and finding the same content as in ordinary NiMH batteries, the manipulative maneuvering of ADGEX would be seriously limited.

I never expected the 'batteries' containing any circuitry of any kind, because this would make absolutely no sense in an open circuit.
The only possibility would have been an accumulator with some special chemistry, but this would look like any other accumulator.

But in general, reverse engineering only makes sense for a working device.

txt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
I does not really matter what you expected. I always expected it was nothing else than a regular $2 torch with ordinary batteries. It also does not matter. The only thing that matters are the claims of the inventor, and if we can show the evidence proving them wrong, it will be easier to persecute them, and to have the suspected scam stopped by relevant authorities.

skywatcher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 441
I does not really matter what you expected. I always expected it was nothing else than a regular $2 torch with ordinary batteries. It also does not matter. The only thing that matters are the claims of the inventor, and if we can show the evidence proving them wrong, it will be easier to persecute them, and to have the suspected scam stopped by relevant authorities.

The only relevant evidence is IF it works or not, and not WHY it works or not.

txt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
The only relevant evidence is IF it works or not, and not WHY it works or not.
No, I permit myself to disagree. The evidence that it does not work, is not the evidence of the intent, of the fraud. It's just the evidence of the failure that may be accidental or can have construction or manufacturing reasons. If we find physical evidence in contradiction with the claims of ADGEX about the construction or functioning of the flashlight, there is a better chance to have the suspected scam stopped. If we cannot show any such evidence, the chances are slim.

MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
I must be blind, but I saw no proof in that video that charging a battery in any interesting levels in average environment is possible. Did you? As I wrote, at the charging power of 525μW, you'd need two years (in the very best case) to recharge the 3 AA cells.

There was no proof at all.

skywatcher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 441
No, I permit myself to disagree. The evidence that it does not work, is not the evidence of the intent, of the fraud. It's just the evidence of the failure that may be accidental or can have construction or manufacturing reasons. If we find physical evidence in contradiction with the claims of ADGEX about the construction or functioning of the flashlight, there is a better chance to have the suspected scam stopped. If we cannot show any such evidence, the chances are slim.

They never claimed that there is some special circuitry inside the flashlight. They only claim *that* it will recharge itself, but not *how*.
On their website they say: "You will never need to purchase any batteries for ELFE. You simply turn him off and the Adgex Accumulator will recharge ELFEs energy levels to full."
So what is the 'Adgex Accumulator' ?  We can find 3 accumulators inside.

I think the evidence that it does not recharge is sufficient, especially if this is the case for all customers, so they can not say these are single cases or 'dead zones'.
We don't know of any ELFE which recharged itself to full brightness, but we know of many which failed to recharge.
You will never need to purchase any batteries for ELFE.  You simply turn him off and the Adgex Accumulator will recharge ELFEs energy levels to full.   - See more at: http://trade.adgex.com.au/elfe#sthash.8xk5ZUqx.dpufYou will never need to purchase any batteries for ELFE.  You simply turn him off and the Adgex Accumulator will recharge ELFEs energy levels to full.   - See more at: http://trade.adgex.com.au/elfe#sthash.8xk5ZUqx.dpuf

Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8366
You know, they could actually market these flashlights as "Dead Zone Locating Devices".

So, when a customer's light does not recharge they can claim that the device works as claimed.
Of course, no one may want to pay $100 for a dead zone locating device...

Bill

txt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
Skywatcher, you are mistaken again. In their presentation video they clearly claimed the flashlight body is a "resonator" feeding the energy through the "converter" (the LED holder), to the "special batteries". I believe that in earlier presentations they even claimed the flashlight has no batteries at all, but I would have to go back and watch all the crap again, which I have no appetite for, right now.

They can explain the fact that it does not work in many possible ways - from dead zones, over incorrect usage, malfunctioning, to a manufacturing problem. The nonfunctional flashlight may be good enough for getting a refund, but it is not good enough to have them persecuted for a scam, and especially it is absolutely insufficient for stopping them to sell shares for tens of millions of dollars, and to have the Australian chamber of commerce terminating their licence. Having any hard evidence directly opposing the recorded claims of ADGEX may be sufficient for triggering an investigation by the Australian authorities.

skywatcher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 441
Skywatcher, you are mistaken again. In their presentation video they claimed the flashlight body is a "resonator" feeding the energy through the "converter" (the LED holder), to the "special batteries".

My ELFE contains all the parts they showed in their video.  So what does this prove ?

Quote
I believe that in earlier presentations they even claimed the flashlight has no batteries at all, but I would have to go back and watch all the crap again, which I have no appetite for, right now.

The quote from my posting above ('Adgex Accumulator') was on their website from the beginning.

Quote
They can explain the fact that it does not work in many possible ways - from dead zones, over incorrect usage, malfunctioning, to a manufacturing problem. The nonfunctional flashlight may be good enough for getting a refund, but it is not good enough to have them persecuted for a scam, and especially it is absolutely insufficient for stopping them to sell shares for tens of millions of dollars, and to have the Australian chamber of commerce terminating their licence. Having any hard evidence directly opposing the recorded claims of ADGEX may be sufficient for triggering an investigation by the Australian authorities.

