1. Home
  2. Electronics Design
  3. Eternal Electricity

Eternal Electricity

Would this work?

I got this idea when one of my solar charged sidewalk lights ran out of power after a cloudy day. Normally that light lasts all night.

I held a flashlight up to the solar cell charger panel, for a minute, and after turning off the flashlight, that solar light lit up for about a minute.

So, lets say I take a LED flashlight, fill it with (fully charged) rechargable batteries, and connect wires from a solar cell charger to those batteries. Then I shine the flashlight directly into the solar cell, and shield it so no light escapes.

That way, no light escapes, so ALL the light is used to recharge the batteries. Therefore, all energy that is used to light the LEDs in the flashlight is being converted back into electricity. Thus an endless cycle where the same energy is used over and over for eternity (or until the batteries die).

While there would be no usefullness to this gadget, since it would not produce any usable light, would it not become an endless source of electrical energy?

Reply to
boomer#6877250
Loading thread data ...

I think you should try to patent this as quickly as possible ;)

piglet

Reply to
piglet

I thought that even USPTO have finally wised up and stopped accepting applications for free energy and perpetual motion machines.

The OP would do well to note that PV panels are typically 10% efficient and single junctions max out at about 35% and that even the best multi layer research grade samples can barely manage 45% in white light eg

formatting link 

--
Regards, 
Martin Brown
Reply to
Martin Brown

lightbulbs are also inefficient

NT

Reply to
tabbypurr 

--
No. 

Even if the LEDs and PV cells were 100% efficient, there's resistance 
in the circuit, so the heat generated by moving the electrons around 
will eventually leave the system and drain the battery. 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/work.html 

John Fields
Reply to
John Fields

You're being mislead by the coincidence of exposure~=delivery time of your single experience.

You could disillusion yourself quite simply by extending or repeating the same experiment a number of times, but it might be quicker just to read up on your garden light (and its components).

Using only this type of emitter and collector of light, you should be able to see that any innitial energy stored up by one collector's battery will be rapidly lost in the emissive transfer to another identical collector, and the continual repeated exchange between the two.

The apparent equality of exposure and emission times in the one initial instance could be explained solely by the garden light's crude operating hysterisis, reacting to temporary stimulus of its ambient light detector.

RL

Reply to
legg

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 06:10:00 -0500, John Fields Gave us:

Damn! No "sumthin' fer nuthin'? Shucks!

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

Yes, but only in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas and parts of Florida.

Reply to
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred

Please review the laws of thermodynamics, and get back to us.

Here's the summary:

1: you can't win.

2: you can't even get ahead.

3: you can't get out of the game. 
--

Tim Wescott 
Wescott Design Services 
http://www.wescottdesign.com
Reply to
Tim Wescott

Then go start a "go-fund-me" project and become very rich. Obozo will help.

Reply to
Tom Miller

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 08:46:46 -0700 (PDT), snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com Gave us:

Most parts of Florida. Especially around where Casey Anthony is from.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

Try it and see what happens. There is no substitute for doing the experiment for learning about physics. If you manage to make the battery last even 5% longer then you will have done quite well.

Certain players notoriously manage to make a serious living out of pretending that they can void the established laws of thermodynamics.

LENR springs to mind as one such current high profile scheme to separate the gullible and credulous from their hard earned money.

The Hendershot (sp?) generator is another.

PT Barnum had it right.

Though he perhaps underestimated the number of suckers!

--
Regards, 
Martin Brown
Reply to
Martin Brown 

--
I heard it as: 

1: you can't win. 

2: you can't break even. 

3: you can't get out of the game. 

John Fields
Reply to
John Fields

Around here it is:

You cant win, You can't break even, You cannot even play the game...

Steve

Reply to
sroberts6328

Says the annoyance with no home.

Reply to
John S

The number of suckers are increasing exponentially with time. But, you know that.

Reply to
John S

I had the same idea whan I was a kid, motor+generator forever.

Which is why Cuba has such a great economy and leads the world in science and technology.

Cuba has 99% literacy. According to Cuba.

Seriously. And I mean it is serious. We cannot compete because we no longer have that edge. Companies don't just move out of the US for cheap wages, the also move out for educated workers. Bitch about China, go ahead but what about Germany ? Why aren't they bitching about China ?

Last year I interviewed a lot of intern applicants, some with EE degrees. Few could explain a 1K:1K voltage divider. Few could explain their own senior project. We found a young girl from Mexico, hired her as an intern, then hired her for real. She did this:

formatting link

She's working on a thermocouple simulator now.

Because we make things work. Because we have institutional memory. Because we're good at what we do.

Reply to
John Larkin

Don't you have to go arrange flowers or something, bitchy?

Reply to
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred

It was once eastablished that the world was flat! We can see that established laws are made to be broken..

I think if more people would think out side the box, we'd get ahead.

It seems that some insist in staying in the confines of that box that was molded for them.

There are countrys with cultures that do not allow their general population to think outside the box, the higher ups like it that way and for good reason.

Jamie

Reply to
M Philbrook

f
t

il

Low Energy Nuclear Reactions don't actually violate the established laws of thermodynamics, or at least they wouldn't if they took place (which they d on't seem to).

If deuterium could be persuade to fuse to He-4 by being adsorbed into a pal ladium substrate, one could generate a lot of energy. Sadly, when one of th ose adsorbtion cells does spit out a lot of energy, it seems to be coming f rom a stock of energy that the experimenters had - perhaps inadvertently - installed earlier.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.