Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Projecting a polar modifier at a distance.

  1. Nov 28, 2015 #1
    How would I change the polarity of an object at a distance? Say there was a concrete wall (which does not conduct electricity). Say this wall was 100 feet away. How would I give that wall a positive charge from 100 feet away? High frequency radio waves?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 28, 2015 #2

    anorlunda

    Staff: Mentor

    Pretty strange question. Are you writing a novel?

    You would direct a stream of charged particles at the object. That's hard to do in an atmosphere. It works better in a vacuum.

    Edit: For it to work, the particles must stick to the object.
     
  4. Nov 28, 2015 #3
    i need it to work in the atmosphere, since most of us live in the atmosphere.

    Tesla had some idea to use the ionosphere's low frequency to shoot beams to give people free energy miles away. What idea did he use, and was this the same idea? Could tesla change the polarity of an arbitrary concrete wall 1 mile away using his techs, or could it only be sent to custom built "open ports" configured to accept his energies?
     
  5. Nov 28, 2015 #4

    berkeman

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Thread closed for Moderation..
     
  6. Nov 28, 2015 #5

    berkeman

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Can you say what the application is? Why would you want to charge a wall 100 feet away? How much charge do you have in mind?
    Invoking Tesla will not get you very far at the PF. Please try to stick with mainstream modern scientific concepts here.

    Thread is re-opened to see how it goes. Please keep in mind that the Mentors are keeping an eye on this thread...
     
  7. Nov 28, 2015 #6
    The effeciency should be at least 1 percent, but the bigger the better.. If it has a low effeciency you can always wait and build the charge. 1 percent of a car battery is still alot.

    I thought tesla was a real scientist, his inventions obeyed the laws of physics, so if they worked then what is bad about them? tesla was not a crackpot, his inventions actually worked. What did he do that was bad?
     
  8. Nov 28, 2015 #7

    berkeman

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I have no idea what that means. But as @anorlunda already said, you could use a beam of charge to try, but the beam will disperse quickly in the atmosphere.
     
  9. Nov 28, 2015 #8
    an efficiency of 1 percent it means that only 1 percent of the charge in the battery ends up in the wall. i am looking for an alternative approach, that doesnt lose energy due to atmospherical dispersal forces, or at least within a range of 1 mile.
     
  10. Nov 28, 2015 #9

    berkeman

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Please answer my question about what the application is, or the thread will be locked for good. I'm getting the strong feeling that what you have in mind is not mainstream science...
     
  11. Nov 28, 2015 #10
    Not sure if its mainstream, but ironically enough the solution may involve some kind of energy stream. the application is to revive soldiers who had heart attacks, from a distance, in order to save lives without getting caught in the crossfire. Think of it like a remote difibulator.
     
  12. Nov 28, 2015 #11

    meBigGuy

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    A wall is not a reasonable storage device for charge. It would bleed off faster than you could ever replace it.

    Here is a summary of wireless power transfer via electromagnetic waves. It mentions some of Tesla's work.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_power

    Particle or ion beams have a problem because Charged particle beams diverge rapidly due to mutual repulsion.
     
  13. Nov 28, 2015 #12
    Their capacitor potential is not an issue, it litterally must only hold a charge for a few picoseconds, since the effect is simultaneous.
     
  14. Nov 28, 2015 #13

    berkeman

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Well that's a wonderful thing to be thinking about! Kudos to you for that.

    From a medical standpoint, that will not be effective in defibrillation. You really need a good pair of conductive patches near the top and bottom of the heart. BTW, there have been some really cool advances in scanning the body with a small instrument to see if the soldier/patient is alive or not, and give non-contact vital signs. I'll see if I can find the link to that technology for you...
     
  15. Nov 28, 2015 #14
    The conductive patches seem to be the limiting factor. I read the article and mostly talks about non directional em fields, using a conductor to pick up the electricity. However, the microwave and lasers are directional, but they seem to be dependent on a custom made conductor to complete the circuit. Why I brought up the wall is to make the point of bringing up an arbitrary surface (ie. no conductive patches or "wireless reciever" device on the other end.) I am reading up on Tesla's things in the article and I will see if he overcame this limitation or not.
     
  16. Nov 28, 2015 #15

    meBigGuy

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    You can read about ion beams:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_beam

    You can read about particle weapons here. I understand that's not your goal, but that's what it would be used for.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle-beam_weapon

    The articles are useful to help with search terms for further study.

    Be sure to check out the references in the articles.

    Remember, you can't think outside the box if you don't know what is in the box. PF is about helping you understand what's in the box.
    Going outside the accepted scientific paradigms (or safety considerations) will get the thread closed.
     
  17. Nov 28, 2015 #16

    NascentOxygen

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I am curious: is a heart arrhythmia (a reversible heart arrhythmia at that) the cause of death of many soldiers under enemy fire? Are a percentage of soldiers basically being frightened to death?

    I'm wondering whether restarting their heart rhythm while keeping under fire might see them, now in a more precarious state, quickly succumb to further heart attacks?
     
  18. Nov 28, 2015 #17

    anorlunda

    Staff: Mentor

    ,

    NascentOxygen has a point. I know that the paramedics here refuse CPR to cardiac arrests due to trauma. Before making grand inventions, you might ask if army medics carry A.E.D.s into battle, and if not, why not?
     
  19. Nov 28, 2015 #18
    Cardiac arrest can be triggered from physical exhaustion, trauma (physical or mental), blood loss and oxygen deprivation. It is not that uncommon on the field. Fear may be a contributing factor, but a reassuring voice on the loudspeaker may help. So I guess my invention could have a loudspeaker attached to them know what is going on is a good thing.

    If that doesn't seem useful enough, then we could always dial it down a notch and use it as a taser for nonlethal purposes.
     
  20. Nov 28, 2015 #19

    berkeman

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    No sorry, that is misinformation. Your heart really is in the right place, but what you have posted is medically incorrect. Please see my PM to you. Thread will stay closed.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Projecting a polar modifier at a distance.
  1. Modifying Line Voltage (Replies: 18)

Loading...