Free energy for BM 2006

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 12:31 pm

Not really. I've heard other similar things, but I can't remember them now.
I do think I've figured out where the hot water myth originated.

I have no brilliant idea on new energy as yet.
I heard of someone here complaining about power lines too close to his home. He got no response, so built a coil to capture stray emf.
Sued by power co., judge said if you don't like it, move the line.
Can't verify it, but think it's likely true.
A power truck was parked under vhv lines and when the crew returned, the truck was hot, voltage and temperature wise. They had to tow it out from under the lines before they could use it again. They must have had it aligned just right.

capjbadger · Post by **capjbadger** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 12:47 pm

gyre wrote:Not really. I've heard other similar things, but I can't remember them now.
I do think I've figured out where the hot water myth originated.

I have no brilliant idea on new energy as yet.
I heard of someone here complaining about power lines too close to his home. He got no response, so built a coil to capture stray emf.
Sued by power co., judge said if you don't like it, move the line.
Can't verify it, but think it's likely true.
A power truck was parked under vhv lines and when the crew returned, the truck was hot, voltage and temperature wise. They had to tow it out from under the lines before they could use it again. They must have had it aligned just right.

Not sure on the stats of which is safer, flying or driving, but I would not be surprised if flying was safer.

As for the water, it's true. I recall it from high school. A gallon puddle of hot water will freeze before a gallon puddle of colder water. But there's a trick to it. The hot water molecules will leave the puddle as vapor and leave behind the slower moving ones (temp just being the average kinetic energy of the molecules of the object after all). The now smaller and "slower" puddle freezes first. The reason it need to be a puddle instead of say a gallon milk jug is that this needs all that surface area for the trick to work.

The power line tapping myth is just that. Mythbusters did a bit on that one.

To get any real power, you'd have to have a lot of wire and be quite close to the power line. It'd be easier to just hook up the wire directly (or run an extention cord from next door's porch outlet.

)

Gravity Mike · Post by **Gravity Mike** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:24 pm

flying is safer, even if normalized per mile, or per hour.

Hot water freezes before cold water because the large temerature differential will establish 'eddy currents' which will make cooling more efficient. Of course, taken to extremes this is not true (99.9 C water and 0.1 C water, for example). The optimum is to have the water just hot enough to establish the eddy currents.

Yes, it is the nuclear binding energy that is released - the binding 'energy' is mass as Badger (I think) explained. There is both chemical and nuclear binding energies - so you're both right. Conversion is not 100%, I mis-spoke. However, it's not as simple as 'particle' and 'radiation.' We're talking nuclear physics here, where energy and mass are the same, and particles and waves are the same. Is all the gamma radiation coming from a nuke particles or energy? Not all of the energy is released as 'infrared' radiation, AKA heat, much is released as gamma radiation - gamma, infrared, visible, X-rays - all the same except for the wavelength and available energy.

I'm not saying that tapping the earth's magnetic field isn't possible - I'm saying that everything I bothered to check out conceptually looked inadequate (like taking the thrust from a jet engine and running it into a pipe, routing said pipe into the jet intake, naively believing that you can now shut off the engine and maintain the air flow), or would be a miniscule effect and not practicle.

You can capture EMF from power lines, but the effect is miniscule (or non existant - have to consult the texts) unless you loop AROUND the power line completely - then you can take a substantial amount (all? have to consult the texts, I forgot). Of course, this power is in fact lost from the power lines, even though you haven't actually touched them, so the power company will know you're steeling power (unless you take too little for them to detect).

I really don't like to be a nay-sayer jackass, so let me offer this:

If you're looking for 'free' energy, let me suggest a 'Sterling Engine.' They operate strickly on temperature differentials. Imagine a resevoir of water you let get cold at night and insulate during the day - another you heat during the day and insulate at night. This temp differential could pump a Sterling Engine at BM. This is not only theory, you can actually buy sterling engine driven fans to put on top of your wood stove - the relative temp diff of the wood stove and air makes them work, no electricity required.

Gravity

capjbadger · Post by **capjbadger** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:57 pm

Eddy currents? I think you mean convection currents. Eddy currents deal with electromagitism...