Let's say you buy a car, and the manufacturer specifies some data for maximum speed, acceleration, fuel consumption etc.  You receive the car and it doesn't work at all. You look inside, and you see that it has no motor at all. I this case, this would be evidence for a fraud, because everyone knows that a car has to contain a motor. Why do we know this ? Because a car is known technology. But in case of 'exotic' technology like a self-recharging flashlight (which is not possible with known technology) we don't know what it has to contain because we don't know how it should work. We can not completely rule out that it might be possible to make an accumulator which looks like any other accumulator, but has the ability to self-recharge. So they could say that they supplied these self-recharging accumulators to the manufacturer but he accidently used some others for building the flashlights.

IMO regarding new and 'exotic' technologies you can only make judgements based on experimental evidence (like we did) but not based on knowledge based on known technology.

Or like Arthur C. Clarke said: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."   8)

the_big_m_in_ok

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2087
Lee:

Have you not followed the testing results on these units?  They do NOT work as advertised and, as TXT said, you can buy a $2 light at any store that performs just as well.  It is a rip-off...scam...fantasy....

Bill
      Well, okay, but what I was thinking about was, something like this...


http://www.next.gr/uploads/500-2edd6bea91.png


...with an power input source like this...


http://www.hamuniverse.com/endfedrandlongwire.GIF


...by that I mean an output to a light-producing-type of bulb with a long, one-wire input.   Be aware that the bulb is the equivalent of an LED---ultra bright AND distinctly low power being highly preferable.   As well as outputted power being, say,  .01 to .1 W.
ADDED NOTE:
This source might be fairly typical?
https://www.sparkfun.com/products/9590
       At 2V and 20mA, the power used is .04W.


       I'll simply say that getting that small a power source into an average sized flashlight the way I just described and that I have experience with---(long wire with diode(s)---is impossible the way I showed it, and I'm the first to say it myself.   If this IS impossible, I'd like to see a representative schematic of the thing to verify this.


       I agree with the nay-sayers.


--Lee
« Last Edit: February 29, 2016, 07:13:41 AM by the_big_m_in_ok »

Nink

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 393
I must be blind, but I saw no proof in that video that charging a battery in any interesting levels in average environment is possible. Did you? As I wrote, at the charging power of 525μW, you'd need two years (in the very best case) to recharge the 3 AA cells.

Txt I must have missed something.  Where on earth did the requirement come from to charge 3 AA cells. The requirement was to light an LED using harvested energy.  @Tinman video proved that was possible. If you want to charge 3 AA batteries, buy a battery charger.

MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Txt I must have missed something.  Where on earth did the requirement come from to charge 3 AA cells. The requirement was to light an LED using harvested energy.  @Tinman video proved that was possible. If you want to charge 3 AA batteries, buy a battery charger.

I believe you did miss something because Brad said this:

Quote
That was a 25 farad cap,and a very small antenna. If the antenna was around the outside of the torch body,along with a better circuit,you could charge a 1.5 volt battery within 5 hour's i would think,and get back 1/2 an hour of usable light.

It would all depend on the EM strength in the area you are in.
I would think out in the middle of nowhere,it would not work so well.

There is not a hope in hell that you could get back 1/2 hour of usable light if you lived about five or six kilometers from an AM broadcast station transmitting antenna if the charging power is somewhere in the vicinity of 525 microwatts.  How many people live close to broadcast antennas anyway?

The important lesson here is to do your calculations.

tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5365
If the system delivers 3mA @ 0.175V, it gives exactly 525μW, just as I wrote. So where is your higher charging power coming from, if not from the system? From another external battery? From the grid? From the Holy Ghost?
I must be blind, but I saw no proof in that video that charging a battery in any interesting levels in average environment is possible. Did you? As I wrote, at the charging power of 525μW, you'd need two years (in the very best case) to recharge the 3 AA cells.

You are blind,as i was not claiming to be able to charge 3 AA batteries with the circuit i showed. My claim was that it is indeed possible to harvest energy from EM wave's,store that collected energy,and light an LED. Harvesting energy from EM wave's has been done for many year's--E.G,the foxhole radio. I also never made the claim that the device in question on this thread was legit,only that it is possible to have a battery/storage device recharge it self by way of available EM radiation in the environment.
You also make the mistake in assuming that the light would be on for 2 1/2 years in order to require that 2 1/2 year recharge cycle at that power draw,if we assume the system is 100% efficient-and where did you come up with 525uW as the charging power from my video?.


Brad

tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5365
I believe you did miss something because Brad said this:

There is not a hope in hell that you could get back 1/2 hour of usable light if you lived about five or six kilometers from an AM broadcast station transmitting antenna if the charging power is somewhere in the vicinity of 525 microwatts.  How many people live close to broadcast antennas anyway?



Once again-same mistake as txt-->where do you guys get 525uW charging power from ?.
How have you calculated a 525uW charging output from something never made or tested?
I stated-If the antenna was around the outside of the torch body,along with a better circuit,you could charge a 1.5 volt battery within 5 hour's i would think,and get back 1/2 an hour of usable light.
MH,can you please tell us all how you have managed to calculate the charging power of a device that has not yet been made?,or how you have determined what usable light is?.

Quote
The important lesson here is to do your calculations.

Indeed.
If i can store a continual energy flow of 1/2 a mW for 5 hour's,then i can drive an LED with 5mW of power for 1/2 an hour from that stored energy-if we assume the system is 100% efficient. At an efficiency of say 90%(very possible),we could deliver 4.5mW for 1/2 an hour to our LED. Are you saying that we would not be able to produce usable light from this ?.

It pays to think before dismissing things that have not even yet come into existence MH.


Brad