i thought i'd share some encouraging results with any interested members of the forum who are aware of the implications of generating electricity from ambient thermal energy
this DIY cell & circuit combination has not only been self-sustaining its charge on-load since it was constructed - it's been increasing its charge throughout that time
in other words, it appears that it's possible to make a rechargeable battery which can get additional charge just from the heat surrounding it at room temperature - ie. the system is OU in the same sense that solar & wind power are
unlike solar & wind power, however, thermal energy is all around us, day & night, indoors - either as part of the environment we need for suitable living conditions or as waste heat from other work
obviously more energy could be converted from a higher temperature input
these tests build on a few things learned from my previous experiments, as covered in the following threads here at OU.com:-
switched cap experiments
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=4419.msg246787#msg246787
anomalous 'self'-charge of capacitors
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9393.0
the latest tests also include some additional features, eg. galvanic action and thermal generation of electricity
the following graph shows the on-load terminal voltage and temperature for the galvanic cell-stack versus time (in hours)
as you can see, there is a strong correlation between the daily variation of the ambient temperature and the terminal voltage - whenever the temperature rises the terminal voltage of the system increases, when the temperature falls, so does the terminal voltage
eg. a rise in ambient temperature of approx 17 degC caused an increase in the cell-stack voltage of approx 27mV (see graph readings near 190 hours) on a cell-stack voltage of approx 1.8V (a 1.5% increase in on-load terminal voltage)
however, there is more than just a direct temperature relationship...
the temperature trend graph ('power regression for Tcell') shows that the average value of the ambient temperature has remained approximately constant throughout the test period - the trend slope shows only a very slight increase over the duration so far (9+ days)
however, the 'power regression for Vcell' trend graph reveals that, for at least this particular load, there is more external energy being converted to electrical energy than is being used by the circuit - the on-load terminal voltage trend slope shows an increase with time
the stack was constructed 8 Dec 2010 and had an initial on-load voltage of approx 1.6V
so, at the time of writing, the mean on-load voltage has been increasing for over 440 hours (18+ days)
additional energy is being supplied from somewhere outside the system and the cell-stack is storing excess energy (ie. it is gradually 'charging') at the same time as powering the load
- the system is enclosed in a steel case (effectively a Faraday cage), so it's not picking up radio transmission or 50Hz power;
- the system is inside a case, and it continues to charge in an unlit room, so it's not receiving photoelectric energy;
- the system is operating stand-alone, so it's not receiving electrical energy from a PC or measurement equipment
therefore, unless the system is receiving energy from some exotic source, such as cosmic rays, then the conclusion is that the external energy which is sustaining operation (& increasing charge) is being provided by ambient heat
a standard resistor performs work while converting electrical energy into heat energy
if you can reverse this process then you have effectively created a 'negative resistor', which performs work while converting heat energy into electrical energy
the system in the experiment described here is evidently converting ambient heat into electricity
it appears that Maxwell's Demon is alive and well!
an overview of the system follows...
cell-stack construction (2 cells in series):
for this experiment, i've used Zinc (Zn) & Copper (Cu) foil squares, approx 8cm x 8cm
on the top & bottom sheets (1 Zn & 1 Cu) i leave a little extra width of metal to connect a crocodile clip
each of the 2 cells is constructed like this (from top to bottom):-
+ ---- Cu
---- open weave linen serviette cloth,
sprinkled with ~0.5cc honey:tap-water (~50:50)
---- (tissue) wrapping paper layer glued to Zn with starch glue
('Pritt' stick - safe children's paper glue)
- ---- Zn
the edges of each cell are covered with rubber tape which seals to itself when stretched
the middle Zn & Cu sheets (from the upper & lower cells) are first insulated from each other with a thin plastic sheet; then, in the middle of the insulating sheet, i make a hole and place a small piece (approx 5mm x 5mm) of folded copper to make the connection between adjacent cells
the cells are held together inside two outer layers of cardboard using a thin rubber band
i place two 12mm x 0.8mm diam. Neo magnets on top of the cell stack; the Neos are parallel and their N-S axis is at 90 deg to the current flow through the 2 outer cell +/- tags (both S poles towards same edge of cell)
as far as i know, this particular circuit used here as a load is not critical to the behaviour of the system
however, it is important to achieve a sufficiently high impedance load on the cell-stack so that the thermal energy input is sufficient to sustain the cell charge whilst it's operating the circuit
the current draw of the circuit is of the order of a few uA
circuit operation:
the load across the cell-stack is an LED flasher circuit;
the components were selected for a flash rate of approximately 0.25Hz
- the cell-stack charges up capacitor C2
via the leakage current of D1;
- the voltage on C2 reaches the trigger level of the
'discrete' SCR arrangement of Q1/Q2/C3/D3;
- transistor Q3 is pulsed on,
current is discharged from C2 through inductor L2;
- as Q3 switches off, the field-collapse energy from
L2 is directed via the LED to the 'ballast' capacitor C1;
- C1 is connected back to the cell-stack, via inductor L1,
helping to maintain the stack voltage
A Maxwell's Daemon is one of the most credible possibility for free energy.
Nevertheless self-charging capacitors are not a proof when electrochimical capacitors are used, because there are chimical reactions at the surface of the electrodes which can increase the voltage for conventional reasons.
Self-charging capacitors are not observed when the capacitors are not polarized and are of low capacity. It is a specificity of electrochemical capacitors. Therefore the origin of the capacitors self-charge can't be explained by a common phenomenon due to the environment.
hi ex nihilo est
thanks for your comments
Quote from: exnihiloest on December 30, 2010, 06:53:01 AM
A Maxwell's Daemon is one of the most credible possibility for free energy.
i agree
the universe is a dynamic collection of energy from micro to macro levels - there are many opportunities to apply a manmade (or to benefit from natural) asymmetry to the 'random' nature of 'raw' universal energy with the result of usable power
Quote from: exnihiloest on December 30, 2010, 06:53:01 AM
Nevertheless self-charging capacitors are not a proof when electrochimical capacitors are used, because there are chimical reactions at the surface of the electrodes which can increase the voltage for conventional reasons.
i agree that electrochemical activity must be a factor in self-charge of electrolytic capacitors and it shouldn't be discounted
Quote from: exnihiloest on December 30, 2010, 06:53:01 AM
Self-charging capacitors are not observed when the capacitors are not polarized and are of low capacity. It is a specificity of electrochemical capacitors.
not so - results from non-polarised capacitors with ferroelectric dielectrics (eg. Rochelle Salt crystal) disprove this statement
Quote from: exnihiloest on December 30, 2010, 06:53:01 AM
Therefore the origin of the capacitors self-charge can't be explained by a common phenomenon due to the environment.
not so - my experiments with capacitor self-charge clearly demonstrate a strong thermal relationship between heat and anomalous voltage
also, electron tunneling between capacitor plates is a quantum phenomenon, with a temperature relationship and no electrochemical contribution
i agree that electrochemical activity can also be involved when there is an ionic-transport mechanism present
however, in the system i'm testing, only a small proportion of the operation contains any input from capacitor self-charge
i suspect that a large part of the
(greater-than) self-sustaining operation is due to the thermodynamic characteristics of the DIY cell-stack
i've been running other tests with similar circuits but using conventional NiCd & NiMH batteries for most of 2010
although in my other experiments i was able to achieve a
reasonably constant on-load terminal voltage for a similar length of time to the experiment described here, i haven't seen any evidence of a sustained and significant increase of on-load voltage for a similar duration, as i have with these tests
my earlier tests used commercial batteries with 150 & 180mAh capacities and the on-load terminal voltage had always shown a decrease over this duration
however, in this experiment, the capacity of my simple DIY cell-stack is probably smaller by a few orders of magnitude and yet it is
operating an equivalent load circuit AND experiencing a
storage of excess energy at this stage of the experiment, the point is that this stand-alone electronic system, inside a darkened Faraday cage, is giving clear evidence of
increasing on-load charge, over an extended period, with only ambient heat as the most likely additional source of energy
all the best
sandy
this stand-alone solid-state system has been operating for one month, driving the load (an LED flasher circuit) WHILST ALSO charging it's own supply battery to over 1.9V now, from it's starting on-load voltage of 1.6V
the battery is a simple DIY construction: a pair of galvanic-like cells which are recharging themselves merely from room heat
So, you're claiming violation of the second law of thermodynamics, that is, you're claiming that useful work can be done only at the expense of one thermal reservoir, right?
