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 186875 times)

txt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
@tinman: Everyone knows it is possible to harvest energy from the ambient EM field. I posted already ~15 pages ago a link to the document Ambient RF Energy-Harvesting Technologies. If you read its title, you may understand that it speaks exactly about that even if you do not bother opening it. And you can be also quite sure that I know what is in it. Your video only confirms what is stated in the document and what I am claiming in this thread since the page #12 - at this size, no useful energy can be harvested from the average ambient EM field for powering a device like the ELFE battery. That's what this thread is about. The ELFE battery is powered by 3 AA batteries and has the maximum output of 3W.

Your video showing a dim LED powered by ~500µW is useless, laughable and it only confirms what I wrote and what I claim since the beginning. You would need two years of charging for being able to power a 3W LED flashlight for three hours at full power. Lighting up a LED at ~500µW is four orders of magnitude below the needed power, and there you are lucky you are close to a radio transmitter, otherwise it would be even much worse.

Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8366
@tinman: Everyone knows it is possible to harvest energy from the ambient EM field. I posted already ~15 pages ago a link to the document Ambient RF Energy-Harvesting Technologies. If you read its title, you may understand that it speaks exactly about that even if you do not bother opening it. And you can be also quite sure that I know what is in it. Your video only confirms what is stated in the document and what I am claiming in this thread since the page #12 - at this size, no useful energy can be harvested from the average ambient EM field for powering a device like the ELFE battery. That's what this thread is about. The ELFE battery is powered by 3 AA batteries and has the maximum output of 3W.

Your video showing a dim LED powered by ~500µW is useless, laughable and it only confirms what I wrote and what I claim since the beginning. You would need two years of charging for being able to power a 3W LED flashlight for three hours at full power. Lighting up a LED at ~500µW is four orders of magnitude below the needed power, and there you are lucky you are close to a radio transmitter, otherwise it would be even much worse.

Also known as.....

The Dead Zone.

Bill

PS  I just like saying that.  It sounds so ominous.

MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
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?.

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

I can estimate the charging power of something that hasn't been made because I looked at some of the information that Txt provided for the energy density that you can get from various forms of ambient electromagnetic energy in the environment.  I already had an intuitive sense for this before even looking at the data.  I also know that even a few kilometers away from an AM transmission tower the amount of energy you could pick up is negligible.   You also stated, "1/2 an hour of usable light."  Usable light is a few watts like in an LED flashlight, not five milliwatts.  That's a bait and switch.

You are the one that isn't thinking because you made the claim presumably without making any reasonable estimates or crunching any numbers.  So I am sounding out a cautionary note just like Txt.  You can think about how much power could theoretically without building it.

And the root meaning in your comments go right back to the ADGEX pitch.  They made ridiculous claims about picking up EM energy and the laughable Schumann resonance energy and the laughable claim of picking up energy from the Earth's magnetic field.  They claimed something that was physically impossible and you claimed something that was physically impossible.  The takeaway for everyone should be to understand the issues because as sure as the sun shines in X number of months somebody will be trying to sell something by making similar claims.

MileHigh

tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5365
@tinman: Everyone knows it is possible to harvest energy from the ambient EM field. I posted already ~15 pages ago a link to the document Ambient RF Energy-Harvesting Technologies. If you read its title, you may understand that it speaks exactly about that even if you do not bother opening it. And you can be also quite sure that I know what is in it. Your video only confirms what is stated in the document and what I am claiming in this thread since the page #12 - at this size, no useful energy can be harvested from the average ambient EM field for powering a device like the ELFE battery. That's what this thread is about. The ELFE battery is powered by 3 AA batteries and has the maximum output of 3W.

Your video showing a dim LED powered by ~500µW is useless, laughable and it only confirms what I wrote and what I claim since the beginning. You would need two years of charging for being able to power a 3W LED flashlight for three hours at full power. Lighting up a LED at ~500µW is four orders of magnitude below the needed power, and there you are lucky you are close to a radio transmitter, otherwise it would be even much worse.

