I knew after posting parts of that post sounded snippy and would draw fire but I just started posting here and was not sure if I could edit after posting. I am not trying to draw fire. Please, I have nothing I am trying to sell to anyone. I have very little understanding of electricity and thought I would ask those who did. I went off in million different directions instead of just asking my question and now there is a giant purple elephant in the room.
Quote:
there is correct temp and moisture in the air a current will flow as a spark is created between the two connections (as the air vaporizes), is this correct?
"No, the air ionizes and can carry current. Google "ionization"."
I am sorry. I simply typed it incorrectly as I was reciting what I had just read to make sure I understood it correctly.
Quote:
And I just want to remind everyone we are just now starting to consider the effects of creating electrical devices with components that have matching resonance frequencies;
"I am sure that people working in radio will be happy to hear it."
I know this is a consideration in radio. I mean to say that insuring like frequencies for the components of wireless power transmission devices(something that has been around for a long time) such as the work of WiTricity was not correctly consider by earlier developers of the technology such as Powercast. Now that WiTricity is making the resonance frequencies of the components top priority they have made leaps and bounds in the field. I just mean to say wireless power transmission has been around a long time. The knowledge of resonance frequencies has been around a long time (Radio). Only now has the consideration of one in the other caused advancements that could have been made a long time ago. There is nothing in the basic tech that WiTricity is doing now that could not have been done years ago if someone had made the consideration then.
Quote:
Now that people are considering this things can be done with electricity that could not be done before (WiTricity) and the truth is it could have been done from the beginning but aspects of resonance where pretty much not considered then.
"Can you say just what those aspects of resonance are that have escaped notice until just now?"
See above.
""It's just a theory", stated dismissively, is supposed to open the door for just everything, right? Perpetual motion (overunity being a subset of that), flying saucers, secret symbols, and vast government (or corporate) conspiracies of silence."
I'm not sure I follow this one. I was not dismissing any of the standing theories. Simply stating the truth: they are theories that hold up under currently available testing; they are not fact. I know I am not the only one who has heard or read that it is becoming considered that the speed of light is not constant. That is a pretty big one to have gotten wrong. However if it does turn out the speed of light is not constant we didn't get it wrong as much as only got it right to the extent of our testing. All I was trying to say in the beginning was that my mind realized that it is possibly for what was once thought to be true to be later found false no matter how many times it was proven correct previously.
Like I said in the beginning, I have very little knowledge of electricity. I thought I made it clear I came here to try and gain greater understanding of these things. I have no propaganda to sell. I was not trying to open anyone's mind or anything like that. My comments were meant to convey that I would accept all types of input on these subjects, traditional or otherwise. The rest of that post I'm not so sure about.
I do not believe there is some one new understanding that will make all things possible. However new doors to new things open all the time; sometimes even doors to things we previous did not think possible.
As far as the whole perpetual motion machine comment. I asked these types of questions here because I do not have any existing knowledge. I'm not saying anything works or does not work. I am aware of the popular opinion. I came to get an education on why that was; not to argue against it. I did not know it violated any laws to get back out of something what you put in. I know most things are not that efficient but I did not know there was a law that stated it was impossible for something to be that efficient. I thought I had stated that I knew there were other factors that would bring the device to an eventual stop. I was not trying to make it run forever or anything; wouldn't that be perpetual motion. I did want to create if possible a self propelled device that would run for a duration of before coming to rest. At no time did I expect it to create more power than the needs of its own energy consumption. I did not expect it to run continuously and endless without outside input. So I am not sure how I described a perpetual motion machine. I am not trying to build any such machine, no generators, or free energy machines. I would never expect such a device to have a usable out mechanical or electrical. That is not what I am trying to do. I just want to build a toy and project. The only thing I should have stated from the beginning is...
Is there a way, no matter how in-depth or in-practical the production would be (I'm not trying to create power so I don't care how much is used to produce the device), to use the voltage generated by devices such as PZT grill igniters to power an electromagnet in pulses. so it turns on an off as you click the igniter? Not so much turns on and off as just on intermittently. I know there is some guy Bruce A. Perreault who says you can convert static electricity into higher current power but I am not sure if that is true or if it applies. But it seems you need more current present than the "pzt igniter electromagnet circuit" generates to actually power the electromagnet. It seems to me I have answered my own question but I just want to know if there is something I am missing because I have no knowledge of what I am talking about. Different people have different answers for this question as I have asked it. But I would like an answer from someone who is not trying to sell me the secret answers to the universe.
