create electrical energy in a war zone ?

I found this video about creating electrical energy in a war zone.

what do you guys think ? is this video for real ?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=77c_1332155711

No.

In theory, He Could have a battery pack shoved in the surge protector.

I think he's more full of crap than the Xmas goose. Rates up there with opening a lock with a tennis ball.

It looks possible to me!

If people think 3-4 lil sparks will light up the world in a infinite loop of energy they got another thing coming.

Also if you do believe this, Isn't that the ground wire he is shocking? How is that infinitely looping threw 2 different wires that is not THAT wire?

Clearly this video is a lie. While electromagnetic induction is very real this is not how it works. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_induction

If you thought this was possible consider studying for your technicians license to put things like this in perspective.


Also of note and somewhat related is the fact that with a massive energy source, such as the sun, wires can create heat.

See: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/03/solar-storm/

Nope, BS.

The principals you're thinking of are Faraday's Law and Lenz's Law. An inductor stores energy (current) in its magnetic field. As the current is used, the magnetic field collapses.

Without getting into an overly long and boring technical discussion, an inductor by itself cannot output more energy than you put in. In fact, (due to parasitic capacitance, hysteresis and wire resistance), an inductor can't even put out the same amount of energy as you put in. However, if you influence the inductor with a magnetic field, then it can convert the magnetic field to electricity (as happens in a generator).

The small amount of energy a coil can store would not be sufficient to even light-up a 30W light bulb. It might be able to power a low-voltage neon lamp for a second or two. But not the setup shown. The coil is too small, too loose and uses thick, stranded conductors that would have very high parasitic capacitance and hysteresis.

What is interesting if they can be done effectively, is Piezoelectric or Pyroelectric energy harvesting. This is generating small amounts of current from normal movement or temperature variations and storing it over time in a capacitor or battery, then using that to power electronic devices. Kinetic watches are practical examples of piezo energy harvesting.

So far, Newton's Third Law and the law of conservation of energy have not been overturned. The video is a fraud.

There are actually three separate coils in that circuit, the ground wire and the two conductors. It is possible to induce a voltage in these coils with a magnetic field or proximity to a powerful radio transmitter or magnatron.

The voltage in the coils depend on the number of turns of wire in the coil and the energy source. That is how mechanical transformers work.

A spark will not be stored or amplified, nor will electrons continue to rotate in the circuit due to electrical resistance.

Theoretically, it is possible for a coil plugged into itself to heat up in the proximity of high-voltage power lines or a high wattage radio station.

I believe that the video is a hoax.

Very entertaining! I recommend you invest your life's savings immediately, before word gets out ...

Assuming no shenanigans (big assumption), it may be nothing more than the semi-controlled discharge of capacitors in a high-end power conditioner. Show me a nice bright bulb after 30 seconds and I'll be intrigued (but not sold).

is it possible to plug in the surge protector to the UPS ?

Can the UPS power the phones, laptops?

Yes, that's the point of a UPS.

It has an internal sealed lead-acid (SLA) battery and a pure sine wave inverter. All the ones I've seen use a 12-volt battery, which is charged when plugged into the mains. The batteries do not have a lot of capacity, so don't expect a long run-time.

I see no reason why a solar panel couldn't be connected to the battery to extend the run-time. And in theory (I haven't tested it), connecting to a car battery should also be possible.

The catch is that some models shut down once the battery is low, and will not restart until reconnected to the mains. I've tried restarting by plugging them into a modified sine wave inverter with no luck; maybe I need to attach an earth ground.

My UPS battery lasted for about 8 years. Now, it won't hold a charge. I only found out when I had a power outage, which is exactly when I needed it.

What's an inexpensive maintenance routine for a UPS? For example, is there a brand that allows replacement of the battery only? If so, what's a good brand?

Most decent brands will allow replacement of just the battery, I don't think I've ever seen one that didn't, unless apple makes UPS's now.
Look up your model on a site like batteries plus and see the replacement battery and cost.
My $60 UPS needs two $20 batteries

Unless you get the more expensive UPS systems, most of the ones for home computers are modified sine. You can't plug them into another modified sine wave UPS, because it sees an irregular waverform and automatically switches to battery, which is what it's supposed to do.

Really? That's surprising, though it makes sense from a cost POV. It must be a much better modified sine than I get with my other inverters. There's no noise, buzzing, or overheating at all, which is why I like them for my low-draw, sensitive gear.



I'm not entirely convinced of that, though I confess my research is incomplete. For example, I have two older ones (a Belkin and an APC) and have plugged them into a modified sine inverter in an attempt to clean up the power on the non-UPS outlets. That side works, though not all the noise is gone.

Both UPS units have dead batteries, so I'll need to swap them out to see if a modified sine will charge the internal battery. It doesn't matter much since it's easier pull straight DC from an external battery and solar panels. The only issue is a reset if I lose a connection (IIRC it's the APC that locks up).

