Suuzzaannee144

Microwaves versus Alternative Energy Sources

3 posts in this topic

We are living in a toxic environment for no reason. That is simply the bottom line. There are so  many other forms of energy that are available to us , we cannot fathom how easy it would be to source out these forms and implement them.

 "Hydroelectric Energy

The potential energy stored in the water held in dams by is made to drive a water turbine and generator which in turn produces electric power. This form of energy generation is called hydroelectric power. Out of all the alternative energy sources, this one has been most commonly adopted in the current time.

Advantages of hydroelectric power generation

– The source of hydroelectric power generation i.e., water is free of cost.
– Dams can provide virtually continuous electricity generation.
– The water used for power generation can be put to use again.
– There is no chemical process involved in the power production process, therefore, the power generated is clean and does not harm the environment.

 Solar Energy

This is the energy which the earth receives from the Sun. This is one of the most promising alternative energy sources, which will be available to the mankind for centuries to come. The only challenge remains to tap the solar energy in the most efficient way. The solar power generation is done by using a series of photovoltaic cells where the solar rays are converted into electricity. Apart from electricity production solar energy is also being used for heating water, cooking food etc.

Advantages of solar energy

– The source of energy is absolutely ‘free’.
– Solar power which is generated in the day time can be stored to be made available in the night time as well.
– Solar power generators can be used to generate power in rural and remote areas where there is no reach of the conventional form of energy.
– Solar power generation is quite and absolutely clean.
– Solar energy is a renewable form of energy will not deplete until thousands of years.

 Wind Energy

The power of the wind is harnessed to propel the blades of wind turbine attached to an electric generator to generate wind energy. Wind energy is an effective alternative source of energy in areas where the velocity of wind flow is high.

 Advantages of wind energy

– Wind energy is a clean form of energy.
– The source of power generation i.e., wind is free of cost.
– Wind energy is a renewable source of energy.

Biomass Energy

This is the energy developed from the wastes of various human and animal activities like the by-products and wastes from timber industry, agricultural yields, municipal solid waste etc. Out of the many alternative sources of energy this is the one which takes into account the utilization of waste material to develop energy thereby disposing them off in a profitable and effective way.

 Advantages of biomass energy

– It is an environmental friendly way of energy production in which biological mass is recycled and re-used.
– The biomass will keep generating and decomposing as part of the natural biological cycle. Therefore, biomass energy is considered as a renewable source of energy."

However in all honesty the strongest and closest source is really the Earths' resonance field which can be amplified using coils such  I have( am) developed..here are few others who are on the same page...

"As we all know, the RF emitted from lightning is broadband and very powerful but this RF energy resonates the earth’s cavity because it acts like a giant resonator (with the magnetic field being used to bias the direction of the RF propagation). What I am looking to find out now is exactly how much power is actually circulating in the cavity (not including microwave and radio transmissions). Does anyone here have any idea about the energy content of the Schumann cavity? Here’s one more thing for those interested in the subject. The link below explains how one would go about tapping into this resonant energy. As we have already discussed before, the big problem is making an antenna large enough to resonate with it. But we can use a special, active antenna to tap into the energy. This guy, Bill Beady made an incredibly interesting article about this here: http://amasci.com/tesla/tesceive.html 

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/earth-resonance-power-generator.50677/ " 

 Finding ways out of this mess...:(

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/earth-resonance-power-generator.50677/

http://alternativeenergysourcesv.com/

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This type of antenna could be of serious use IF you ground into the earth...

"

TRANSMIT IN ORDER TO RECEIVE?!!!

Rather than relying upon the wiggling electrons in the wires of the large half-wave antenna to generate EM fields... what if we used use a power supply instead? If an antenna is 1/10,000 wavelength across, we should be able to force it to behave as if it's huge; perhaps 1/3 wavelength across. We simply have to drive it hard with an RF source. We must drive it at the *same* frequency as the incoming waves, then adjust the phase and amplitude of the power supply to a special value. At one particular value, our transmissions will cause the antenna to be best at absorbing the incoming waves. 

Take a loop antenna as an example. If we want our little loop-antenna to receive far more radio energy than it normally would, then we need to produce a large AC current in the antenna coil, where the phase of this current is locked in synch with the waves we wish to receive, and is lagging by 90 degrees. The voltage across the antenna terminals stays about the same as when an undriven antenna receives those waves. However, since the current is much higher in the driven antenna, the energy received per second is much higher as well. This seems like engineering blasphemy, no? How can adding a larger current increase the recieved power? And won't our receiving antenna start transmitting? Yet this actually does work. Power equals volts times amps. To increase the RF power received from distant sources, we increase the antenna's amperes intentionally. 

This sounds really silly. How can we improve the reception of an electrically small antenna by using it to *transmit*? The secret involves the cancellation of magnetic or electric fields in the near-field region of the antenna. The physics of the nearfield region of antennas has a kind of nonlinearity because conductors are present. In the electromagnetic nearfield region, it's possible to change the "E" of a wave without changing the "M" (change the antenna's voltage without changing the current), and vice versa. Superposition of EM traveling waves does not quite apply here because the ruling equations for energy propagation near conductors depends upon V^2 or I^2 separately. In addition, V is almost independent of I in the near-field region. If a very small loop antenna (a coil) should happen to receive a radio wave as a very small signal, we can increase the received *energy* by artificially increasing the current. Or if we're using a tiny dipole antenna (a capacitor,) we can increase the short dipole's received energy by applying a large AC voltage across the antenna terminals. 