How do you prove that? By just observing the near coincidence of the shape of temperature-time and the voltage-time curves, is that it? It would have been interesting to measure the temperature dependence of the emf of an unattached battery and see if that regression curve you're showing of the voltage-time is non-trivial. If it is, as I suspect it is, then the ambient temperature differences as a source of the effect will be eliminated.
Why do you exclude, for instance, the possibility that the excess energy you observe is at the expense of saving from the input? I have observed such phenomenon when studying an RC circuit. Producing excess energy by saving energy from the input (thus, violating the first thermodynamic law) can also take place during the electrolysis of water in an undivided cell.
i'm reporting what i observe, Omni
the trend of the on-load terminal voltage of this solid-state system is gradually increasing whilst the trend of the ambient temperature is relatively constant
yes, there is also an obvious temperature relationship (hence the correlation between the two graphs)
but the important point is that the battery is gaining excess charge over and above the temperature variation
this is a fact - this is what the data shows
i can also report that the behaviour of this system is NOT the behaviour of other systems which i've been testing throughout this year (NiCd, NiMH & a variety of DIY galvanic cells) driving similar load circuits
none of the others have shown the same extent of thermal relationship and sustained self-charge over this duration
[edited to remove mistaken ref. to chemical action]
No, I don't at all say it's chemical. What I suspect is violation of the first principle rather than the second. As far as I understand, your statement that "... the important point is that the battery is gaining excess charge over and above the temperature variation" seems to go along with such conclusion.
This, undoubtedly, is a very interesting achievement and probably there should be some additional measurements carried out on the system to better understand the nature of the excess energy. What is the order of magnitude of the current?
as it happens i made three cells to the same construction and only used 2, (you can see the third one in the 'example-construction' photo above) so i can perform that 'interesting' test you suggest with a 'virgin' cell
i mention the current magnitude above
...i'm off to work now - a plus tard, mes amis
[edited to remove mistaken ref. to chemical action]
No, no, not at all. I've never had galvanic action in mind. The change in the post was to replace 'regression line' by 'regression curve', that's all. Sorry about the current value, I've missed it and have to go back and check it out. Anyway, like I said, very interesting research indeed.
OK, I see it now -- on the order of a few uA. So the whole thing practically takes place in absence of current. Makes one really wonder what charges the battery. Now, I'm even more interested in seeing the voltage-time curve of an unloaded battery.
Probably, I missed that too but could you remind me what happens when the battery is replaced by caps.
@nul-points
One thing you should be aware of is that IR EMF and Random Molecular Thermal
Energy are closely related but distinct. Low frequency IR is incredibly difficult
to filter out, even after traversing masses of material. For example, used in
“seeing through wallsâ€.
Matter and Infrared and random thermal energy interact in a Planck Black Body
as random thermal energy automatically produces a Black Body Spectrum of
self induced Infrared EMF (radiant thermal and optical) energy depending on
an object's temperature.
Usually receptors have their own temperature and the detector material's own
random motion inhibits the sensor from receiving any extra energy from objects
with temperatures below that point. This is why sensitive IR detectors need
to be cryogenically cooled.
There are three sources above Black Body thermal IR spectrum in everyday life.
One is us â€" living materials. Two is the Sun's energy falling on rooftops. Three is
the Infrared Spectrum coming from the ground, as the center of the earth is a
reactor heated by elemental nuclear decay.
As far as I am concerned any non-black body IR spectrum energy is free energy,
but it is not associated with Maxwell’s Demon which is associated only with
statistical decoding (rectification) of random molecular thermal motion.
The large difference between everyday chemical energy levels 1or2 electron volts
and nuclear energy levels (10Mev etc.) prevent the leveraging of the statistics of
matter for operations that would be used to “decode†normal random thermal
motions, this is why Maxwell’s Demons are difficult to observe.
One should always be on the lookout for novel forms of matter that may well have
statistics differing from normal matter that could be used to construct a synthetic
Maxwell Demon.
So, What I am saying is; the devices in question may have more in common with
deep-IR solar cells rather than Maxwell’s Demons. Something that very careful
experimentation might be able to resolve.
:S:MarkSCoffman
@Omni
the circuit is there to provide a load on the battery (it draws current by charging C2, which is then used to energise inductor L2)
the current draw will discharge capacitor C1, as expected, in the absence of the battery
the battery may well sustain larger currents by using lower impedance loads (presumably with a resulting reduction of operating voltages) but i haven't yet extended my tests to investigate this variable - at the moment i'm characterising the thermoelectric behaviour of the present system configuration
(i'm sure it's clear enough that these cells weren't constructed with a view to providing sufficient output for consumer-level applications)
@mark
thanks for your erudite and timely comments re. IR spectrum energy
hopefully, my user tagline gives a clue that any reference to Maxwell's Daemon here may be a little 'tongue-in-cheek'
what conversion mechanisms do you feel are likely contenders for producing an excess of DC electrical energy from comparatively high-frequency IR energy?
(i'm not questioning the possibility of IR conversion - my view, so far, is only that any excess energy gained by the system is of a heat-related origin)
thanks for your interest, gentlemen
See, I'm not at all interested in consumer-level applications. It seems puzzling to me, though, that the battery can be recharged at these current levels. But my question regarding current was more connected with possibilities to correctly measure it which I'd be interested to do with my equipment. Unfortunately, I don't have apparatus capable of masuring current in the uA range. Therefore, I would be interested to see if you'll observe the effect with higher currents. All this would be to clarify the nature of the excess energy and confirm its reality. Is this your own invention or is something known which you are developing?
It is voltage that decides if the battery charges or not clown.
Current has got nothing to do with that.
If your voltage is too low you can connect it to a 100.000 Amp capable supply but the thing isn't going to charge one uV.
Quote from: XS-NRG on January 07, 2011, 03:47:00 PM
It is voltage that decides if the battery charges or not clown.
Current has got nothing to do with that.
If your voltage is too low you can connect it to a 100.000 Amp capable supply but the thing isn't going to charge one uV.
spam
Voltage may be above the thermodynamic value for an electrochemical process to take place but if no current passes then there will be no electrochemical reaction taking place -- that is, there will be no recharging. It's the current that characterizes the rate of an electrochemical reaction.
Here in this case it is puzzilng that the current is very low and yet there is a boost in the voltage upon recharging (that is, anode and cathode of the battery have undergone the necessary electrochemical conversion to get higher Gibbs energy potential difference than when battery is depleted). One thing that has to be seen, as was mentioned, is whether or not that is just the temprature dependence of the emf. As I understand, even at this point it can be eliminated as a probable cause, maybe. That has to be studied more. Then, the other point that was made, that the capacitors may somehow act as galvanic elements should also be dismissed on view of the low current level. So, there's something not very clear anout what's going on there.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 07, 2011, 03:59:56 PM
Voltage may be above the thermodynamic value for an electrochemical process to take place but if no current passes then there will be no electrochemical reaction taking place -- that is, there will be no recharging. It's the current that characterizes the rate of an electrochemical reaction.