Sorry Gravity, but your explaination of nuclear fission is simply not correct. The energy you get from a nuclear reaction is from the "lost" mass being converted to energy only. If you take the missing mass and the energy output, and plug it into E=m(C*C), the numbers match up exactly. The nuclear strong force that binds an atom together does not provide engery when broken.
As far as the output, gamma radiation is energy. I already gave the energy output breakdown in the earlier post. The alpha and beta "rays" are particles though their kinetic energy is factored into the output.

heh. Yes. That jet engine setup would only work if it was somehow putting out a higher volume of air that is was taking in.

You don't need to coil line around another one to induce a current. The EMF coming from the power line will induce a current in a coil of wire simply help near it. Hell, it wouldn't even need to be a coil (though the coil would be more efficent). The induction is why you get "crosstalk" on phone lines. With two wires running next to each other, one wire with current flowing through it forms a EM field around it which induces a copy of the current in the next wire, thus the person on the second line can hear it (though quietly since it's not amped). I actualy have this very problem in my house. If I'm on the phone, I can hear the main line when they are dialing and speaking if I listen closely.

Yes! Sterling engines are sooo cool!

I really want to set one up to power the fan part of my swamp cooler I built for BM. All you really need is one side cooler (or warmer) that the other. Sticking one half outside my dome and the other half in the water reservoir of the sawmp cooler would kick ass. Hell, they make engines that will run of a fresh cup of hot tea.

*sigh* so many projects...

dragonfly Jafe · Post by **dragonfly Jafe** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 2:17 pm

capjbadger wrote:...Sterling engines are sooo cool! I really want to set one up to power the fan part of my swamp cooler I built for BM. All you really need is one side cooler (or warmer) that the other.

Could you get enough differential by burying half of it under the Playa several feet (using an auger say) and the other half exposed in the day sun? Some fans that turn lazily all day long w/o external power would be pretty cool (pun intended)

capjbadger · Post by **capjbadger** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 2:45 pm

dragonfly Jafe wrote:
capjbadger wrote:...Sterling engines are sooo cool! I really want to set one up to power the fan part of my swamp cooler I built for BM. All you really need is one side cooler (or warmer) that the other.
Could you get enough differential by burying half of it under the Playa several feet (using an auger say) and the other half exposed in the day sun? Some fans that turn lazily all day long w/o external power would be pretty cool (pun intended)

Hmmm... I think that would work. Whatever the avg. temp of the ground vs 80 - 100 degrees in the sun. I'm not sure what the minimum differential is to get one to work. *Starts digging through the net...*

Kinetic IV · Post by **Kinetic IV** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 2:47 pm

It sounds interesting but it runs right smack into the rules of no large holes on the playa. I wonder what the BLM exception policy is or if there is one?

capjbadger · Post by **capjbadger** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 2:59 pm

Kinetic IV wrote:It sounds interesting but it runs right smack into the rules of no large holes on the playa. I wonder what the BLM exception policy is or if there is one?

Yeah, that occured to me too. I recall the rule being something like no more that 6" down for posts and such (I forget how wide).

I think having the "cool end" of the engine in a water barrel would work much better.

capjbadger · Post by **capjbadger** » Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:37 pm

ok, here's what I've found...

The ground Stirling engine is out. You'd have to get at least about 8 to 9 ft down in the ground to make it worthwhile (like a heat pump system).

The minimum temp difference needed seems to be about 70 degrees F (room temp of 68 and a cup of coffee at 140 would work just fine). Even if it was 100 outside, you'd still need the cold end to be below freezing. But I have an idea (and funny enough found something similar just a second ago on the net too).

Solar collector! You can build little solar ovens out of a little glass, some cardboard, and foil that get hot enough to bake bread. Stick the hot end of the engine in the oven and the cool end in your water barrel (or even the open air I suppose. That oven is going to get damn hot...

). I know you can boil water in a solar oven. Thats 212F. Minus 70 degrees... wow... the "cold" end of the engine could be as high as 142F and this would still work. If the cold end is in the water barrel, figure it's around 75F, that's 137 degree difference! Plenty of power! I gotta try this.

Just found another bit of info: The box style solar ovens can go anywhere from 212F all the way to 325F!!

Daaaamn...
Wow.. ok, now I'm excited. I really like this idea

Gravity Mike · Post by **Gravity Mike** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:48 am

Badger:

Sorry Gravity, but your explaination of nuclear fission is simply not correct.

Actually - our explanations are in agreement, just different. The binding energy that is released in fission is measured as mass before it is released. We both said that.

