Register to reply

Does this secret Tesla generator really work?

by mathmantics
Tags: tesla generator, tesla secret
Share this thread:
mathmantics
#1
Sep8-10, 12:37 PM
P: 4
I came across this site making claims about this Tesla secret generator, and I am wondering if anyone has any advice on whether or not this actually works. The video on the site shows it actually working but I want some more insight on this before i actually make the purchase. If someone has built this or something similar can you tell me if this technology actually works?

[crackpot link deleted]
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Law changed to allow 'unlocking' cellphones
Microsoft sues Samsung alleging contract breach
Best evidence yet for coronal heating theory detected by NASA sounding rocket
stewartcs
#2
Sep8-10, 12:43 PM
Sci Advisor
stewartcs's Avatar
P: 2,283
Quote Quote by mathmantics View Post
I came across this site making claims about this Tesla secret generator, and I am wondering if anyone has any advice on whether or not this actually works. The video on the site shows it actually working but I want some more insight on this before i actually make the purchase. If someone has built this or something similar can you tell me if this technology actually works?

[crackpot link deleted]
Don't waste your money. It's a load of crap.

CS
mathmantics
#3
Sep8-10, 12:50 PM
P: 4
Thanks for your reply, but can you explain why this is a "load of crap" the video shows the device charging a cell phone, kind of hard to fake that.... or is it?

stewartcs
#4
Sep8-10, 12:55 PM
Sci Advisor
stewartcs's Avatar
P: 2,283
Does this secret Tesla generator really work?

Quote Quote by mathmantics View Post
Thanks for your reply, but can you explain why this is a "load of crap" the video shows the device charging a cell phone, kind of hard to fake that.... or is it?

This statement alone qualifies it as crap:
I mean here we have a way to generate unlimited energy for free without the need for expensive moving parts or machinery, no expensive rare earth materials are required, and produces no pollution.
BTW, it's easy to fake things on the internet just like it is in movies...

CS
mathmantics
#5
Sep8-10, 01:23 PM
P: 4
Fair enough, I accept that the statement may be misleading, but I am asking you whether or not you can actually get energy out of the air like is demonstrated in the video? I am not looking to power my house from this or anything, but does the schematic shown in the video actually work to allow you to charge capacitors from the air? Is it radio waves that this device is capturing and storing the energy from?

Thanks.
Dadface
#6
Sep8-10, 02:05 PM
PF Gold
Dadface's Avatar
P: 2,011
Take a long piece of wire as an antenna connect one end of the wire to one side of a suitable diode and the other end of the diode to one side of a pair of high impedance headphones or an earpiece.Connect the other side of the headphones to a suitable earth(ground) such as a water tap and listen in,you will have built a basic type of radio called a crystal set.You can improve your radio by the addition of extra components such as a variable capacitor and a coil to make a tuning circuit.No battery is needed and the antenna picks up radio waves the energy coming from the radio transmitters.It is an old technology and the earliest radios were crystal sets.The circuit you are looking at works on a similar principle.You are taking "energy from the air"in the form of radio waves but it is still "crap" as expressed by stewart because the amount of energy is miniscule.
mathmantics
#7
Sep8-10, 02:42 PM
P: 4
Thank you very much for your reply. So this does indeed work, and that was all I was really wondering. If the energy from the air is miniscule as demonstrated in the video, can it be scaled up to produce more energy over a large area? I guess it doesn't really matter now as I have already decided to purchase the book and I am currently reading through what is going on. It appears that I can increase the amount of energy by scaling this up over a large area, which will work perfect for my cabin, and allow me to slowly charge my spare cellphone or laptop even my battery that runs my light while I am away for long periods.

Thanks.
Dadface
#8
Sep8-10, 03:57 PM
PF Gold
Dadface's Avatar
P: 2,011
Quote Quote by mathmantics View Post
Thank you very much for your reply. So this does indeed work, and that was all I was really wondering. If the energy from the air is miniscule as demonstrated in the video, can it be scaled up to produce more energy over a large area? I guess it doesn't really matter now as I have already decided to purchase the book and I am currently reading through what is going on. It appears that I can increase the amount of energy by scaling this up over a large area, which will work perfect for my cabin, and allow me to slowly charge my spare cellphone or laptop even my battery that runs my light while I am away for long periods.

Thanks.
I'm guessing that a typical longish antenna close to a powerful radio transmitter picks up power in the order micro or nanowatts.Because the human ear is so sensitive,such small powers can drive crystal radio sets but charging batteries surely requires much larger powers.Despite this it would be interesting to pick up some data and calculate the maximum theoretical power available from radio waves both from space and from terrestial transmitters.
JaredJames
#9
Sep8-10, 04:56 PM
P: 3,387
From my basic understanding, to charge a battery you have to provide a higher potential than the output of the battery.

So what this is saying is that you can produce a potential greater than, say, 1.5v to charge a standard AA battery.

Now I don't know if my understanding here is flawed, but I can't see how you can get that much power draw from an aerial array?
pallidin
#10
Sep8-10, 05:06 PM
P: 2,292
Yeah, I have to agree with the respondents.
The basic technology is fine, but the amount of usable power-vs-cost of construction is so small that one would be best to use that money on a good solar panel/wind generator.

And then there's size. How much space are you willing to dedicate to have antennae wires strung? You might need a full acre(or more!) to generate enough power to charge a single 12-volt deep-cycle battery.
FlexGunship
#11
Sep8-10, 05:25 PM
PF Gold
FlexGunship's Avatar
P: 739
There is a good reason why automotive engineers include alternators to charge your battery instead of hooking the battery to your radio antenna. The ability to create a potential difference between two locations does not imply power on it's own. On a cold dry day, check the voltage between your rug and a door knob. Make sure to set the meter to kilovolts. Doesn't mean you can charge anything, the available current it in microamps and last only a short time. Total charge? Picocoulombs.