Here in this case it is puzzilng that the current is very low and yet there is a boost in the voltage upon recharging (that is, anode and cathode of the battery have undergone the necessary electrochemical conversion to get higher Gibbs energy potential difference than when battery is depleted). One thing that has to be seen, as was mentioned, is whether or not that is just the temprature dependence of the emf. As I understand, even at this point it can be eliminated as a probable cause, maybe. That has to be studied more. Then, the other point that was made, that the capacitors may somehow act as galvanic elements should also be dismissed on view of the low current level. So, there's something not very clear anout what's going on there.
SPAM
@Omni
the circuit is a current drain on the battery (although a proportion of the inductor-stored energy is recovered via the LED)
so it isn't the circuit which is providing the energy to recharge the battery (otherwise it would also be able to recharge the main capacitor without the battery present)
hence the excess charge in the battery is getting converted from a type of energy other than electrical (so an ammeter wouldn't help)
i believe that some form of thermoelectric conversion is occurring in the cells which is working synergistically with the more usual galvanic action to store the excess energy converted from heat
Mark has suggested that this heat might be arriving in the form of IR energy, with the cell acting as a kind of solar cell but responsive to the IR spectrum
i'm not equipped to measure those kinds of energy forms, so i can't comment on that
as far as the development of this particular battery is concerned, this is the fourth combination of metals and/or electrolyte with which i've experimented:-
- first of all i tested Cu & Al foil with just paper separator and starch glue as electrolyte
- secondly i replaced those metals with Ni & Zn foil
- thirdly i tested the original foils with honey, paper & starch
- finally i tried the present combination
since starting this thread, i've noticed a few other experiments on this forum which are reporting the same thermoelectric behaviour (all galvanic-related cells, all low-current, recharged by ambient heat) - although the cell construction varies quite significantly amongst them (and differs from the cells in my experiment)
my next development for this experiment is a baseline system with a similar circuit as load, in a similar enclosure, but using two NiMH cells in series as a battery
these NiMHs are both 1.24V nominal but have been in a discharged state for some months and their present total on-load voltage is 2.21V
i'll be monitoring the voltage and temperature of this system for a general comparison with the DIY cell behaviour (the two enclosures are adjacent)
in addition i'll be monitoring the (also enclosed) third DIY cell's open-circuit voltage & temperature, so i can report back on the thermal characteristic of an unloaded DIY cell
(@XS-NRG & @Omni - if you're going to have a pi$$ing contest then do it in your own threads)
yes did you ever heat up or even boil battery acid?
it speeds up the thermal motion within the liquid.
direct heat to electricity conversion.
i offered it years ago but it was dismissed because of it's toxity.
offcource you must understand that there is always a way around these problems but the person dismissing it didn't understand that because he was a Clown.
Now, that's more exotic an explanation than I'm used to. My approach is to explore the conventional avenues first. At this point I can't see how the circuit would have a different role than what it's role is according to conventional electric theory. You've explained it well and there's something very clever about the circuit even in conventional terms. Also, a battery is a battery, it's emf is due to difference in chemical potentials and I can't see how such difference in chemical potentials (in fact, electrochemical potentials) can be developed just by draining heat from the environment, be it radiant or through conduction.
As for @XS-NRG spam, I agree, someone should take care of him and of couple of other spammers who have invaded the forum.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 07, 2011, 07:18:07 PM
As for @MrMag spam, I agree, someone should take care of him and of couple of other spammers who have invaded the forum.
Who is the one writing "Spam" under valid comments all the time?
It is you Clown.
And i'm not Mr Mag so get your story straight buddy.
Quote from: XS-NRG on January 07, 2011, 07:17:31 PM
yes did you ever heat up or even boil battery acid?
it speeds up the thermal motion within the liquid.
direct heat to electricity conversion.
i offered it years ago but it was dismissed because of it's toxity.
offcource you must understand that there is always a way around these problems but the person dismissing it didn't understand that because he was a Clown.
spam
See that's exactly what i mean.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 07, 2011, 07:18:07 PM
Now, that's more exotic an explanation than I'm used to. My approach is to explore the conventional avenues first. At this point I can't see how the circuit would have a different role than what it's role is according to conventional electric theory. You've explained it well and there's something very clever about the circuit even in conventional terms. Also, a battery is a battery, it's emf is due to difference in chemical potentials and I can't see how such difference in chemical potentials (in fact, electrochemical potentials) can be developed just by draining heat from the environment, be it radiant or through conduction.
Spam.
The evidence is mounting up....
Perpetual batteries from Vasilescu-Karpen
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10208.0
MONOTHERMAL Energy from Ambient Heat
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10190.0
Crystal Power CeLL by John Hutchison
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=972.0
New heat to electrical energy converer based on new battery cell
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=885.0
Marcus Reid crystal battery news !
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=556.0
...'no smoke without fire' as they used to say in Pompeii ;)
As far as I can see, some are claiming to have come upon Batteries based on principles other than the electrochemical principles a battery functions. So, it's about a battery. In your case, on the other hand, the battery is a conventional electrochemical system but the effect of maintaining and even increasing its voltage despite the slight current provided to a load is due to a specific schematic attached to it. That seems to me is a different approach than that of Hutchison or Vasilescu-Karpen. In both cases, however, the main concern is the reality of the effect (of producing useful work at the expense of only one thermal reservoir) in view of the very low output. Low-level anomalies are always suspect and almost always may be attributed to trivial causes or errors in measurement. So it will be interesting to see what the discussed additional experiments will show and think of other experiments too. All aiming at establishing the reality of the effect. The best, of course would be if you could increase the power levels to such values that can be studied with equipment people have around here.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 08, 2011, 09:24:39 AM
The best, of course would be if you could increase the power levels to such values that can be studied with equipment people have around here.
If you had the right equipment, you wouldn't need to increase the power level.
I know I shouldn't even mention this. As soon as Omnibot is questioned, or you point something out to him, his reply is to spam your post.
Quote from: MrMag on January 08, 2011, 11:06:05 AM
If you had the right equipment, you wouldn't need to increase the power level.
I know I shouldn't even mention this. As soon as Omnibot is questioned, or you point something out to him, his reply is to spam your post.
Don't spam the threads.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 08, 2011, 09:24:39 AM
As far as I can see, some are claiming to have come upon Batteries based on principles other than the electrochemical principles a battery functions. So, it's about a battery.
some
...but not all
however, this is precisely the point of my previous post: a variety of quite different battery configurations are being reported as having similar self-sustaining/recharging operation, with any excess energy most likely gained from the ambient environment
so actually, the evidence is starting to point to a deeper level than the battery specifics
Quote from: Omnibus on January 08, 2011, 09:24:39 AM
In your case, on the other hand, the battery is a conventional electrochemical system
you think that my system (a dissimilar-metal setup, using an electrolyte with no dissolved electrode metals) is more conventional than, say, the Werner Henze cell which not only uses dissimilar metals but which also employs electrolytes with soluble metal salts of the electrode?
Quote from: Omnibus on January 08, 2011, 09:24:39 AM
the effect of maintaining and even increasing its voltage despite the slight current provided to a load is due to a specific schematic attached to it.
what evidence leads you to believe that it is the load circuit which is providing all the excess energy to the system?