Eddy currents, convection currents, what's in a name?

I have a friend that tried to exploit Sterling engine's for years to no avail. I'm not sure what the challenges are for 'real work.' He was trying to turn a generator, a lot harder than spinning a small fan.

Cheers, Gravity

capjbadger · Post by **capjbadger** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:18 am

*Head Desk* thud

No no no... I never said that. The mass of an object does NOT measure the force that holds the atom together. And that force is not measured as mass anyway (it'd be mesureed in MeV).
Stop trying to put words in my mouth to support your arguement.

If I have 1000g of fissionable matter and it all fissions, I will now have 999g of matter. That one gram of matter has been converted directly into energy.

This has nothing to due with the Strong Nuclear force binding the atom together. Period.

dragonfly Jafe · Post by **dragonfly Jafe** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:28 am

ground temps typically are in the 50's (say 55) once below a couple of feet, but adding 70 to that would require 125 degrees....maybe with some reflectors this would be feasible during the hottest part of the day (say maybe 4 hours typically)

I think post holes are less of an issue - I know there are DPW skid-steers with augers that dig holes several feet deep when required for larger camps. As long as the diameter was limited a hole several feet deep should not be an issue, maybe even 10 feet or so.

capjbadger · Post by **capjbadger** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:37 am

Hmmm.. I was grabbing my ground temp numbers from lokking up info in heat pump setups.

I also have run across some addtional info. Seems I was wrong about the minimum temp diference to get a stirling to run. I've since found some LTD (Low Temp Differential) engines that will run off of a temp diff of as little as 8F degrees! Though I doubt you can do much work with one like that. They seemed to be mostly coffee table type gadgets. Saw one a few that could run off the heat from your hand in a room temp area.

And anyway, 125 dergees is easy if you're sticking the hot end of the engine on a solar oven.

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 11:29 am

Hey, you guys are doing great. The Stirling is a good posibility. The local surplus place has both 1 and <2> meter dishes if you want to make a suntracker to focus heat on your Sterling

Apex Surplus Metal Co 8909 San Fernando Road Sun Valley, CA 91352-1410 Phone: (818) 767-7202 Business Types: Electronic Testing Equipment, Electronics,
I can't seem to find their website. They have everything in creation.
They have some really nice wing-tip tanks. Look just like a big bomb.
You could put on some fins and a saddle and learn to "Love the Bomb"
Dan

capjbadger · Post by **capjbadger** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 11:42 am

can't sit still wrote:Hey, you guys are doing great. The Stirling is a good posibility. The local surplus place has both 1 and <2> meter dishes if you want to make a suntracker to focus heat on your Sterling

I like the solar oven idea better like this one:

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/radabaugh30.html

Cheap, easy, and uses recycled material, and if you really want, burnable!

dragonfly Jafe · Post by **dragonfly Jafe** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 11:48 am

capjbadger wrote:Hmmm.. I was grabbing my ground temp numbers from lokking up info in heat pump setups.

yours are more reliable then - I was guessing based on caves and such

dragonfly Jafe · Post by **dragonfly Jafe** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 11:50 am

can't sit still wrote:They have some really nice wing-tip tanks. Look just like a big bomb. Dan

paint one of those suckers black and fill it with water to get a nice shower/kitchen water heater setup for a camp....and be stylish too!

Gravity Mike · Post by **Gravity Mike** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:29 pm

capjbadger wrote:*Head Desk* thud :x

No no no... I never said that. The mass of an object does NOT measure the force that holds the atom together. And that force is not measured as mass anyway (it'd be mesureed in MeV).
Stop trying to put words in my mouth to support your arguement.

If I have 1000g of fissionable matter and it all fissions, I will now have 999g of matter. That one gram of matter has been converted directly into energy.

This has nothing to due with the Strong Nuclear force binding the atom together. Period.

Sorry, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I thought we had a failure to communicate, not a failure to agree.

Quote from one of my nuclear phys books: the mass of a nucleus is always less than the sum of the individual masses of the protons and neutrons which constitute it. The difference is a measure of the nuclear binding energy which holds the nucleus together.

Which means that if you fission 1000g of stuff, you'd end up wth 1001g (or more likely 1010g), and that the extra 1g (or 10 g) of matter created was the binding energy becoming mass. Nuclear masses are frequently measure in MeV/c^2 units, which is basically energy (electon is .511 MeV/c^2).