Tesla, coincidentally, really did have a "secret generator." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_turbine
russ_watters
#12
Sep8-10, 05:31 PM
Mentor
P: 22,252
Quote Quote by mathmantics View Post
So this does indeed work, and that was all I was really wondering.
Well hold on: if by "this", you mean what is claimed in the link and on the video, no, it does not work. Dadface's description of a crystal radio is similar to what is being described in the hoax, but is not really the same thing.
If the energy from the air is miniscule as demonstrated in the video...
The energy in the air is vastly smaller than what is being faked/hoaxed in the video.
....can it be scaled up to produce more energy over a large area?
Certainly, if you built a cage around a radio transmitter you could in theory capture all of the emissions of the antenna. I don't think the owners of the radio station would be thrilled about it, though.

As for what's generally out there floating around, the CMB has an energy density of 3.11E-6 w/sq m, which means that if you had a perfectly efficient collector of 32 square kilometers, you could light-up a standard light bulb. Or you could use a mediocre quality 1 square meter solar panel.
It appears that I can increase the amount of energy by scaling this up over a large area, which will work perfect for my cabin, and allow me to slowly charge my spare cellphone or laptop even my battery that runs my light while I am away for long periods.
You're wasting your time and money. What is claimed is a hoax.
Thanks.
You're welcome - sorry we weren't able to help you avoid wasting your money. I hope we can still help you avoid wasting your time.
FlexGunship
#13
Sep9-10, 07:21 AM
PF Gold
FlexGunship's Avatar
P: 739
You're going to use this to charge your cell phone in your cabin? Keeping in mind that even this radio antenna has collected less than a milliwatt of total power over it's entire lifetime of usage. TRUE!



(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkes_Observatory)

The neurons in your brain firing create a relatively sustainable 25 watts when you are awake. You have a significantly better chance of harnessing your own body's chemical potential energy for practical use.
stewartcs
#14
Sep9-10, 10:00 AM
Sci Advisor
stewartcs's Avatar
P: 2,283
Quote Quote by FlexGunship View Post
You're going to use this to charge your cell phone in your cabin? Keeping in mind that even this radio antenna has collected less than a milliwatt of total power over it's entire lifetime of usage. TRUE!



(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkes_Observatory)

The neurons in your brain firing create a relatively sustainable 25 watts when you are awake. You have a significantly better chance of harnessing your own body's chemical potential energy for practical use.
LMAO!

That's too funny!

CS
FlexGunship
#15
Sep9-10, 10:14 AM
PF Gold
FlexGunship's Avatar
P: 739
Correction and clarification for above: radio telescopes work in picowatts of continual power. Some have acquired on the order of tens of nanowatt-hours of energy in their entire operational lifetime (Very Large Array: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_Large_Array).

In 1990, someone had computed that all of the radio telescopes active in the entire world had finally amassed the total amount of energy released in a single snowflake impacting the ground.

Hey, OP, perhaps you could simply harness the power of snow falling to charge your cell phone. Then harness the power of a gnat landing on a pillow to run the TV set (would probably have to be an energy efficient LCD). Run the electric stove off of a chipmunk sneeze and you should be good. You could totally "go green."

Disclaimer: my computer runs praying mantis eye-lid twitches.
russ_watters
#16
Sep9-10, 05:09 PM
Mentor
P: 22,252
Quote Quote by FlexGunship View Post
Correction and clarification for above: radio telescopes work in picowatts of continual power. Some have acquired on the order of tens of nanowatt-hours of energy in their entire operational lifetime (Very Large Array: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_Large_Array).
Hmm...that's several orders of magnitude lower than the value I calculated above. I wonder what the cause of the discrepancy is.
mugaliens
#17
Sep9-10, 07:08 PM
P: 595
Quote Quote by russ_watters View Post
Hmm...that's several orders of magnitude lower than the value I calculated above. I wonder what the cause of the discrepancy is.
I wonder if it's the fact that it's attuned to a narrow band of frequencies useful for radio astronomy, but not used by humans for radio frequency communications? There are bands which are off-limits simply because they are used for radio astronomy.

That and the fact that signals from out there are rather faint.

However, this and the Goldstone antennas located in the Mojave desert were used in space exploration, most notably as receivers for Buzz Aldrin's broadcast during Apollo 11, so they can be used in various bands. I suspect the amount of energy it received during Apollo 11 was quite a bit more than what it usually receives.
Ivan Seeking
#18
Sep9-10, 09:03 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,498
Quote Quote by FlexGunship View Post
Correction and clarification for above: radio telescopes work in picowatts of continual power. Some have acquired on the order of tens of nanowatt-hours of energy in their entire operational lifetime (Very Large Array: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_Large_Array).
In radio astronomy, the flux unit or jansky (symbol Jy) is a non-SI unit of spectral electromagnetic flux density[1] equivalent to 10−26 watts per square metre per hertz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jansky

For people not familiar with the math, that is 10-26, or one-hundreth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a watt...

It was a nice surprise when they got this right, in the movie, Contact. Of course, Sagan wrote the book, so what should I have expected?


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Online text of The Secret war for oil (1935) Current Events 0
Benefit of a Vortex Generator in a turbocharged automotive applications General Discussion 7
Then NSA secret wire tapping is legal(no i in front of that) Current Events 41
TIA lives in secret. Can you say Police State ? Current Events 1