Quote from: Omnibus on January 08, 2011, 09:24:39 AM
Low-level anomalies are always suspect and almost always may be attributed to trivial causes or errors in measurement.
i'd agree if this stage of the experiment actually involved making low-level measurements ...but it doesn't
at the moment, we're observing whether an on-load terminal voltage increases, decreases, or remains the same - and we're also monitoring time and temperature
hardly rocket science!
we're discussing measurements of:-
- ambient temperature at values around 20 Centigrade with, say, ~ +/-10 deg variation;
- on-load terminal voltage at around 2V, range ~ 400mV;
- time in units of hours and minutes
none of these measurements should be particularly taxing, even for any entry-level hobbyists on the forum
one of the few low-level variables in this system is the current draw of the circuit
it is no more and no less than is required by this particular circuit to enable it to continue operating correctly (ie. flash its LED at approx 0.25Hz)
(this would also be the case if the load was an LCD clock, say - as used by some of the other experiments mentioned earlier - the total power delivered, over several years, being greater than the Ah capacity of the relevant commercial cells)
Quote from: Omnibus on January 08, 2011, 09:24:39 AM
The best, of course would be if you could increase the power levels to such values that can be studied with equipment people have around here.
at present, as i mentioned earlier, the load drive capability is not under consideration
the experiment is currently aimed at establishing whether or not we have a self-sustaining system, capable of recharging itself thermoelectrically from the environment
if we do, then it would be appropriate to move on to discover more about the overall mechanism by which this is happening - and learn how to scale it up
but for the moment, "the proof of the pudding" as they say, "is in the (h)eating"
Quote from: Omnibus on January 08, 2011, 11:41:53 AM
Don't spam the threads.
I agree, why don't you go play with your SMOT. It's the only real OU device out there isn't it.
Quote from: MrMag on January 08, 2011, 03:09:40 PM
I agree, why don't you go play with your SMOT. It's the only real OU device out there isn't it.
Spam, Hahaha, beat you to it Omnibot
Hi Omnibus,
please stop your SPAM postings,
otherwise I have to set you on read only.
Come on man, how old are you ?
Can´t we discuss this in a normal manner ?
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan. (admin)
Hi Stefan ...thank you ...is there any way to add an argue or disagree button ,that would send the poster' to a new area so as not to clog up the thread with pages of worthless crap. My computer is super slow it takes minutes to load pages very dissappointing when all you read is two people bad mouthing each other,and has nothing to do with the topic at hand. If anybody is interested in the arguement then they can go and read and respond if they so wish.......time is to short to waste it .......thanx ....shylo
thanks for your help, Stefan
i'll get back to you if these members continue to behave like this
regards
sandy
Quote from: hartiberlin on January 08, 2011, 04:43:13 PM
Hi Omnibus,
please stop your SPAM postings,
otherwise I have to set you on read only.
Come on man, how old are you ?
Can´t we discuss this in a normal manner ?
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan. (admin)
Hi Stefan,
I know you're not following these threads closely and that's why you might have missed that it's not me but several posters that are the actual spammers. I do not complain to you because I know you have many other things to do than to clean threads from spam that's why you have it reversed. Please review the the recent threads to see that the warnings should be directed specifically to @MrMag, @XS-NRG, @osiris as well as probably one or two other posters. These, especially the first two have been disruptive, abusive and have contributed noting to the discussions. You may verify this yourself.
Stefan, you know that so far I have never complained to you about participants abusing the forum. From this moment on, however, I am warning anyone who makes even a single attempt to abuse the forum with spam, unrelated postings let alone clutter it with obvious nonsense, even if his posting are not directed to me, that he will be reported to Stefan without delay.
The anove in not to say that there should be no constructive criticism and many participants know that I am one of those practicing it the most here. However, there is a difference between constructive criticism, providing arguments, and blabber, filling the forum with gibberish without proper argumentation.
I expect your prompt response to this complaint.
Thakns in advance.
Quote from: nul-points on January 08, 2011, 05:53:22 PM
thanks for your help, Stefan
i'll get back to you if these members continue to behave like this
regards
sandy
Please review this and some other of the latest forums and correct yourself in a letter to Stefan. It is not "these members" but concretely @MrMag and @XS-NRG. I have not started this and you should fairly reflect that in your letter to Stefan. Thanks.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 08, 2011, 10:11:22 PM
Please review this and some other of the latest forums and correct yourself in a letter to Stefan. It is not "these members" but concretely @MrMag and @XS-NRG. I have not started this and you should fairly reflect that in your letter to Stefan. Thanks.
Sorry Sandy and Stefan for the off topic litter. It's just really hard to put up with certain people and their demands. Just look at his latest post telling you to correct your letter. Not apologetic at all just finger pointing. In the schoolyard we knew how to handle a tattletale. You can't even disagree with him or he attacks you.
I will let you deal with him yourself and refrain from correcting him any further.
Again, I am sorry for this and feel free to remove my posts.
Quote
Please review this and some other of the latest forums and correct yourself in a letter to Stefan.
It is not "these members" ...{{SNIP}}...
I have not started this and you should fairly reflect that in your letter to Stefan. Thanks.
ok folks, for this one time only, i'm going to give you all some feedback about just how fair, or otherwise, i might have been:-
a) after i expressly asked for this behaviour in my thread to stop, three members continued to write multiple posts, consisting entirely of off-topic gibberish
you can judge for yourselves whether i was fair to these three - and all other members trying to follow this thread - in asking Stefan to apply some moderation here
b) after Stefan kindly followed up my request with the post above, and with a PM to me, i replied privately to thank him and point out that it appeared to me that one of the members was being 'hounded' across several threads by the other two, and that although this particular member had contributed to the disruption here, before and after being asked to stop, that he wasn't the one who started the trouble in this thread
i then posted public thanks to Stefan and indicated that i'd inform him of any repeat of the disruption
again, you can judge for yourselves just how fair i was to all concerned
i hope everyone here will also understand now when i say that i don't believe i need to write to Stefan to 'correct' myself
i note that only one of the three has offered any apology for contributing to the disruption of the thread
MrMag - apology accepted - a good example, of which we could all take note! ;)
let's do all of ourselves a favour: keep it on-topic, keep it civil
cheers
sandy
{{EDIT: clarified separate private & public responses to Stefan}}
Quotehe wasn't the one who started the trouble in this thread
Thanks.
My understanding is that, while, of course, the posts of the other two, contributing nothing to the discussion, should be removed despite of whether or not they want that and despite their appologies, if any, I believe my posts should remain (except for the replies to those disruptive elements, which I should have never bothered to write) because they are on the topic. Further, I believe, those two disruptive elements and some other who appeared recently in the forum should recieve either restricted access or should be banned altogether, especially if they continue to destroy the discussions. On the other hand I maintain that constructive criticism should be encouraged and should not be confused for the damaging effect to the exchanges some recent activists have demonstrated. This forum has witnessed from time to time similar attacks in the past but hopefully it has been able to restore its healthy functioning.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 09, 2011, 02:37:36 AM
On the other hand I maintain that constructive criticism should be encouraged and should not be confused for the damaging effect to the exchanges some recent activists have demonstrated.
this moderator action was not in response to any on-topic posts (either positive or 'constructive criticism')
moderation was requested for, and applied in, this thread because three members persisted in submitting multiple posts of off-topic gibberish, after being requested to stop
Quote
although this particular member had contributed to the disruption here, before and after being asked to stop, ... he wasn't the one who started the trouble in this thread
thanks
sandy
Quote from: Omnibus on January 08, 2011, 10:07:50 PM
and many participants know that I am one of those practicing it the most here.