So I'm confused now. I don't know where the 'bang' energy comes from then. No animosity, really. I'm stuggling to remember this stuff myself.

I hope your head's alright.

Sun ovens with Sterling engines: it's a good thing.

Gravity.

capjbadger · Post by **capjbadger** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:48 pm

I'm posting this info right off of current web sites. Such as the .1% less mass after a fission, which has been converted to energy. There's no way you're goign to have {i]more[/i] mass after the fission.

No, no animosity. I love a good debate.

I don't remember all the deatils from 14 yrs ago either, which is why I've been digging up the info online to back up my arguements.

That whole bit about the nucleus being less massive than the sum of its parts.. I recall something about neutrons (or protons) becoming other particles when joined in an atom. Its something about the way quarks combine to form the different particles. I'll have to dig up the info...

Head like lead. Its fine.

Yeah, I'm excited about using the stirlings with solar ovens to generate power for my battery bank (I was running just solar cells last year). I'm digging around for plans for some easy to make stirlings (which is a lot to dig through since there are 3 types of engeins, Alpha, Beta and Gamma types). I might be coming out to the playa with an assortment of engines, all solar powered of course.

I've also ran across come teasers of info hinting that you can run a stirling backward (turn the output shaft with windpower or such) and the engine will act in reverse! Cold on one end, hot on the other! now that would kick ass!

capjbadger · Post by **capjbadger** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:50 pm

hahahahaha

I just got the Martha Stewart reference.. hehe

Gravity Mike · Post by **Gravity Mike** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:58 pm

Gravity Mike wrote:
So I'm confused now. I don't know where the 'bang' energy comes from then.

Gravity.

OK, Now I got it. My bit above is if you take the nucleus fully apart to individual pieces (protons and nuetrons), not two pieces (typical for fission).

If you took Uranium apart in this manner, the 1000g would become 1010g (say). If you took 1000g of Iron apart in this manner, you'd get 1001g (say). By splitting uranium into two iron atoms (approximately correct), you'd liberate '9g' of energy. This is binding energy that is no longer needed to hold the iron nucleous togeth..

Very light and very heavy nuclei have large binding energies (per nucleon), those in the middle (iron and lead) have low binding energies (per nucleon). This difference in binding energy per nucleon is how both fission of large nuclei, and fussion of light nuclei, release energy.

Badger?

Gravity

capjbadger · Post by **capjbadger** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:03 pm

Nope. You have less mass after a fission, not more.
This should help:
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Fission/Fission1.shtml

capjbadger · Post by **capjbadger** » Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:35 pm

Ahhh found the info about the neutrons...

A isolated neutron has a half life of 15 minutes. When it breaks down, it becomes a Proton, an Electron and shots out an "Electron antineutrino"

The really cool thing is for this to happen, on eof the quarks in the neutron switchs from Down to Up (Neutron = 2 Down and 1 Up quarks, Proton = 2 Up and 1 Down Quarks).

In a Proton-Proton fusion reaction, this is reversed and neutrons are created.

regionalchaos · Post by **regionalchaos** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 12:35 am

capjbadger wrote:
can't sit still wrote:Hey, you guys are doing great. The Stirling is a good posibility. The local surplus place has both 1 and <2> meter dishes if you want to make a suntracker to focus heat on your Sterling
I like the solar oven idea better like this one:

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/radabaugh30.html

Cheap, easy, and uses recycled material, and if you really want, burnable!

<ot>
Great link. I've been reading a lot of back woods home lately for a running a small power grid. I'd like to eventually have a battery bank I can charge from a generator in 3-4 hours. Seems like a good way to go, for bm and for any power outage / emergency situation at home.
</ot>

Gravity Mike · Post by **Gravity Mike** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:41 am

capjbadger wrote:Nope. You have less mass after a fission, not more.
This should help:
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Fission/Fission1.shtml

Well, I think there are multiple aspects to this issue, and neither of us understand all of them apparantly. I don't disagree with your statement above, however, the statement I quoted from my nuclear phys book states the opposite (and can also be found at http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... ssion.html) and I don't doubt that statement either. I can't reconcile these two correct statements, can you?

I'd done thinking about this for now, as nobody's going nuke on the playa.