Post 168- Quote: The ambient EM field in standard wavelengths is much stronger - it allows harvesting up to units of μW per cm³ in densely populated urban environment.

txt
I think your a bit out of whack with your power calculations in regards to EM radiation around densely populated area's. Lets look at the video below,and lets assume his antenna is say 20 meters long(around 60 feet),and is say .4mm copper wire.So we would have an antenna with a square area of around 8cm. Now looking at that LED,and also taking into consideration that a speaker is also being driven,we can clearly see that there is a fair bit of EM energy being collected by a very small square area of antenna wire. There is also the fact that the bulk of the population lives in an area that has many strong EM radiation sources. So now lets take the circuit used in the video,and store the energy that is being used to drive the LED and the speaker. Do you really think it will take 2 years to charge 3 AA batteries with the energy that is being used to drive the LED and speaker?-i think not.

Im not saying the ELFE is lagit-nor have i ever said that. What i am saying is,it is indeed possible to achieve the required result's ,with the available EM radiation in most cases. The video clearly show's that usable light can come directly from the EM radiation-without the need to store that energy. If we were to store that energy over a period of 24 hour's,then even more usable light over a shorter period of time could be had.

You have far under estimated the available energy per square CM of EM radiation in populated area's,where we can safely assume there is 1 or more sources of strong EM radiation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcui0K7JZXA


Brad

tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5365
 author=MileHigh link=topic=16003.msg475854#msg475854 date=1456707059]
 


MileHigh


Quote
I can estimate the charging power of something that hasn't been made because I looked at some of the information that Txt provided for the energy density that you can get from various forms of ambient electromagnetic energy in the environment.  I already had an intuitive sense for this before even looking at the data.  I also know that even a few kilometers away from an AM transmission tower the amount of energy you could pick up is negligible.

Well you better think again--see last post of mine to txt.

Quote
You also stated, "1/2 an hour of usable light."  Usable light is a few watts like in an LED flashlight, not five milliwatts.  That's a bait and switch.

Since when did you become the one to decide what amount of light is usable?.
If i can read the words on a page in a book,then that is usable light--regardless of what you may think. If i place my little red LED (as seen in last video) that consumes only 500uW of power,next to a light switch in my home,and in the dark i can see that red LED,and that red LED shows me where the light switch is,then that is usable light,as it guided me to the light switch in a dark room.

Quote
You are the one that isn't thinking because you made the claim presumably without making any reasonable estimates or crunching any numbers.  So I am sounding out a cautionary note just like Txt.  You can think about how much power could theoretically without building it.

I base my assumptions around things already achieved by other's--unlike yourself,where you blindly follow what others say,and present in book's.-->this is becoming a habit of your MH.

Quote
And the root meaning in your comments go right back to the ADGEX pitch.  They made ridiculous claims about picking up EM energy and the laughable Schumann resonance energy and the laughable claim of picking up energy from the Earth's magnetic field.  They claimed something that was physically impossible and you claimed something that was physically impossible.

My root meaning MH,was that it is achievable,and has been done by others.
Once again,you have jumped on the band wagon without doing much research-and got it all wrong again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcui0K7JZXA


Brad

citfta

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1050
Harvesting man-made EM energy would be no 'free energy' anyway, because someone paid for the energy which powers the transmitter, and the RF field is weakened by sucking energy out of it so the receiver will need more energy to maintain the same field strength.

This is not correct.  There is no connection between the transmitter and receiver of regular radio or TV signals.  It doesn't matter how many receivers receive the signal the transmitter doesn't see any difference.   Think of it this way.  You are standing in the middle of a small pond and you rock back and forth to make waves in the water.  Now someone decides to harvest a little of that energy by sitting a model boat in the water and they get to watch it rock back and forth because of the waves you are making.  If we add another hundred people and they each put a boat in the water you will not be able to tell any difference in your efforts to make waves.  Once the waves are made what happens to them after the leave you has no effect at all on your efforts to make waves.

Now if you are talking about sitting up an inductive device near the cross country overhead power lines that is a different thing.  Yes I would agree that taking power from the electric field that surrounds those power lines will cause a need for more energy to maintain the field.  And people have been convicted of theft in the U.S. for doing that.  But an EM field is not the same as a RF field.