Look who's talking mister "Spam" himself.
You are the one Posting Spam under valid posts from other members.
SO don't act like the innocent little girl cos you ain't buddy.
Quote from: XS-NRG on January 09, 2011, 12:17:14 PM
Look who's talking mister "Spam" himself.
You are the one Posting Spam under valid posts from other members.
SO don't act like the innocent little girl cos you ain't buddy.
Jeez.. Is that OmniBot creature still here?
Mr.Spam "the meister" himself?
Fantastic!
WoW ,...........You guys really need to find somwhere else to play...............shylo
not you Nul points
No things just need to settle that's all.
The best way is still the ancient way to boil water for steam pressure and drive a turbine with it to generate electricity.
I do not know of any other high effecient methodes to convert heat into electricity.
Do you?
Excess Energy, I find that statement very interesting,the small cells I have totally respond to heat as well as pressure,(apply more pressure you get more heat,or apply more heat you get more pressure)..I believe it has to do with compressing the substructure but this does not account for how magnets seem to avoid these variances'.........I have a long way to go......shylo
@nul-points,
I'd be curious to see your reaction to what's going on above will be and whether you will report it to Stefan. Are you going to put me on par with these same disruptive elements again?
Quote from: shylo on January 09, 2011, 08:12:53 PM
the small cells I have totally respond to heat as well as pressure,(apply more pressure you get more heat,or apply more heat you get more pressure)..I believe it has to do with compressing the substructure but this does not account for how magnets seem to avoid these variances'
hi shylo
cell operation usually involves some level of chemical activity (avoiding the whole 'contact-potential/chemical' debate here).
any chemical activity is subject to the relationship between Temperature, Pressure and Volume in which the chemical mix is situated
what you're most likely seeing is that by forcing one (or two) of these three parameters to change it's possible to affect the other(s).
the rate or state of the chemical activity may be affected as a result
in our area of interest (voltage cells), the usual variable which might be under our control is temperature.
however, physical movement of the internal structure can also improve chemical mix and reduce ion path distances to improve performance - but then, as you say, you're providing additional external energy to achieve this
i see you were asking about some aspects of the Vasilescu-Karpen battery.
my French isn't great, but i get the gist, in the 'power from ambient' PDF, that VK found that he could generate voltage if he used two fairly unreactive electrodes of the same metal(eg, platinum), with different size or thickness, and with water as the electrolyte.
he recognised this as a 'concentration' type cell.
if he replaced the platinum electrodes with gold then the voltage increased slightly.
he replaced the water with air and could still generate (reduced) voltage - but if he removed the air the voltage disappeared.
so the most active cell operation obviously relies on transport of ions between the electrodes.
his research was directed towards finding combinations of electrodes and electrolyte(s) which didn't consume the electrode metals.
the battery in the museum which is still operational after 60 years uses very pure sulphuric acid as the electrolyte
i prefer to experiment with more easily obtained, and non-hazardous, chemicals as electrolytes in my DIY cell described here in this thread - hence i use starch and honey.
also i'm currently using different metals for my electrodes, so my cell is related to the family of galvanic rather than concentration types
if you haven't already started a thread on your cell experiments, why not get something going?
as you can see from my list of threads above, there seems to be a growing body of evidence that it's possible to generate excess electricity using ambient heat, based on variations of voltage cell techniques.
all the threads listed use quite different approaches, so there is plenty of room for individual contribution to knowledge in this field.
it's a co-operative rather than competitive investigation of some fundamental mechanism which has been denied and/or avoided by 'mainstream' science due to insistence that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is an inherent mechanism of universal physics (which it's evidently not)
keep up the investigations!
@Omni
i've made it clear what is my attitude to thread-disruption
anyone who can stay within my guidelines of keeping posts on-topic (either positive, or constructive criticism) and civil doesn't need moderation here
my on-going communication with Stefan about disruption in general, and here in particular, will remain private unless one of us chooses to make it known
Quote from: Omnibus on January 07, 2011, 02:30:19 AM
It would have been interesting to measure the temperature dependence of the emf of an unattached battery and see if that regression curve you're showing of the voltage-time is non-trivial. If it is, as I suspect it is, then the ambient temperature differences as a source of the effect will be eliminated.
so, Omni,
while we're waiting for the data to accumulate on the additional voltage-time test on an unattached and unused cell, here's the opportunity for you to explain what you had in mind
let's identify the relevant outcome states:-
a) the data shows no correlation between temperature and terminal voltage
i) the o/c terminal voltage trend is increasing with time
ii) the o/c terminal voltage trend is not increasing with time
b) the data does show correlation between temperature and terminal voltage
i) the o/c terminal voltage trend is increasing with time
ii) the o/c terminal voltage trend is not increasing with time
ok - so those are the 4 pertinent outcomes
for the benefit of our readers:
- to which of these 4 outcomes were you referring above? ("...If it is, as i suspect it is...")
- if your intuition proves correct about that outcome, what do you think we'll have learnt as a result, about the system under test?
looking forward to hearing your answers to these two questions
thanks
sandy
@nul-point,
If the variation of the emf with temperature is what is expected to be and in both cases (attached and unattached cell) a raising voltage-time trend is observed then we should look more carefully into the unattached cell to see what is causing it to self-charge just by sitting in the lab, unattended. We don't even need to bother with the cell with the attached additional schematics to it.
If it is, however, seen that the emf variation with the temperature when cell is attached does not correlate with that dependence of the unattached cell, that would be even more interesting even if in both cases (attached and unattached cell) the voltage goes up in time. In that case not only we have to study what causes the voltage increase in time of the unattached cell but also why the cell connected to the schematic exhibits that anomalous temperature dependence.
Of course, the really interesting case would be if the unattached cell not only demonstrates a different emf-temperature dependence but also that same unattached cell performs as any known cell would -- its voltage-time culre sloping down to lower emf -- while the attached cell reproduces the behavior you are reporting.
Now, of course, I'd like to know more about your view of the possible mechanism underlyng your findings, if real, as well as discuss what we've learned form the test but before that I'd like to see the result from the parallel experiment. That's more systematic, I think.
@Omni
ok, so if i interpret your answer correctly, your 1st para relates to outcome b-i)
(unattached cell voltage correlates with temp & voltage-time shows rising trend)
your second para relates to outcome a-i)
(unattached cell voltage does not correlate with temp but voltage-time still shows rising trend)
your third para relates to outcome a-ii)
(unattached cell voltage does not correlate with temp & voltage-time does not show rising trend)
interestingly, you don't comment on the possibility of outcome b-ii)
(unattached cell voltage still correlates with temp but voltage-time doesn't show rising trend)
i only have a few days data so far for the unattached cell, so it's too early yet to start drawing any conclusions
(also, i accidentally flexed the cell foil when attempting to make a reading in the second 24hr period, which will have disturbed the state of the cell somewhat, so allowance will need to made for the system to settle again before resuming interpretation of subsequent readings)
what i find interesting about your intended interpretation of my upcoming test data is that you expect to be able to draw conclusions about a cell-system's behaviour independently from its on-load state (ie. "...We don't even need to bother with the cell with the attached additional schematics to it.")
while i agree that there are some useful things to observe about the unattached cell itself (eg. we might expect some degree of temperature-dependence in the off-load voltage, or observe a self-discharge rate, say), the electrochemical activity of operational cells is so much bound up with the internal transport of ions caused by changes in electrode charge, due to electron transport in the external circuit, that i'm surprised you're suggesting an individual component-based, rather than holistic, approach towards understanding this self-sustaining behaviour of the cells
anyway, whatever the eventual outcome of my additional tests, i feel that there will be more features of interest to learn about this particular corner of our energy investigations
at the moment, all i can do is report the data which shows a trend of steady increase in on-load battery voltage of my DIY cells and a high degree of thermal coefficient and correlation with ambient temperature - so i think it's safe to say that excess electrical energy in this system will have been converted, to a large extent, from some aspect of environmental heat
i also think it's significant that many other threads are now, or have previously been, reporting similar behaviour of cells, even when the actual cell construction can be quite different between them all
interesting days!
