Simon Rob wrote:
Just thought it would interest people something they may want to try. You can make the charger from a smarties tube and some other stuff and the other one is even easier. I was thinking of giving people stuff to try at home. Of course through the charger you also are learning how an engine works.

You neglect to mention that trying to recharge a NON-rechargeable battery could result in an explosion.

Also, any idea how much shaking to recharge a 3 volt battery? Minutes? Hours? Days?

Simon Rob wrote:
Just thought it would interest people something they may want to try..

Which is another way to say that your comment was off-topic, and therefore out of place here.

Focuspuller wrote:

You neglect to mention that trying to recharge a NON-rechargeable battery could result in an explosion.

Also, any idea how much shaking to recharge a 3 volt battery? Minutes? Hours? Days?

I was working on the principle that the readers of mm are not thick enough to use a non rechargable battery. Oh its not a good recharger: it takes hours: just something fun to do. That is why people buy batteries and use sockets.

Simon Rob wrote:
Something on a smaller scale you can charge a battery with a tube, copper wire, electrical wire and a battery. You put the copper wire into a spring and place this into the tube. Place the magnet into the middle of the tube and copper spring. Attach the end of the copper sire to electrical wires and to the battery and shake the tube back and forth lengthwise and the magnet will move up and down the tube and so produce an electrical current large enough to charge a battery.

I think that people understand why that works (to a VERY limited degree), but just in case...

Magnetism can be a useful method of CONVERTING the energy (from shaking the tube back and forth), but not for creating it on its own (at least in an ongoing manner).  As has been alluded to.

So, like my 9 year-old self discovered (with my childlike dreams of creating "free limitless power" using the "power" of magnetism, if only I came up with just the "right" design...) as soon as you stop putting some kind of energy INTO the unit (in this case, just stop shaking the tube), the energy generated completely stops.    As, apparently, countless others before me also discovered.  Hah!

LightDreams wrote:
Are Wind Turbines more efficient?  Or are Hydroelectric Dams? Or Wave Generators?  Or Solar Energy?  Or capturing the small levels of electricity in the air?  Or...?
. . .
Also keep in mind that different solutions work better in different areas (wind turbines, hydroelectric dams, solar panels, and ocean wave generators, etc).   And that's no different in this case.  Some geographic areas see far more electric (i.e. lightning) activity in the air, than others.

To be sure, there are some big hurdles to be surmounted in order to bring this process into widespread availability and use.  However, aridity is not a significant problem for it in most areas, i.e., it will work in what are considered relatively dry areas, and the process is not generally weather dependent. I'd encourage you to read up on the discovery and see what is believed to be possible in that arena. I'd be curious to know what you think after you do that.

Also, the people and organizations involved in its R&D do already have significant funding for its development process, and they are working towards having a 10 megawatt device  to show by sometime in 2024.

I think it's pretty exciting stuff, and there seems to be no reason it can't eventually be successfully introduced, although it will take a significant amount of time and investment to become a major energy source.

Simon Rob wrote:
The third rule of thermodynamics states that energy is neither created nor destroyed so it is not created out of thin air: is that on topic enough for you.

For you and other interested parties, I've found some of the research behind the announcement of the air-to-electricity experiment and the processes involved. I haven't read beyond the Abstract yet, and am way too exhausted to do so tonight, but to anyone interested in further discussion of the process and possibilities, this is what's been done and announced so far:

For the abstract see
"Generic Air-Gen Effect in Nanoporous Materials for Sustainable Energy Harvesting from Air Humidity"
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ful … .202300748

For the research itself, see the "Supporting Information" section of the related  research paper: here:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ful … .202300748

Any informed critiques or expressions of wonderment are welcome.

Modelphilia wrote:
However, aridity is not a significant problem for it in most areas, i.e., it will work in what are considered relatively dry areas, and the process is not generally weather dependent. I'd encourage you to read up on the discovery and see what is believed to be possible in that arena. I'd be curious to know what you think after you do that.

Of course I did, BEFORE I pointed that out.

To be clear, there's a major difference between what is POSSIBLE and what is EFFICIENT.

Humidity varies dramatically in different regions.  Yes you could still get electricity in drier areas, but you can generate far MORE electricity in certain climates.  I.E.  It is far more energy efficient in certain regions that have more suitable conditions.  Just like wind turbines, solar panels and hydroelectric dams, etc.

In this particular case, as I previously stated, those just happen to be regions that ALSO have far more lightning storms, etc.  As that is a SYMPTOM of an area where you get a much greater energy "return on investment" for this particular type of technology.

But thank you very much for "suggesting" that I "read up" on the discovery first.

And I'm sorry that you didn't understand the relationship between humidity and the effectiveness of this particular technology.


---

[EDIT] Hell.  Once again, I should know better than to ever respond to your "speak first, before checking your facts" and/or constant "trying to start an argument" tactics.  My bad...

Simon Rob wrote:
Something on a smaller scale you can charge a battery with a tube, copper wire, electrical wire and a battery. You put the copper wire into a spring and place this into the tube. Place the magnet into the middle of the tube and copper spring. Attach the end of the copper sire to electrical wires and to the battery and shake the tube back and forth lengthwise and the magnet will move up and down the tube and so produce an electrical current large enough to charge a battery.

You can also make a vacuum flask by placing a bucket into another larger bucket with soils in between the walls ##of the two buckets.

You've described the building and operation of a generator. Something that is done at full scale in every country every day only instead of shaking they use a rotating element. Good job missing the entire point of the OP.

Simon Rob wrote:
The third rule of thermodynamics states that energy is neither created nor destroyed so it is not created out of thin air: is that on topic enough for you.

The second rule of Model Mayhem states “Do not feed the energy creature”

JQuest wrote:

You've described the building and operation of a generator. Something that is done at full scale in every country every day only instead of shaking they use a rotating element. Good job missing the entire point of the OP.

I was showing the principle the applications of course are endless or why would In bother to illustrate the principle.

LightDreams wrote:
Once again, I should know better than to ever respond to your "speak first, before checking your facts" and/or constant "trying to start an argument" tactics.  My bad...

No, that's not "your bad". Your bad is in having such a prickly personality. There was certainly no insult intended or contained in anything I've said here, nor were there any nefarious "tactics" involved. Your previous statement didn't reference any of the research done in this case, and so I didn't assume anything –one way or the other– about your familiarity with the research itself.

My actual intent was to attempt to engage both you and any other interested parties to read the research report itself and then we could all discuss that. I was actually looking forward to hearing from you on all of that since you seem to devote a lot of attention to original sources, and apparently have some background that might at least lead to some interesting speculative or fact-based assessments.

None of this deals with life-and-death issues, at least for the present, and so it might help things to be less unpleasant for you –and the rest of us here– if you try to "lighten-up a bit" and just enjoy all of this as a potentially pleasant exchange of ideas and knowledge.

Simon Rob wrote:
I was showing the principle the applications of course are endless or why would In bother to illustrate the principle.

Yes, and as it was pointed out the principle is well known and not germane to the OP. The applications are also well known as was also pointed out and have nothing to do with the OP. If you want to discuss third grade physics projects you might start by initiating your own topic instead of continuously polluting the ones people actually want to have discussions in.

Weldphoto wrote:
Would its be possible to end the bickering and personal jabs and either talk about the issue our friend from sunny Hawaii raised or shut up?  Must every topic become a competition? This is like a bunch of 6th graders.

Go take some pictures, a better use of your energy.

Hear! Hear!