Respectfully,
Carroll

MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Brad:

When you say something like this:

Quote
lets assume his antenna is say 20 meters long(around 60 feet),and is say .4mm copper wire.So we would have an antenna with a square area of around 8cm. Now looking at that LED,and also taking into consideration that a speaker is also being driven,we can clearly see that there is a fair bit of EM energy being collected by a very small square area of antenna wire.

And also when you talk about "DC EM waves" you are simply showing that you are pushing your luck and are way way out of your element.  It's so bad that it's "not even wrong."

I am no expert here, but I have some knowledge.  People like Verpies and Poynt99 are the ones that can shed some real light on this issue.  You don't know what you are talking about here.  If you have an active interest in this stuff, here is where you need to read some books.

In the clip the guy says that he is about one mile from the transmission tower, and he took a slingshot and launched some fishing line up to the top of a tree.  Then he used the fishing line to draw the antenna up to the top of the tree.

Let's say he is one mile away from the transmitter and the antenna is 40 feet long.  I suppose under those conditions you can light an LED.  But that's a special case, and not even remotely related to your flashlight battery charging scenario at all.

MileHigh

MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Brad:

This is a link about typical LED flashlight power:  http://www.dansdata.com/ledlights2.htm#power

The range is from about 0.2 watts to a few watts.  So let's divide that by five to give you 40 milliwatts on the low end for a minimalist usable LED light source.  I am making what I consider to be a reasonable guess.

Quote
Since when did you become the one to decide what amount of light is usable?.
If i can read the words on a page in a book,then that is usable light--regardless of what you may think. If i place my little red LED (as seen in last video) that consumes only 500uW of power,next to a light switch in my home,and in the dark i can see that red LED,and that red LED shows me where the light switch is,then that is usable light,as it guided me to the light switch in a dark room.

That's a huge stretch and the light switch light is not what the average person would consider a "usable light."  You are describing a minimalist nightlight, not a usable light.

Plus, if we're going to get real, then you have to derate any theoretical power that can be picked up by ambient EM waves.  By how much?  I will be damned if I know so I will say the theoretical numbers should be derated by a factor of 10.

Quote
I base my assumptions around things already achieved by other's--unlike yourself,where you blindly follow what others say,and present in book's.-->this is becoming a habit of your MH.

I am thinking for myself Brad and applying my basic EM knowledge.  Your "you only know what is in books" line is getting very tiresome.  Your claims of one-half hour of "usable light" are not panning out, that is the real issue up for debate.  So here is what is being said to you:  If you are going to make an estimate then put your mind to work and work it out first before you make a claim.  Nobody wants to say you can't make an estimate or a claim, but you have to think it through first and show your reasoning.  Right now you are playing the backtracking game because you didn't think it through.  That's the inherent lesson.   When you are going to make a statement that is questionable - lay your cards on the table as you make your statement and present your data and reasonable estimates at the same time.  It's just the scientific way of approaching things along these lines.  Go review Txt's presented data, there is a logical step by step process that determines the amount of ambient EM energy per unit volume, he is not just throwing numbers out there.

MileHigh

MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
This is not correct.  There is no connection between the transmitter and receiver of regular radio or TV signals.  It doesn't matter how many receivers receive the signal the transmitter doesn't see any difference.   Think of it this way.  You are standing in the middle of a small pond and you rock back and forth to make waves in the water.  Now someone decides to harvest a little of that energy by sitting a model boat in the water and they get to watch it rock back and forth because of the waves you are making.  If we add another hundred people and they each put a boat in the water you will not be able to tell any difference in your efforts to make waves.  Once the waves are made what happens to them after the leave you has no effect at all on your efforts to make waves.

Now if you are talking about sitting up an inductive device near the cross country overhead power lines that is a different thing.  Yes I would agree that taking power from the electric field that surrounds those power lines will cause a need for more energy to maintain the field.  And people have been convicted of theft in the U.S. for doing that.  But an EM field is not the same as a RF field.

Respectfully,
Carroll

I think it's fair to say that you are both right and wrong.  You are right to say that the scenario you are describing is a far-field situation where if you local to yourself soak up some transmitted antenna energy that it does not affect the transmitter at all.  Were you are wrong is that presumably other people that are in your "shadow" (assuming an urban area) cannot get good reception of the transmitting station because your harvesting of the EM energy is creating that shadow.

