Author Topic: will this work? (Read 2652 times)

trizzybob · « **on:** February 27, 2006, 03:57:35 AM »

Look y'all; I'm thinking about building this thing I'm calling "The Trizzy Rigged Power Maker". But $8.00/watt is too costly to fail at trying, at least for me. I need to get it almost right the first time. And I'm hoping someone can tell me why it won't work (if it doesn't work?) or give me some helpful hints, more tutorial links and/or some key words or phrases for a good'en google search (all my other searches where helpful but wasn't that special something telling me if it will work or not).

The basic concept is similar to fiber optics. As I understand it, it's just a piece of glass wrapped in something that keeps the light from gett'en out. The so-called power maker will work along that same simple-minded train of thought. Unfortunately, the light bounce'en machine, inside my eyeballs,(ouch) doesn't see those store bought rectangular panels as the best-tis shape to achieve the desired goal. In my minds-eye, something vaguely similar to the image below would be the most effective shape.

I'm planning on using six of these mirrored panels, which would tilt backwards and tie together to make this octagon(ish) thingy. I wasn't able to draw that 3D image, but if you could imagine a six sided box that tapers down toward its' bottom (not unlike some wooden flower planters do), then you would have it.

It will have a mirrored floor with a convexes mirror on top of it (that's like those mirrors on the side view mirror of a car that says "objects are larger than they appear"

It will also have triangular mirrors in each corner, these mirrors will fit into the seam of the joint at the top but will create an empty space behind it at the bottom. This will make the bottom look twelve sided but the top will remain six sided. I wasn't able to draw this 3D image either but the dotted lines below show about where the mirrors should go on each panel

As for the doom or the giant flashlight on top, it should be the same size and shape as the base (in this case six sided), again I couldn't draw that, but imagine a octagon and draw an arch from each and every corner until they meet at the top, creating a doom like thingy. The light will fit inside the doom and be temporarily powered by some and/or any outside source.

First off, I'm planning to guess-ta-mate the total output of the power maker and choose a bulb that uses just less than half of that total. If I get enough power to power two identical bulbs to one in the Trizzy Rigged thing-la-ma-bob, hilybillee ed-da-kit dictates that I should proclaim that I solved the world energy troubles. HERE'S WHY
If the power maker is making enough power to power two bulbs that's identical to one powered by the outside power source, then the Trizzy Rigged Power Maker can power itself (with a jumpstart) and power another power maker, which can power two more power makers and ect....,

I understand some of you won't think I'm serious about this project, `cause some people look down on my native dialect and I embellished on that with lame humor. But if I'd attempted to use that other English, I wouldn't have been able to understand it either. Any and all comments welcome

wdyasq · « **Reply #1 on:** February 26, 2006, 09:29:27 PM »

Unless you find a surface that reflects more light than it recieves..... I believe you are doomed to fail.

Ron

trizzybob · « **Reply #2 on:** February 27, 2006, 01:30:25 AM »

Thanks for sharing Mr. Ron

"find a surface that reflects more light than it recieves"

I think I get what your saying but I'm having troubles understanding how that statement applies to THE TRIZZY RIGGED POWER MAKER. can you explain? or can I answer any question about what I THINK is going inside this thing. I'd love some help thinking on this. I truly don't get why it won't work

all working parts are encapsulated inside a structure.

all surfaces are reflective

no light escapes

i believe (i don't know) wasted light will accumulate inside this thing.(where else will it go?)

TomW · « **Reply #3 on:** February 27, 2006, 04:38:22 AM »

T;

Well, one point I have to make.

"No light will escape" is not the same as no light will be absorbed. Every "bounce" your light makes there will be some fraction that will be absorbed by the reflective surface. You cannot get out more than you put in, period, end quote.

This is just another doomed Over Unity Idea. We see them often, but never see a working one.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed just altered in form. Its a hard law to beat.

Like Ron, I fear you are following a pipe dream but best of luck anyway. Please report back with your results good or bad.

T

henjulfox · « **Reply #4 on:** February 27, 2006, 06:37:58 AM »

If you start with a smaller version of your plan, lined with tin foil instead of mirrors, you should be able to prove to yourself that it won't work with a minimum of wasted time and $.

If you started with a light source that was 100% efficient (there isn't anything even close), mirrors 100% reflective (close, but not there) and a collector 100% efficient (again, there isn't anything close), the most you could hope for is to light 1 bulb with 1 bulb.

-Henry

trizzybob · « **Reply #5 on:** February 27, 2006, 05:00:44 PM »

Tom thanks, what you said maked me see how Ron's statment applies.

trizzybob · « **Reply #6 on:** February 27, 2006, 05:41:12 PM »

Henry,thanks for understanding that it's more about me not understanding than anything else. however,i'm hoping to learn more about materials,loads, currents,and other things as they apply to my simple minded project. and I am starting off full on stupid.

now that i'm sightly more educated, I think these thin film cells ($4/watt) will be the most cost effective.