@nul-points,
Whether or not there's anomalous temperature dependence can be established sooner by placing attached and unattached cell in a thermostat and have the voltages measured when thermostat is set at different temperatures. I would do that first. More tedious is to study the long term behavior of both cells at constant temperature. Of course, combined effect of time and random temperature change may be th e reason for what you observe so long time comparison of the behavior of the two types of battery should be performed, independent of the above studies. Both temperature and time anomaly, if they are real, would be quite interesting. So, like I said, the reality of either effect is to be guaranteed and that comparison study seems to be a way to do it. It may reveal also some unexpected behavior of the particular cell you're using, attached or not.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 11, 2011, 07:21:01 AM
Whether or not there's anomalous temperature dependence can be established sooner by placing attached and unattached cell in a thermostat and have the voltages measured when thermostat is set at different temperatures...{{SNIP}}
More tedious is to study the long term behavior of both cells at constant temperature.
Of course, combined effect of time and random temperature change may be the reason for what you observe so long time comparison of the behavior of the two types of battery should be performed, independent of the above studies.
yes, not quite sure what you're intending to say here...
the present tests aren't at a constant temperature
as you can see from the graph in the first posts, they're cycling slowly with room temperature (presently between approx 15 degC and 22 degC,), so the voltages are already being measured at different temperatures
i agree that tests will still need to be carried out at different
constant temperatures
the ambient test results which i've described above are the second round of thermal response tests i've run with this system configuration
my very first test, run immediately after cell construction, used a USB driven heater to provide an operating-environment temperature for the cells around 30+degC - the intention of the test being to determine whether the system could self-sustain operation with the input of heat additional to ambient
i could see that the voltage-time trend was steadily increasing - and in fact, it was approaching the limit of my highest resolution datalogging channel (2V +/-0.25%), and i had to keep dropping the excess heat input
so, as a result of the emerging behaviour which i observed in that first round of tests, i decided to re-order the tests so that i could check how the system responded just to ambient temperatures - the object being, of course, to see if the system gave any indication that it could self-sustain operation for an indefinite period of time
this test, although 'tedious', does have the benefit of reducing the options for people to argue whether the system operation is truly self-sustaining
when i move on from the present stage of cyclic ambient heat input, i can setup a thermostat-controlled operation for the heater so that i can observe the steady-state operation of the attached & unattached cells
@nul-points,
I'm waiting with interest the results of your studies so that we can continue the discussion in more concrete terms. Good luck.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 12, 2011, 11:18:41 AM
I'm waiting with interest the results of your studies so that we can continue the discussion in more concrete terms. Good luck.
thanks - the good news is that the DIY cell driving an LED flasher circuit is still showing a net increase in charge, with the present on-load terminal voltage trend >1.9V and rising
the experiment has been running non-stop for over 550 hours now (including a week when it was re-located from South UK to a log cabin in the 'frozen' North!)
the 'not-so-good' news is that the more recent secondary test of an unattached cell is not, at present, giving a consistent outcome:
the first few readings showed a clear correlation with the ambient temperature cycle in the room, then after i accidentally disturbed the cell the correlation has become very tenuous
so it's not clear at the moment if its a type a) or type b) outcome (as in the list i defined earlier)
however, the voltage-time trend is not rising, in fact it appears to decrease slightly compared to the trend of ambient temperature
i'm going to give this 'sidebar' test a full week to see if the outcome becomes more clear, but i don't intend to spend more time on it than that
i'm attaching a preliminary snapshot of the unattached cell data so you can see what i mean
i mentioned previously that, in any case, a test on an unattached cell would be of limited value since the useful internal behaviour of a cell is so intimitely bound up with the external electrical activity - and that test is already in progress with the DIY cell driving the LED circuit
there will also be things to learn from my recently-started control test of some commercial re-chargeables connected to a similar circuit load as in my DIY cell test - at least that new test appears to be proceeding without any issues
correction - the experiment has been running non-stop for nearly 900 hours now (cells first connected to circuit just after midnight of 8th Dec 2010)
the DIY cells which are driving an LED Flasher circuit continue to both power the circuit and increase in charge, as they've done throughout the lifetime of the 2 cells so far
the voltage/temperature graph for the period following the additional heat input run, up to present date, is shown below
the excess electrical energy which is charging the cells, even as they power the circuit, appears to be converted from ambient heat by the electrochemical activity within the cells, since the system is completely disconnected from any other electrical equipment, it's contained in a steel case and it's located in a darkened room
i'm also now posting the voltage/temperature data for an unattached DIY cell below
there appears to be a slight temperature dependence but the unattached cell does not show a voltage-time trend which increases
this 'sidebar' test is now ended
a 'control' experiment has recently been started, using two discharged 1000mAh NiMH cells to power a similar circuit to the main experiment
it's too early yet to see long-term cell behaviour, as we can now with the main DIY cell results, but it's evident that the commercial cells also have some temperature dependence, although not as great as the DIY cell
the NiMH circuit test also showed an on-load terminal voltage trend which was increasing initially, but it appears to have peaked and may now be starting to decrease
i'll post the voltage/temperature graph for the NiMH cct test as more data becomes available
Very interesting. So, unattached cell shows the expected behavior. There is something going on when the described schematic is attached to the cell.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 15, 2011, 07:02:29 PM
Very interesting. So, unattached cell shows the expected behavior. There is something going on when the described schematic is attached to the cell.
yes, an external circuit is important and necessary - but we can't read too much into that wrt the present circuit, at this stage
as i mentioned earlier, a battery has an almost 'symbiotic' relationship with its external load, in terms of enabling the battery's internal ion transport processes to function
so any load at all will differentiate very strongly between the behaviour of these loaded cells - self-sustaining/charging on-load for 900 hours now since construction - and that unattached cell of the same construction and build date which, by contrast, has just decreased in terminal voltage in the same period
a key feature of this particular load is that the load cycle is asymmetric:
- there is a slow, relatively low-level discharge from the cells, followed by a sharp peaked pulse of recharge, fed back to the ballast capacitor, which gets smoothed by C1 and L1 before helping to maintain charge on the battery
cheers
sandy
This almost sounds like homeopathy. Microamps of current is practically zero current. I don't see how this can affect the ion transport such that the latter would spontaneously turn lower energy components into components of higher energy state. Related to this is the asymmetry of the load cycle -- have you actually measured these low level currents and their asymmetry or it's just a supposition based on the functionality of the schematic?