MileHigh

tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5365
Brad:

When you say something like this:





MileHigh


Quote
And also when you talk about "DC EM waves" you are simply showing that you are pushing your luck and are way way out of your element.  It's so bad that it's "not even wrong."

I am no expert here, but I have some knowledge.  People like Verpies and Poynt99 are the ones that can shed some real light on this issue.  You don't know what you are talking about here.  If you have an active interest in this stuff, here is where you need to read some books.

And yet there it was,clear as day in my video.
Im guessing you are of the belief that the wave offset was due to the cap voltage. Well then all you have to do is now explain as to how the cap was being charged,if you believe the EM wave dose not have a DC offset of it's own.

Quote
In the clip the guy says that he is about one mile from the transmission tower, and he took a slingshot and launched some fishing line up to the top of a tree.  Then he used the fishing line to draw the antenna up to the top of the tree.
Let's say he is one mile away from the transmitter and the antenna is 40 feet long.  I suppose under those conditions you can light an LED.  But that's a special case, and not even remotely related to your flashlight battery charging scenario at all.

Just go's to show MH,that i am correct in what i stated--that it can be done in most cases-depending on the area you are in.
It also shows that you should have the correct answers before you go saying that some one else has no idea as to what they are talking about--and i refer to answering the question as to why the cap charges if there is no DC offset the EM wave?.


Brad

MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Any discussion of a "DC offset" in an electromagnetic wave is "not even wrong."

You are correct, the DC offset of the AM wave on your scope display was because of the DC voltage on the capacitor.  I don't know how the capacitor got charged.  I suppose the two options are somehow the AM wave gets rectified or with more wire in the setup the capacitor can self-charge better.

However, if you suspect that it is from the AM wave being rectified and that's charging the capacitor - talk alone will not cut it.  You would need to show an annotated schematic and scope shots and explain the process with a timing diagram if you want to make a convincing case.

txt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
I think your a bit out of whack with your power calculations in regards to EM radiation around densely populated area's. Lets look at the video below,and lets assume his antenna is say 20 meters long(around 60 feet),and is say .4mm copper wire. So we would have an antenna with a square area of around 8cm.
Check out the term "effective aperture of an antenna" to correct your calculation. When oversimplified, the capture area of antenna is based on the square root of the wavelength (assuming the antenna can catch the entire ½ wave, like for example the dipole). In other words, make a square around your antenna and you'll be a bit closer. Calculating just the wire thickness is nonsense, of course.

BTW, the 20 m long antenna is not something you can run around with anyway, regardless that it is just 0.4 mm thick, so I would not consider it useful for powering a flashlight.

Do you really think it will take 2 years to charge 3 AA batteries with the energy that is being used to drive the LED and speaker?
Yes, I do. The math is trivial, and I am sure you can succeed the simple multiplying and divisions too. Your system in the video delivers 0.175V at 0.003A. Power = U*I - that gives the continuous charging power of 525μW. For charging 9Wh you hence need 9/525*10^-6 = 17143 hours = 714 days. Which indeed are two years (or pretty close to it). Without counting in the leakage, the charging efficiency, and the possibility that your nearby radio stops broadcasting over the frequency your antenna is tuned to, within that long time.

The video clearly show's that usable light can come directly from the EM radiation-without the need to store that energy.
I do not consider the charging power of 525μW "usable" for any practical flashlight. It is usable for powering low consumption electronics such as remote sensors, or perhaps even the tiny low power LED as a pilot light, but that was never questioned in this thread. EM harvesting for low consumption devices is known and used since decades, and nobody here ever expressed any doubts about it.

The tiny power is simply not useful for high-powered portable devices such as the 3W flashlight. If the ~70 millilumens that you can get out of 525μW, looks usable for you, then I admire your sight, but I can assure you that anyone who would buy a flashlight, finding it emits a few dozens of millilumens, would be highly disappointed.

skywatcher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 441
This is not correct.  There is no connection between the transmitter and receiver of regular radio or TV signals.  It doesn't matter how many receivers receive the signal the transmitter doesn't see any difference.   Think of it this way.  You are standing in the middle of a small pond and you rock back and forth to make waves in the water.  Now someone decides to harvest a little of that energy by sitting a model boat in the water and they get to watch it rock back and forth because of the waves you are making.  If we add another hundred people and they each put a boat in the water you will not be able to tell any difference in your efforts to make waves.  Once the waves are made what happens to them after the leave you has no effect at all on your efforts to make waves.