Quote:
there is correct temp and moisture in the air a current will flow as a spark is created between the two connections (as the air vaporizes), is this correct?
"No, the air ionizes and can carry current. Google "ionization"."
I am sorry. I simply typed it incorrectly as I was reciting what I had just read to make sure I understood it correctly.
Quote:
And I just want to remind everyone we are just now starting to consider the effects of creating electrical devices with components that have matching resonance frequencies;
"I am sure that people working in radio will be happy to hear it."
I know this is a consideration in radio. I mean to say that insuring like frequencies for the components of wireless power transmission devices(something that has been around for a long time) such as the work of WiTricity was not correctly consider by earlier developers of the technology such as Powercast. Now that WiTricity is making the resonance frequencies of the components top priority they have made leaps and bounds in the field. I just mean to say wireless power transmission has been around a long time. The knowledge of resonance frequencies has been around a long time (Radio). Only now has the consideration of one in the other caused advancements that could have been made a long time ago. There is nothing in the basic tech that WiTricity is doing now that could not have been done years ago if someone had made the consideration then.
Quote:
Now that people are considering this things can be done with electricity that could not be done before (WiTricity) and the truth is it could have been done from the beginning but aspects of resonance where pretty much not considered then.
"Can you say just what those aspects of resonance are that have escaped notice until just now?"
See above.
""It's just a theory", stated dismissively, is supposed to open the door for just everything, right? Perpetual motion (overunity being a subset of that), flying saucers, secret symbols, and vast government (or corporate) conspiracies of silence."
I'm not sure I follow this one. I was not dismissing any of the standing theories. Simply stating the truth: they are theories that hold up under currently available testing; they are not fact. I know I am not the only one who has heard or read that it is becoming considered that the speed of light is not constant. That is a pretty big one to have gotten wrong. However if it does turn out the speed of light is not constant we didn't get it wrong as much as only got it right to the extent of our testing. All I was trying to say in the beginning was that my mind realized that it is possibly for what was once thought to be true to be later found false no matter how many times it was proven correct previously.
Like I said in the beginning, I have very little knowledge of electricity. I thought I made it clear I came here to try and gain greater understanding of these things. I have no propaganda to sell. I was not trying to open anyone's mind or anything like that. My comments were meant to convey that I would accept all types of input on these subjects, traditional or otherwise. The rest of that post I'm not so sure about.
I do not believe there is some one new understanding that will make all things possible. However new doors to new things open all the time; sometimes even doors to things we previous did not think possible.
As far as the whole perpetual motion machine comment. I asked these types of questions here because I do not have any existing knowledge. I'm not saying anything works or does not work. I am aware of the popular opinion. I came to get an education on why that was; not to argue against it. I did not know it violated any laws to get back out of something what you put in. I know most things are not that efficient but I did not know there was a law that stated it was impossible for something to be that efficient. I thought I had stated that I knew there were other factors that would bring the device to an eventual stop. I was not trying to make it run forever or anything; wouldn't that be perpetual motion. I did want to create if possible a self propelled device that would run for a duration of before coming to rest. At no time did I expect it to create more power than the needs of its own energy consumption. I did not expect it to run continuously and endless without outside input. So I am not sure how I described a perpetual motion machine. I am not trying to build any such machine, no generators, or free energy machines. I would never expect such a device to have a usable out mechanical or electrical. That is not what I am trying to do. I just want to build a toy and project. The only thing I should have stated from the beginning is...
Is there a way, no matter how in-depth or in-practical the production would be (I'm not trying to create power so I don't care how much is used to produce the device), to use the voltage generated by devices such as PZT grill igniters to power an electromagnet in pulses. so it turns on an off as you click the igniter? Not so much turns on and off as just on intermittently. I know there is some guy Bruce A. Perreault who says you can convert static electricity into higher current power but I am not sure if that is true or if it applies. But it seems you need more current present than the "pzt igniter electromagnet circuit" generates to actually power the electromagnet. It seems to me I have answered my own question but I just want to know if there is something I am missing because I have no knowledge of what I am talking about. Different people have different answers for this question as I have asked it. But I would like an answer from someone who is not trying to sell me the secret answers to the universe.