Of course, an experimental fact when it is firmly established has the priority. I find it highly significant that the unattached battery demonstrates the expected behavior unlike the attached. I think this experiment should be tested independently and if the effect is confirmed we may need to change probably some of our understanding on some fundamental level as to how the electrochemical systems really function.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 17, 2011, 06:02:42 AM
This almost sounds like homeopathy. Microamps of current is practically zero current.
hardly
microamps are certainly not going to turn your auto starter motor - but they are the necessary level of current to power an LCD timer on your CH boiler, drive your pacemaker, or power your PC real-time clock chip - any EE will tell you that microamps are a legitimate and useful level of current in the correct application areas
microamps will quite happily discharge any value of capacitor - it's just a matter of time
so let's not fool ourselves into thinking that 'microamps' effectively means zero amps!
there are three major states for ANY voltage cell:
a) externally supplied voltage is greater than inherent cell voltage
this is the 'electrolysis' state when electrical energy is taken from the external supply and converted to 'chemical' energy within the cell
b) cell voltage exactly = any external circuit voltage
no energy in or out of cell - resting state of system - equilibrium
c) cell voltage greater than that of an external circuit
this is the regular 'galvanic' cell action - internal 'chemical' energy in the cell is converted into electrical energy due to external flow of electrons between the electrodes causing an equal flow of ions, within the cell, between the electrodes
these states are true regardless of whether the current is amps or picoamps (and, as we know, picoamps are 1000000 times smaller than microamps)
yes, i have measured the asymmetry of the load cycle - the load & buffer voltage profiles, as seen on a scope, are as i described above
this self-sustaining/charging action of cells is not unique to my DIY cells - as i mentioned above, several threads on OU.com have also described similar behaviour
this leads me to believe that we're observing something independent of these cells particular characteristics, and instead what we're seeing is a more fundamental thermo-electrochemical behaviour driven by the difference in 'work-function' of dissimilar metals (or similar metals, but in different 'concentration) driving ion transport between the electrodes with reduced electrode corrosion and with significant energy contribution being made to the usual electrochemical activity by ambient heat
my guess is that this possibility is initially most likely to be observed exactly down at the low-current area of operation
it's happening - the data shows it - voltage cells (mine & other peoples') are self-sustaining/charging with a continual electrical load
our response now should be to see if & how we can start to recreate this phenomenon further and further away from the equilibrium state of the cells
interesting times!
sandy
I know we're splitting hairs here since the points you make are correct but there's a quantitative side in terms of chemical conversion to the flow of charges. Milliamps of current flowing correspond to negligible quantity of moles of substance being converted. And substances have to be converted into other substances in order for a battery to be recharged. In the case at hand we're practically at equillibrium and yet the battery is being charged. Indeed it would be even more amazing if energy is dissipated from the battery and yet it would still keep on charging, that is, when the battery is away from equilibrium (working as a galvanic cell) and still being charged.
As for your explanation that "what we're seeing is a more fundamental thermo-electrochemical behaviour driven by the difference in 'work-function' of dissimilar metals (or similar metals, but in different 'concentration) driving ion transport between the electrodes with reduced electrode corrosion and with significant energy contribution being made to the usual electrochemical activity by ambient heat" there needs to be a temperature gradient for that, working opposite to the way the temperature gradient normally works, correct? Otherwise, I don't see how the metal work functions will behave in the new way you're describing.
As a matter of fact, I'm observing something similar to having a galvanic cell dissipating energy and yet being chagrged but in a different context. And that has apparently been missed in the very standard theory of electricity. You may want to take a look at the data which I posted here: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10177.0 . From these data it is seen that not only the output energy, when a simple RC filter is powered at certain conditions, is greater than the input power but there isn't any input power per se because all of it is returned back to the source (the input power is negative). And that is a purely theoretical analysis, independent of any experiment. In addition, experiment also shows such discrepancy. So, the excess energy in this case is due to the saving from the input. This is a violation of the first law, not of the second law. I wonder if there could be any connection with what you're observing.
i understand what you're saying, Omni, but the truth is that only *exactly* at equilibrium, state b), is a cell truly at rest
[a cell's major states a), b) & c) as defined above]
the *slightest* voltage disparity (positive OR negative) between the cell and an external circuit will start the process for state a) or state c)
in fact, the definition for a reversible thermodynamic reaction is that an infinitesimal change (positive or negative) will drive the reaction out of equilibrium in the associated direction
the no. of available ions in the electrolyte at any time will limit the maximum current which can flow (for either charging or discharging)
but the charging, or discharging, current can be as low as you like (ignoring quantum effects here) - because arranging for the current to vary continuously from +ve to -ve (ie. from any starting values of discharge to charge) WILL pass through 0 Amps (=0 mA = 0 uA = 0 pA, etc)
on the way you'll have passed thro' smaller and smaller +ve currents then, after equilibrium, increasing through tiny to larger -ve currents
=========
temperature gradients are required by heat pumps but not by galvanic/electrolysis action:
the Nernst equation, for half-cell reactions, combines the standard reduction potential from the Gibbs Free energy & the reaction quotient, Q, to determine the voltage driving the reaction
it relies on only one temperature:
E(volts) = Estandard - (RT/nF)lnQ
where T is an absolute temperature (ie. not a temp difference)
(R & F are constants, n is no. electrons in the half-cell equation)
=========
Interesting study you did with the RC circuit - and the experimental data backed up the theory?
i'm not discounting the possibility, but i don't see how my DIY cell's self-sustaining behaviour might map onto the 'saving from the input' mechanism you see in the RC circuit analysis
however, i'm wondering if the paper:
"Recycled Noise Rectification: A Dumb Maxwell’s Daemon" by M. Borromeo, et al
(Google for the PDF)
might be a closer fit to your own studies? the paper proves that it's possible to create a Maxwell's Demon by a 1D combination of delayed 'noise' (random or periodic) signal and the original signal on say, a charged Brownian particle, to cause a net current
so - is it possible that the RC circuit is providing just such a delay? see what you think
===========
finally - the 'sidebar' experiment is back on (all bets recalled)!
for some reason, my subconscious told me to go back & check the unattached cell i'd been testing... sure enough i'd been using an earlier Zn Ni cell, not the Zn Cu cell (as used in my ongoing self-sustaining/charging DIY cell experiment
so - watch this space - more unattached cell data to follow in due course
don't expect too much difference tho' because i see that the off-load voltage is still ~0.88V, similar to its initial construction value, so it hasn't increased with time like the on-load versions in the experiment
anyhow, i'll redo a week's worth of voltage/temp measurements and report back
cheers
sandy
Quote from: nul-points on January 18, 2011, 02:14:08 AM
...
=========
temperature gradients are required by heat pumps but not by galvanic/electrolysis action:
the Nernst equation, for half-cell reactions, combines the standard reduction potential from the Gibbs Free energy & the reaction quotient, Q, to determine the voltage driving the reaction
it relies on only one temperature:
E(volts) = Estandard - (RT/nF)lnQ
where T is an absolute temperature (ie. not a temp difference)
(R & F are constants, n is no. electrons in the half-cell equation)
=========
...
Thanks for the equation. It is a very interesting point that opens a way for a theoretical explanation of Karpen's battery, which is the object of an another thread (see http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10208.0).
The principle is: if we choose electrodes that do not react with the electrolyte, we still have a potential difference. If a current is drawn, as there is no chemical reaction, the electrical energy comes only from the environment heat, the solution cools down (then the cell polarizes and we must open the circuit before restarting a cycle later when it will have recovered its voltage).
or, as i said above:
Quote from: nul-points on January 17, 2011, 08:54:25 AM
this leads me to believe that we're observing something independent of these cells particular characteristics, and instead what we're seeing is a more fundamental thermo-electrochemical behaviour driven by the difference in 'work-function' of dissimilar metals (or similar metals, but in different 'concentration) driving ion transport between the electrodes with reduced electrode corrosion and with significant energy contribution being made to the usual electrochemical activity by ambient heat
[...]
it's happening - the data shows it - voltage cells (mine & other peoples') are self-sustaining/charging with a continual electrical load
@nul-points,
Thanks for the link. I'm unable to open any of the links it's supposed to be in but I'll try again later.