Gravity

can't sit still · Post by **can't sit still** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:09 am

I said that fission isn't 100% conversion of mass to energy. Gravity Mike said it was.
I bowed out of that shit fight before it got messy. You can have it.
Dan

capjbadger · Post by **capjbadger** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:40 am

Too funny. Thats the same site I found the Neutron decay info on.

Wow.. This is not written well at all. I had to read through it a few time to understand what they were saying. The way they have it written is very misleading at first look, but it's actualy saying the same thing I have been...

I'm going to break it down a little to sort this one out:

"If a massive nucleus like uranium-235 breaks apart (fissions), then there will be a net yield of energy because the sum of the masses of the fragments will be less than the mass of the uranium nucleus."

They're saying that when the uranium fissions, the total mass of the leftover bits is less that the mass of the uranium. It would look some thing like this with U being the mass of the uranium and X and Y being the mass of the leftover bits:

U > X+Y

If you add in the "net yield of energy" in to the equation, it balences out:

U = X+Y+(E/C^2)

They specify only the mass of the nucleus only because the electrons basicly don't count since they are almost massless. They could of just of said "fragments will be less than the mass of the uranium atom" and still of been correct.

"If the mass of the fragments is equal to or greater than that of iron at the peak of the binding energy curve, then the nuclear particles will be more tightly bound than they were in the uranium nucleus, and that decrease in mass comes off in the form of energy according to the Einstein equation. For elements lighter than iron, fusion will yield energy."

Again, thier truely stellar grasp of english grammar makes this a hard read.
They're talking about the binding force not as engery to be gained, but energy needed to fission the atom. At a certain point (iron), you start having to put in more energy to split the atom that you will get back from the missing mass being converted to energy.
Basicly, if the atomic number of the element is higher than iron, the atom is big enough and unstable enough to fission with less energy put in that you will get out. But at atomic numbers equal to Iron or lower, the nucleus is bound so tight that the energy you'd have to put in to get it to fission is greater then the energy you're going to get out from that missing mass.
"and that decrease in mass comes off in the form of energy according to the Einstein equation." is just them restating where the energy from the first Uranium fission is coming from. The missing mass.

"Nuclei are made up of protons and neutron, but the mass of a nucleus is always less than the sum of the individual masses of the protons and neutrons which constitute it. The difference is a measure of the nuclear binding energy which holds the nucleus together. "
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html

Ok, found it. I was confused about this too for a sec, but then it hit me... Yes, the mass of the nucleus is less than the sum of its parts, and that difference is exactly equal to the binding force on said nucleus. Here's the trick though... Split that nucleus back into its 4 seperate part (in the example shown) and the particales are back to the same mass as they started with before they were joined! The missing mass when they were together was simply "stored" as the binding force. Once they seperate outside of the effective field of that binding force (1.9*10^-15 meters) they reclaim thier mass/energy from the binding force that was holding them there. Its like a rental deposit to "live" at the nucleus if you will (Except they always get back thier deposit!

)

This page from that book describes the energy output of a fission reaction perfectly with all the math shown.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html
It proves without a shadow of a doubt that the energy released is only from the missing mass of the leftover elements.

*looks up* Holy... sorry, guess I rambled a bit.

Geek mode on high.

capjbadger · Post by **capjbadger** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:57 am

can't sit still wrote:I said that fission isn't 100% conversion of mass to energy. Gravity Mike said it was.
I bowed out of that shit fight before it got messy. You can have it.
Dan

Mike also recanted that statement a little bit later.

And if you look at it in the right way, he's right. Of the mass that's converted to energy, 100% of it is converted.

hehe

Its not a shit fight, its a good debate. Mike has brought up many good points and forced me to do my homework. Hell, I've learned a few things during all this from having to do the research. A good debate is good for you. Gets the blood flowing (non-externaly) and the brain working.

capjbadger · Post by **capjbadger** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 2:00 pm

Alright, lets try to bring this topic back on track somewhat..

I'm curious to pick people's minds as far as power systems for BM of a "free energy" sort. Looking for systems that are easy to build, cheep, and will stand up to the playa.

Here's what i have so far:

Solar Cells
Solar Stirling Engine
Wind Turbines

Hmm... I feel like I'm missing something. Anyone? Ideas? Comments?

bringer · Post by **bringer** » Thu Jan 19, 2006 2:08 pm

Have you checked with these cats?

http://www.ae-zone.org/indexbottom.html