Now if you are talking about sitting up an inductive device near the cross country overhead power lines that is a different thing.  Yes I would agree that taking power from the electric field that surrounds those power lines will cause a need for more energy to maintain the field.  And people have been convicted of theft in the U.S. for doing that.  But an EM field is not the same as a RF field.

Respectfully,
Carroll

At least in the 'near field' (which is many kilometers in case of low-frequency trabsmitters) you have inductive coupling, and this indeed draws additional power from the transmitter. I know that some decades ago some people here in Germany used wires in their garden to get energy for their fluorescent lamps, which worked pretty well nearby big AM transmitter stations, but this has been forbidden because of the fact that it weakened the signal.

txt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
You have far under estimated the available energy per square CM of EM radiation in populated area's,where we can safely assume there is 1 or more sources of strong EM radiation.
In fact I did not estimate anything at all. I used scientific literature that sums the measurements of multiple teams taking real-life values of ambient EM radiation in several locations, including the inner London and Tokyo. They also specify the distances to the closest high-power transmission towers, and they took care to pick up an average location, not something in a shielded area or a "dead-zone". So no, the values I posted are no estimations, they are hard facts.

tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5365
 author=txt link=topic=16003.msg475872#msg475872 date=1456727231]

 




Quote
BTW, the 20 m long antenna is not something you can run around with anyway, regardless that it is just 0.4 mm thick, so I would not consider it useful for powering a flashlight.
Yes, I do. The math is trivial, and I am sure you can succeed the simple multiplying and divisions too. Your system in the video delivers 0.175V at 0.003A. Power = U*I - that gives the continuous charging power of 525μW. For charging 9Wh you hence need 9/525*10^-6 = 17143 hours = 714 days. Which indeed are two years (or pretty close to it). Without counting in the leakage, the charging efficiency, and the possibility that your nearby radio stops broadcasting over the frequency your antenna is tuned to, within that long time.

I dont know how you keep coming up with 525uW as the charging power value,but it is wrong.
You keep saying that 525 is our charging power,when in fact,it is the power being sent to the LED. The actual charging power value during the charging cycle is much lower than that.

Quote
I do not consider the charging power of 525μW "usable" for any practical flashlight. It is usable for powering low consumption electronics such as remote sensors, or perhaps even the tiny low power LED as a pilot light, but that was never questioned in this thread. EM harvesting for low consumption devices is known and used since decades, and nobody here ever expressed any doubts about it.

It's just a mater of scaling it up,and making the system more efficient. To say it cant be done makes you sound like MHs son,and following in his footsteps. The very same kind of thoughts came from those that some time back,laughed at the thought of turning the suns light energy directly into electrical energy. Like i said,i do not say i believe the ELFE dose what they claim,but i do say it is possible to charge a torch with 3 AA batteries in it over a 24 hour period using the available EM radiation. Who care's if it has to sit on a bench,and be plugged into a fixed harvester due to a long antenna wire,the fact remains it could be done--and this dose not confirm the ELFE is lagig(as i have noted on a number of occasions now).

Quote
The tiny power is simply not useful for high-powered portable devices such as the 3W flashlight. If the ~70 millilumens that you can get out of 525μW, looks usable for you, then I admire your sight, but I can assure you that anyone who would buy a flashlight, finding it emits a few dozens of millilumens, would be highly disappointed.

Well it wouldnt be just 70 millilumens if the cap was allowed to charge for a 24 hour period,and we then dissipated that stored energy through an LED in a 3 hour period-now would it.

Did you grasp my experiment at all?-do you know what i was showing?. Can you really say that it is not possible ?.
Below is the circuit from the video. Put it together,and give it a shot. Then you can tell us all how much charging power it actually has,and then convert that into charge time for the AA batteries ;)


Brad