Gordy · « **Reply #7 on:** February 28, 2006, 01:52:33 AM »

Hi, "T"

To expand a littel on what Henry said.

1, mirrors reflect around 98% of the light, that's 2% loss.

2, Solar cell's convert around 10-15% (depending the type of cell used) of the light that hits them to electricity, that's another loss of 85-90%.

3, Then ther's the light source. For electricity into an incandecent bulb puts out 10-15% light, so you lose another 85-90% to waste heat.

Gordy

trizzybob · « **Reply #8 on:** February 28, 2006, 01:39:24 PM »

Hello Gordy,

thanks for expanding on the talking points, i'm begining to understand why they say (whoever they maybe) it will not work.

your first point about the 2% loss is not really a loss in my eye. 'cause when the light does what it does and makes it back to the doom (or giant flashlight on top). that light is going to come back down with the light that is being created at that moment, again I think there will be more ambient light (if that's the right word) for the cell to use than what the bulb is producing at any given moment'cause this thingy collects and stores light (for an time).I THINK

is that 85-90% loss in your second point lost to heat or is it reflected back into the belly of my imaginary beast.

correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I know that those LED bulbs are the most engery effient.but what kind artificial light is most effective at producing potovaltaic (sp?) power.

and thanks y'all, I seem to be learning more better here than just doing one google search after other. but I'm not giveing up on my google'en.

I'm putting these super cell links here 4 a reminder

http://store.sundancesolar.com/susoce3v152x.html

http://store.sundancesolar.com/supsolcel5v1.html

kitno455 · « **Reply #9 on:** February 28, 2006, 05:26:43 PM »

t- it will never work. it does not matter if you change to a 100% efficient light. you CANNOT get more power out of the bulb than you put in. even if you could find a way to trap all the light made by your bulb, and soak it up later, you still cant get more out than you put in.

allan

trizzybob · « **Reply #10 on:** February 28, 2006, 09:44:46 PM »

Allen-I'm starting to understand that or atleast why but i'm still wanting build it or something like but I need to learn more.

for instance, If I use some of these socalled super cell that are decribed like this

http://store.sundancesolar.com/supsolcel5v1.html

These solar cells are single crystal silicon, the same type used by the space industry. They are the highest power output for their size. Soldering required.

There are 4 cells to a package, each cell is 2.5cm X 2 cm and is approx. .014" thick.

Power output per cell is .5V, 125mA.

Solder + (bottom)and - (top) contacts with 60/40 rosin core solder and liquid flux on cell.

I'm not sure I know what all is meant by "Power output per cell is .5V, 125mA." I'm guessing that the .5v can be decribed as the wave length and 125mA is how fast that wave length is moving. and I think I know that it's a matter of how I connect one cell to another that determines what the final voltages will be, i don't know what all the rules are for these connections and I don't know what happens to the 125mA after connecting cell in different ways. come to think about it, I do not know what a "mA" is (maga-AMP?) I just asumed it had something to with amps but I don't know that and I really don't what an amp is .

your special friend,

Trizzy, Trizzy mother blank'en BOB

Y'all yankees (bless your hearts) might know me as Trizzy THE BOOB

kitno455 · « **Reply #11 on:** March 01, 2006, 09:14:06 AM »

dont assume we are all yankees

it does not matter if you have a 100% efficient light (which does not exist), AND 100% efficient solar cells (which do not exist). it still wont work. the best you could do in that case was get out exactly how much power you put in, in which case, you should have just not turned on the first light

allan

dinges · « **Reply #12 on:** March 01, 2006, 12:28:49 PM »

I think now is the time to politely draw your attention to this website:

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm

I'd say read it first. If after that you're still convinced it will work, go ahead. I'd like you to prove us all wrong. A Nobel-prize may be waiting for you if you succeed.

Peter.

trizzybob · « **Reply #13 on:** March 03, 2006, 10:56:36 AM »

I would like to say I'm sorry for the racial slur that appeared in my other signature. I guess my troubles must've caught up with me or something.SORRY

allan you said.

"the best you could do in that case was get out exactly how much power you put in"

so my concept of what happens inside an nucular(sp?) reaction is wrong to ..

wanna hear it here it goes...,

you slam one thingy into another thingy causen' all of the other thingies to slam into each other. the energy obtained from this is equal to the energy of all the thingies slaming into each other and greater than the energy of the first slam.

Peter thanks for the link , atleast now I know there will be a place for it...,you said

"If after that you're still convinced it will work, go ahead"

It's not that I'm convinced it will work, it's more about me not understanding why it won't work. and I'd like to build my own solar panel. just to say I did that, even if it cost me more money than just buying one.

kitno455 · « **Reply #14 on:** March 03, 2006, 07:15:11 PM »

well, i guess you are at least unflappable. have fun trizzy bob. that is what matters most. have fun. oh- and send me the unit after you are through, so i can take it apart and make a decent solar panel out of it

oh, and if you succeed in making a nuclear reaction in your wooden box, you wont be able to write back and tell us about it, but thats ok, cause we'll see the fireball on the evening news

allan

oztules · « **Reply #15 on:** March 04, 2006, 05:49:16 AM »

Trizzybpb you said

"so my concept of what happens inside an nucular(sp?) reaction is wrong to ..

wanna hear it here it goes...,

you slam one thingy into another thingy causen' all of the other thingies to slam into each other. the energy obtained from this is equal to the energy of all the thingies slaming into each other and greater than the energy of the first slam."

