World's first real Free Energy Flashlight - no shaking - no batteries! No Solar

[citfta]

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

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

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

Respectfully,
Carroll

[MileHigh]

Brad:

When you say something like this:

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

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

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

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

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

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

Brad:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

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

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

Respectfully,
Carroll

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

MileHigh

[tinman]

Brad:

When you say something like this:





MileHigh

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

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

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

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

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


Brad