Aslo, it's great you'll be doing more of the parallel studies with the unattached cell. I was just going to suggest that. In my opinion it's a very important comparison to do.
Now, in terms of the Nernst equation, notice, that equation is valid only at equilibrium (it is sometimes used in kinetics too but only tentatively). Also, it refers to the potential of just one electrode and not of a potential difference such as the emf of a battery. Further, whether or not the electrochemical system is at equilibrium or not is not determined by the potential but by the current that passes through it. Thus, conditions may be created whereby an electrochemical process (I mean process, that is exhibiting observable current) even when the overpotential is totally eliminated and the electrodes are at their corresponding equilibrium potentials. I have a way of doing it which I have not discussed before and I won't get into it here either because the topic at hand is different. So, under such conditions (carrying out the process reversibly at the equilibrium potentials) we may be able to spend only the deltaG of the reaction (say, electrolysis of water) which means that after producing the hydrogen we may burn it and obtain the enthalpy deltaH, thus "extracting" for free the bound energy TdeltaS from the environment. Thus, we will have about 22% more heat to use than the energy we've spent to produce it. That's standard thermodynamics, it's largely overlooked but I don't see at this point how it would apply to your interesting experiment.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 18, 2011, 09:53:38 AM
Now, in terms of the Nernst equation, notice, that equation is valid only at equilibrium (it is sometimes used in kinetics too but only tentatively). Also, it refers to the potential of just one electrode and not of a potential difference such as the emf of a battery. Further, whether or not the electrochemical system is at equilibrium or not is not determined by the potential but by the current that passes through it. Thus, conditions may be created whereby an electrochemical process (I mean process, that is exhibiting observable current) even when the overpotential is totally eliminated and the electrodes are at their corresponding equilibrium potentials. I have a way of doing it which I have not discussed before and I won't get into it here either because the topic at hand is different. So, under such conditions (carrying out the process reversibly at the equilibrium potentials) we may be able to spend only the deltaG of the reaction (say, electrolysis of water) which means that after producing the hydrogen we may burn it and obtain the enthalpy deltaH, thus "extracting" for free the bound energy TdeltaS from the environment. Thus, we will have about 22% more heat to use than the energy we've spent to produce it. That's standard thermodynamics, it's largely overlooked but I don't see at this point how it would apply to your interesting experiment.
whoa - too much information for a first date! :)
i was just pointing out that the driver (which is a potential) for a cell reaction (and emf potential arises from two half-cell reactions) is due to absolute temperature not a temperature difference (gradient)
the current follows from the combination of the potential, and the internal and external impedances
so - we shouldn't be surprised that we can obtain energy in something which is immersed in a single temperature, rather than having a temperature drop across the system
eg. when we boil an egg, it gains energy from its ambient environment all around - we don't need to only submerse it half-in the water and half-out (although that would also work in boiling the egg, eventually, by conduction inside the egg, of course)
in other words, the cell gains electrochemical energy just by being in an environment at a given temperature - whereas a heat engine, say, requires a temperature gradient to provide the driving force
your hints at other experience of cells sounds intriguing - i've heard of an energy disparity in electrolysis of water, but seen no first-hand data yet
hopefully we'll hear more of that in due course
hoping to upload that PDF here, if upload restrictions allow
Quote from: Omnibus on January 18, 2011, 09:53:38 AM
...
whether or not the electrochemical system is at equilibrium or not is not determined by the potential but by the current that passes through it.
...
False statement. There can be no equilibrium and no current, for example with temperature change or chemical reactions which can appear without current, and it can be observed by the potential variation.
Quote from: exnihiloest on January 20, 2011, 06:15:56 AM
False statement. There can be no equilibrium and no current, for example with temperature change or chemical reactions which can appear without current, and it can be observed by the potential variation.
It isn't clear at all what you wanted to say.
the 'sidebar' test on an unattached DIY Zn-Cu cell has only been running a couple of days so far, but it's starting to look similar to the results for the unattached DIY Zn-Ni cell:
- little or no correlation of the terminal voltage to the ambient temperature cycle;
- terminal voltage-time trend shows only decrease
the initial 'control' test using a similar LED flasher circuit as a load to 2x AAA NiMH 1.24V cells showed an on-load terminal voltage-time trend which increased for a few days, peaked, and then started to decrease
i've now increased the temperature cycle upper level for this control test
again, the on-load terminal voltage-time trend is showing an increase - but it's only a few days in so far
it'll be interesting to see if a greater heat input will affect its ability to self-sustain/charge the NiMH cells whilst on-load
meanwhile the main Zn-Cu DIY cell + LED flasher circuit combination continues to run and self-sustain/charge the cells at ambient room temperatures - heading towards its first 1000 hours of non-stop operation
i've reluctantly decided that from now on, instead of posting my OU results on overunity.com, i'll be posting all new data and experiment details to my website:
http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc
kudos & thanks to the one or two who realise the implications of achieving solid-state electricity-from-heat
to the rest: (as one of the characters in Douglas Adams' Hithchiker's Guide once said)
"keep rubbing the sticks together, guys"
sayonara arigato sushi ;)
details of another self-sustaining DIY cell now posted at my Blogspot page:
http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com/ (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com/)
thanks
np
cell-stack / load circuit #2 has now been operating continuously for 2 months and has so far achieved 1000 hours self-sustaining on-load
for Endurance Test graphs and details of related experiments:
click link--> doc ringwood's free energy blog (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
np
real experiments - real data!
cell-stack / load circuit #2 has now been operating continuously for 2.5 months and has so far achieved 2 months self-sustaining at 1.2V on-load (1460 hours)
for Endurance Test graphs and details of related experiments:
click link--> doc ringwood's free energy blog (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
np
real experiments - real data!
Quote from: nul-points on May 05, 2011, 06:23:27 AM
cell-stack / load circuit #2 has now been operating continuously for 2.5 months and has so far achieved 2 months self-sustaining at 1.2V on-load (1460 hours)
for Endurance Test graphs and details of related experiments:
click link--> doc ringwood's free energy blog (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
np
real experiments - real data!
nice work! thanks for sharing. i'll drink a pan-galactic gargle blaster in toast.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 05, 2011, 11:04:32 AM
i'll drink a pan-galactic gargle blaster in toast.
thanks
...a pan-galactic gargle blaster?
you'll be changing your name to WilbyWasted
cell-stack #2 & load circuit has now been operating continuously for over 3 months and has so far achieved 2900 hours self-sustaining on a low load
for Endurance Test graphs and details of related experiments:
click link--> doc ringwood's free energy blog (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com)
np
real experiments - real data!
my novel DIY cell + LED flasher system has now been self-sustaining at 1.2V for 5.5 months - ie. that's 4500 hours of continuous operation
the 2-cell battery was built on Feb 17th 2011 and the system started self-sustaining on March 5th
a control experiment, using a similar circuit and a commercial NiMH cell supply, showed a clear trend on its terminal voltage that the commercial cell was discharging, even over the shorter period of 250 hours (10.5 days)
obviously this is a very low-powered device - my personal interest at the moment is in providing documented evidence which can be placed in front of mainstream scientists and engineers just to show that the 'Laws of Physics' do NOT prevent a system from 'supplying its own power'
it's possible that these techniques could lead the way to developing larger capacity battery systems which 'self-charge' whilst in use
details of this device and additional examples via my blog link below:
bloglink-->http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com/2011/03/latest-on-load-voltage-graph-for-cell-2.html (http://docsfreelunch.blogspot.com/2011/03/latest-on-load-voltage-graph-for-cell-2.html)
thanks for reading
np
bringing you real experiments - and real data!