 

NOT CRACKPOTTY AFTER ALL

Note that this does not violate any rules of conventional physics. If we add stronger EM fields, they sum with the incoming EM plane waves and cause these radio waves to bend towards the tiny antenna, and the antenna absorbs them. This increases the antenna's EA (effective area, or effective aperture.) We can use this process to alter the coupling between the antenna and the surrounding space, but the total energy still follows the conservation law. The altered fields only change the "virtual size" or EA of the antenna. 

More importantly, the phenomenon is quite limited. We can only use it with electrically "small" antennas. We cannot increase the "virtual size" much beyond a quarter wavelength for the waves involved. If we already have a large 1/2-wave dipole, then no matter how large is our artificially-add AC voltage, we cannot make it absorb more incoming waves. However, if we have an extremely small antenna, say, a 10KHz loop antenna the size of a pie plate, we can make that antenna seem very, very large indeed. Think like this: how large is the diameter of the antenna's nearfield region at 10KHz? Around 10 kilometers? What if we could extract half of the incoming energy from that entire volume?!! In theory we can: half can be absorbed, and the other half scattered. In theory a tiny loop antenna sitting on your lab bench can intercept just as much energy as a longwire 1/2-wave antenna which is 10KM long. Bizarre, eh? 

Here's a way to look at the process. If I can create a field which cancels out some of the energy in an extended region surrounding a tiny antenna, this violates the law of Conservation of Energy. Field energy cannot just vanish! That's correct: if we cancel out the energy in the nearfield of an antenna, this is actually an absorption process, and the energy winds up inside the antenna circuitry. By emitting an EM field, a receiving antenna sucks EM energy into itself. If we actively drive an antenna with an "anti-wave", we will force the antenna to produce stronger fields which cancel the incoming waves, and simultaneously the antenna absorbs more energy from the EM fields in the surrounding region of space than it ordinarily would. It also emits some waves of its own. But in antenna theory these waves are identical to the received signals, and they are considered to be reflected or "scattered" from the antenna. It's a general law that we cannot receive EM waves without scattering half of the energy away again. 

Here's the interesting part. If we wish to receive power rather than signals, a critical issue arises.

Driving a tiny antenna with a large signal will create large currents and heat the antenna. Small antennas are inefficient when compared to half-wave dipoles. If we wish to maximize the virtual aperature of a really tiny antenna (e.g. make our 10KHz pie-plate coil act 10KM across,) we'll quickly be frustrated by wire heating. All the extra received energy will go into warming the copper. Possible solutions: use superconductor loops, or at low frequencies use the nearest equivalent to an AC-driven superconductor: a rotating permanent magnet or rotating capacitor plates. 

 

BUT HOW DO ATOMS DO IT?

OK, if this supposedly explains how tiny atoms can receive long light waves, how can we increase the voltage signal to a single atom?! Actually it's not difficult. No angstrom-sized radio transmitter is needed. The key is to use EM energy stored as oscillating fields; i.e. resonance. 

If an atom resonates electromagnetically at the same frequency as the incident light waves, then, from a Classical standpoint, that atom's internal resonator will store EM energy accumulated from the incoming waves. It will then behave as an oscillator, becoming surrounded by an increasingly strong AC electromagnetic field as time goes by. (Quantum Mechanics might say that the atom is surrounded by virtual photons at the resonant frequency.) If this alternating field is locked into the correct phase with the incoming light wave, then the atom's fields can interact with the light waves' fields and cancel out quite a bit of the light energy present in the nearfield region around the atom. The energy doesn't vanish, instead it ends up inside the atom. Half of the energy goes into kicking an electron to a higher level, and the other half is re-emitted as "scattered" waves.

By resonantly creating an "anti-wave", which superposes with incoming waves and bends them towards the atom, the tiny atom has "sucked energy" out of the enormously long light waves as they go by. And since the atom has no conventional copper coils inside it wasting energy, it can build up some really strong fields which allow it to behave extremely "large" when compared to it's physical diameter.

Impossible? Please track down the C. Bohren paper in the references below. He analyzes the behavior of small metal particles and dielectric particles exposed to long-wave EM radiation, and rigorously shows with semi-Classical analysis that the presance of a resonator can cause dust motes to "act larger than they really are." 

How can this stuff be true?! After all, electric and magnetic fields cannot bend other fields. They cannot affect each other directly. They work by superposition. For the same reason, a light wave cannot deflect another light wave. Ah, but as I said before, the mathematics of the fields around a coil or a capacitor are not the same as the mathematics of freely-propagating EM waves. If we add the field of a bar magnet to the field of a radio wave, and if the bar magnet is in the right place (at a spot where the phase of the b-field of the radio wave is reversing polarity,) then the radio wave becomes distorted in such a way that it momentarily bends towards the bar magnet. And then, as the EM wave progresses, we must flip the magnet over and over in order to keep the field pattern from bending away again during the following half-cycle. The energy flow continues to "funnel in" towards the rotating magnet. Now replace the bar magnet with an AC coil, and vary the coil current so the fields stay locked to the traveling radio wave in the same way. In that case the wave energy will always bend towards the coil and be absorbed. Superposition still applies, but this is a coherent superposition, so it acts like a static field pattern: as if a permanent magnet can bend a radio wave inwards and absorb its energy rather than simply having the fields sum together without interesting results. 

Note that the coil will also emit its own EM ripple. This emission is well known: atoms ideally will scatter half the light they absorb, and dipole antennas behave similarly: they scatterer incoming EM waves as they absorb part of the energy. When all is said and done, our oscillating coil has absorbed half of the incoming EM energy and re-emitted (or "scattered") the rest. In a phase-locked system, we cannot tell the difference between reflection and transmission. "

http://amasci.com/tesla/tesceive.html#xmit

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So... could this be an antenna or receiver Suuz'?

43°04'51.75"N 92°48'26.85"E

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now