Yup, I was surprised to find out it put out the same waveform as my cheap 12V inverter. If anything, the inverter modified sine was a little bit cleaner. On most devices I don't notice any difference either way, but connect an electric motor or LCD TV to them and you can hear the difference immediately.



I had no luck chaining APC units together (I also have a belkin but I haven't tested it). There is a sensitivity adjustment on them, but even at the lowest sensitivity I couldn't get it work. Older ones might be different, but I think currently only the APC smart UPS have true sine wave. During normal operation it just passes the regular line voltage straight through. Not until it's on backup power does it change to MSW. So if the first one is plugged into an outlet it would probably work, but as soon as you lose power both of them would stop charging.

During a windstorm last year I lost power for one week. I had to learn a lot about backup power very quickly.

Most of your small home/office UPS's are this offline type, as you said they just pass line power through normally. They will have a set high and low voltage threshold where they will switch to using the inverter and battery. If you want something that is always using the inverter and therefore always conditioning the incoming power you look for the "online" type.
The difference is cost, the online needs the battery charge circuit to be able to carry the whole load plus extra to recharge the battery, the offline type has a small battery charger just sufficient to charge the battery.

For UPSes in datacenters, we tell our customers to replace the batteries every two years. For home users, and if you have sufficient capacity, you might get away with three years betweeen replacements.

APC and Tripp Lite are the only brands I'd use professionally. At home, both are excellent and I'd also consider Belkin. Don't chain them together unless they are designed to do so -- APC in particular makes external battery packs for their UPSes.

Most are SLA batteries, not much for maintenance, just test and replace regularly.

The video is for real. They just forgot to show the power supply . I noticed that the power distributor did not shift around on the table - not even when devices were plugged in or out. That is a tiny bit suspicious.
I have seen quite a few free energy devices. A colleague is about to build a new one currently. He already made half a dozen almost work. Without fail the devices I have been shown so far had flawed assumptions for the proof of concept or deliberately (?) faulty math in the calculation of the amount of energy they harvest. One of my favorites is the joule thief driving a LED from an "empty" alkaline battery.
The bad thing about the free energy community is that they show serious signs of sect behavior and many members have just enough education to fall for pseudo science.
The reason for the failure of free energy devices is usually attributed to a conspiracy. You may only guess how mighty the conspirators are as even mother nature supports the conspiracy by delivering inferior materials and modules that lack the desired properties .

Am I missing something, or is this just the contemporary version of the perpetual motion machine? We happen to live in a universe with no free lunch, and that applies to energy generation, too.

Yes, you are missing something. And those devices are or are not contemporary versions of the perpetual motion machine. That depends on whom you ask.
The original idea of Nicola Tesla was to harvest energy from neutrinos and other stellar radiation, which is freely available. That might be feasible and it would not violate any laws of physics. This idea met esoteric and pseudoscience. This is where the idea took a questionable turn. The members of the community are very persuasive and do not balk from calling engineers ignorant (or something less polite, which I wont repeat on a family friendly website) for predicting the behavior that can be experienced when building and operating those devices. Of course there are plenty of people who embrace the opportunity to make the money that´s in the business of selling plans for building the devices.
My policy is to steer clear of those folks. You cannot win and you should not risk getting sucked into that movement - you would not believe the amount of support and resources my colleague managed to solicit for his projects.

This is just a general comment, not aimed at anyone in particular.

This guy probably is a crank, but having said that, I have little patience for the many people out there, who using science as their support, dismiss things out of hand without testing. Our modern day trend in the "educated" community is to dismiss things out of hand that contradict our holy and sacrosanct theories of how things work, most of which have flaws and many are severely flawed. A common comment is "that can't work, doesn't that guy have any idea of scientific principles"

It is usually those "cranks" who try things, not based on theories, and occasionally discover something that is ground breaking in science. It is about time that the scientific community started to take nothing for granted and tested all areas of all the theories that we hold as fact (or almost so). If we did that we would have a new era in science.

One example to leave you with is gravity, it has the same effect on all falling matter right? WRONG!! But you say Galileo proved that at the leaning tower of Pisa! And Isaac Newton proved that using his Laws of Motion! You would only be partially correct.

Gravity works equally on bodies with inertias moving in the same direction. So two identical objects rotating at the same speed and falling, will fall at the same rate as each other, just as two non-rotating bodies will fall at the same rate. However a rotating body will always fall faster and for that matter rise faster than a non-rotating body. The greater it's diameter, mass and the speed of rotation, the faster it will fall and if it is thrown upward the faster it will rise.

Simply put Newtons laws that we take for fact are flawed in that they did not take into account rotating bodies and they do not apply to rotating bodies. Sorry Isaac! If you think I am wrong, then you had better do some research, and not from text books either as most text books are only mostly correct.

So I encourage all to question, and to test before condemning something that goes contrary to the way we think things work.

Is this observation due to the variances in the effect of gravity or air resistance?