I think I see where you came up with your idea. light bouncing around in the box = thinggies bouncing around in a nuclear bomb. the bomb works so the trizzy thinggy must work too.? is that it?

If that is the basis of your new overunity device, then it may pay to understand the nuclear reaction better, so that you can differenciate between the two "reactions"

use this to get a laymans view of atomic reactions

http://tomclegg.net/fallout

Now you've read that, can you see that that reaction is at the sub-atomic level. Here you exchance mass for energy in a reaction that should not be done around pets and people. You don't get something for nothing just by collisions persay. They are special collisions. One kind takes 40,000,000 degrees to get going the other requires isotopes very very difficult to aquire and unstable.

Now bouncing light beams around inside a box is not in the same league. Any time you bounce light off anything else, you loose some of its "bounce" for want of a better word. Think of different balls bouncing off different surfaces. Even the best balls on the best surfaces will eventually come to rest and cease bouncing. Steel ball bearings on a steel block bounce particularly well, but they still stop eventually. So to will your light beams. As they bounce around your box, each bounce cost a little bit of energy.so eventually all that you put in will be used up....and thats without trying to capture them with a solarcell. So you can see the more they get reflected, the more they lose...not gain, but lose. That is why it cannot work. The losses by the other parts of your scheme are even greater, so once you get your mind around the nuclear bouncing neutrons, and realise that they are not photons, which behave differently then you may start to get the idea.

Having light photons hit crystals and knocking the electrons around a bit, is in no way related to splitting atoms or joining atoms in nuclear reactions. In solar cells we are only dealing with the outer electrons. With nuclear reactions, we deal with the protons and neutrons and make new elements of a lessor mass than the product of the mass we started with. The difference in mass is expressed as energy...light heat etc..The energy given off is the loss of mass x speed of light squared.

In solar cells, the mass remains the same, no matter how many years of bombardment from photons. If no mass has been lost, then no nuclear reaction. They are totally different reactions.

All the chemistry you see around you every day is at the electron level ie covalency, sharing outer electron orbits between same or different atoms to make compounds. They are only compounds held together by their electron interactions. not their nuclear interactions. Solarcell technology only plays with the electron shells not the nucleus of the cell material.

hope this helps explain why it WILL NOT work

.........oztules

oztules · « **Reply #16 on:** March 04, 2006, 06:02:29 AM »

Tomw says

"Energy cannot be created or destroyed just altered in form. Its a hard law to beat"

I think E=MCsquared kinda one-ups that a bit.

Energy can be lost to matter, or can be created from matter......

How else can we see Captain Kirk say "beam me up Scotty" and be safe in the knowledge that he will get there. He must be converted to energy, transmitted to the Enterprise converted back to Captain Kirk ......... isn't it all true? I saw it on the telly...must be true

.........oztules

trizzybob · « **Reply #17 on:** March 25, 2006, 02:20:55 AM »

oztules

thanks for the link and more talking points

my point with the nuclear reactions was more along the lines of mankind getting more out of a nuclear reaction than we put in..., think about it....,you take one neutron and force it to collide with a solid piece of uranium-235.., you'll turn some mass into engery and get 3 stray neutons.., which will collide with 3 other uraium-235 atoms and you'll get more mass converted into engery and 9 stray neutons to collide into others and so on and so on...,now I understand why they say we are only releasing stored energy in a neuclear reaction but in my mind we are still getting more effect than personal effort. we do one thing and a billion (or so) similar things happen.

Now that I'm slightly more educated, I'm thinking the study of those so-called "artificial atoms" (quantum dots) will lead to the creation of something similar to the trizzy rigged power maker (not to be confused with the trizzy rigged power making machine"

oztules · « **Reply #18 on:** March 25, 2006, 03:12:48 AM »

Trizzybob

I for one tremble with anticipation at the prospect of this new and exciting thinggymajig what you be developing there...... otherwise universally known to one and all as .... "The trizzy rigged power maker (not to be confused with the trizzy rigged power making machine"

forever hopeful,.....oztules

ps I've failed havent I

trizzybob · « **Reply #19 on:** March 26, 2006, 02:50:14 AM »

"ps I've failed havent I"

If your intent was to convence an idiot that his lastest wet dream is unobtainable... then yes you failed and rightfully so..., however, through all the search phrases y'all how inspired I now know what a "quantum well" is. thanks

but I do have this one question ...., why would anyone in thier right mind come with such a thing as the schroedinger equation. I don't believe such a thing was any bases in reality. there would be a law against such things.... them such-a-thingies hurt y'all!!!!!

News:

Author Topic: will this work? (Read 2652 times)