Pete

This is to do with the way gravity acts on a rotating body. The ranger rockets back in the old days had large rotating stabilisers inside the cones and they enabled the rockets to go higher than the fuel that they carried allowed. (That was not planned but something that Werner von Braun noticed and tried to explain with future research)

You can also do a simple experiment, spin a ball bearing to full speed using a high speed power drill and launch it into the air with a stationary one. If you take video or strobed photos of the path of the balls you will see that the spinning one rises faster, goes higher and falls faster than the non-rotating one. Much higher than can be explained by air resistance.

Gravity and spin
I suppose one could take a couple simple gyroscopes, spin one and then drop both. I wonder how far they would need to fall to see a measurable difference. I also wonder if the difference (assuming there is a difference) is related to air resistance and the wobbling of the non-spinning object. So maybe we need to change out that gyroscope for a teflon ball with a super slick surface so that air resistance falls out...

$.02 -- just thinking out loud on my keyboard over my first cup.

Have you done that experiment?

No I haven't, I didn't have the strobe equipment (or a fast enough camera) needed to do the experiment, unfortunately. However, I have read reports by researchers who have, and the Ranger rocket anomaly is known in the history of rocketry.

There are reports of I think it was Bowing who have been doing research on anti-gravity aircraft for several years now, using a high speed rotating body of liquid supercooled metal to achieve some sort of gravity manipulation using this principle and perhaps others.

Good luck with the gyroscope test. You will have to get it fast (the ball bearing test used 27'000 RPM) and then stand well back, I hear those things off aircraft can throw you across the room.... A 20 foot drop should just about do it I would think. I would have something soft for them to fall into ....

Ya but . . . as I recall the purpose of the gyro was to stabilize the rocket (stop wobbling) and keep it pointed up. IMO reducing any wobbling would have the effect of reducing air resistance as the control fins would play a lesser roll. Every time a control surface is needed to control attitude it is necessarily increasing air resistance. With a gyro maintaining attitude, are control surfaces even required?

Macgyver, you do realize that you're making M_a_x's point?

Obviously you're not talking about relativistic speeds - the speed of the outer surface of a 1" ball bearing at 27,000 RPM is only about 80 MPH.

If spinning a body somehow increases it's gravitation without increasing it's mass or vice versa, the same ought to apply to any moving body. Bullets ought to positively dive for the ground!

If I understand it correctly, and I don't begin to claim to, it is changing the inertia of the object. How that works with things traveling horizontally or vertically is purely conjecture. You have made an assumption about what is happening with the rotating object without really knowing, and then you are making a connection with something that is very difficult to accurately measure (all bullets have charges that exert different pressures)

All I am saying is that this is an area that well respected gyroscopic researchers have been studying for years and it shows a flaw in the laws of physics that we revere. There are too many thought experiments in the scientific community (especially in the slightly educated community) and not enough experimentation. You may well ask why don't I do the experiment myself and prove that it is as I say it is? Perhaps one day I will, but at the moment, firstly I have better things to do and I find the research credible and historically sound. Secondly I don't have the equipment.

If you would like to say that it isn't so and that the researchers are lying and your physics professors are without error in this area. Then, do the test yourself and you will be satisfied either way, and science will be done. As I said earlier, don't do a thought experiment based on known theories and then say that it can't work... If someone wants to debunk something, then do the experiment and then prove it wrong scientifically.

I agree with MAX that there are too many folks who have just enough education to be sucked in by cranks, however there are just as many people with just enough education who consider themselves educated when all they are doing is spouting off the theoretical principles that they have been taught instead of reasoning and experimenting and testing themselves.

In the second Gulf war the US were using "top secret" aircraft that would hover for hours in one spot over the battle field. These aircraft apparently were the result of developing this principle of rotational inertia. I know guys who were on the ground over there and they were telling me that they had seen nothing like them. I seem to remember that they were the triangular shaped aircraft that were being tested in the US at night for several years before that time.

Macgyver and I may not disagree as much as it may seem. Science is not about how cranky a theory is or even if the theory is right.
The scientific approach to a theory is to set up and conduct a test that can falsify the theory. To assure it can reproduced, setup and results must be documented. The results must not be twisted to support the theory. It is legitimate to refer to tests that have already be done.
There is a reason for the free energy community to dislike engineers. Many of the devices use well known effects and do not work because of equally well known effects. Some of those effects were experienced through experiments during the studies. The engineers also learned to ask the right questions. E. g. if a certain power output is claimed, evidence beyond the dark glow of a light bulb may be asked for instead of just the nominal rating of the bulb emitting bright white light.
Due to the gyroscopic effect accelerated spinning bodies experience forces that are not present for non-spinning bodies. Spinning ball bearings also have interaction with fluids beyond air resistance. It is a complex situation. So a falling ball bearing may behave in a way you would not expect. Whether the behavior supports the theory of influence on the gravitation can only be decided with tests.