incredible advance!

On Sat, 9 Nov 2013 13:35:36 -0800 (PST), edward.ming.lee@gmail.com wrote:

A transmitter can supply many receivers. Lets say it's a TV transmitter
of 10kW and it's being picked up by 10,000 receivers each using -10W
(minus of course because the power is coming in). That's a surplus of
90kW.

There are two reasons this is kept secret. Safety as alluded to above is
one, Exxon Mobil is the other.

I don think Exxon cares about who is paying for power: consumers or transmission companies. But AT&T & Verizon would, if people starts drawing powers from cell signals.
Click to expand...

A tree draws more power from a cell signal than any antenna that you could
afford to erect. Ban trees?

The power density of ambient RF is very, very low, and nobody can put up a
structure to capture much of it.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators
 
In article <n33t79t9b7pfum93vh9t3ngsp4qehj4pvr@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2493931/New-device-harvests-electricit
y-background-radiation-like-Wi-Fi.html

You could use the energy captured from your cell phone to charge your cell
phone!
Click to expand...

You have to watch out for counterfeits. It looks like the phone is
using this tech to have no bars of signal and a full battery but they're
actually clay slabs with a sticker on top. Don't be fooled!
 
John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 9 Nov 2013 13:35:36 -0800 (PST), edward.ming.lee@gmail.com wrote:

A transmitter can supply many receivers. Lets say it's a TV transmitter
of 10kW and it's being picked up by 10,000 receivers each using -10W
(minus of course because the power is coming in). That's a surplus of
90kW.

There are two reasons this is kept secret. Safety as alluded to above is
one, Exxon Mobil is the other.
I don think Exxon cares about who is paying for power: consumers or transmission companies. But AT&T & Verizon would, if people starts drawing powers from cell signals.

A tree draws more power from a cell signal than any antenna that you could
afford to erect. Ban trees?
Click to expand...

No, but when you own one you may have to pay a global warming mitigation
tax because this increases the temperature of the tree by a few
femtodegrees. Of course it will be called a fee, in order to dodge any
legislative roadblocks.


The power density of ambient RF is very, very low, and nobody can put up a
structure to capture much of it.
Click to expand...

Try to explain that to folks in Berkeley ...

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
 
On Sat, 9 Nov 2013 16:03:19 -0600, "Tim Williams"
<tmoranwms@charter.net> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message news:0aat79t1domra7rebl8r8qj5q1uao63ptt@4ax.com...
For a second there, I wondered if there was a natural snow-blowing
machine.
Click to expand...

Wind?

>Are Mother-In-Laws natural?

Does she clear your driveway?
 
On Sun, 10 Nov 2013 00:30:46 -0800, Robert Baer
<robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2493931/New-device-harvests-electricity-background-radiation-like-Wi-Fi.html

You could use the energy captured from your cell phone to charge your cell
phone!


Well, does that mean the energy created by congress critters, when
they lie, could be used replace all of the power generators in the US?
Click to expand...

Hell no, they're an energy sink. How many millions of man-hours are
wasted because of their stupid tax rules alone?
 
On Sat, 09 Nov 2013 13:30:26 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 9 Nov 2013 12:15:09 -0800 (PST), bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, November 9, 2013 3:11:08 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 9 Nov 2013 12:01:06 -0800 (PST), bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:



On Saturday, November 9, 2013 2:27:51 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2493931/New-device-harvests-electricity-background-radiation-like-Wi-Fi.html







You could use the energy captured from your cell phone to charge your cell



phone!







Do you have any idea of the efficiency of the phone PA?



If there's that much wireless energy floating around, it's no wonder global warming is accelerating, we're microwaving the place to death.



I especially liked the idea of capturing energy from satellites. Imagine all the

things you could do with a few femtowatts.



Seven volts of electricity is more than five volts of electricity!





--



John Larkin Highland Technology Inc

www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com



Precision electronic instrumentation

Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators

Custom timing and laser controllers

Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links

VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer

Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators

The undergrad there also invented an artificial snow blowing machine. The snow is artificial not the machine.

For a second there, I wondered if there was a natural snow-blowing machine.
Click to expand...

7V vs 5V bloviation ?>:-}

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
 
John Larkin wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2493931/New-device-harvests-electricity-background-radiation-like-Wi-Fi.html

You could use the energy captured from your cell phone to charge your cell
phone!
Click to expand...
Well, does that mean the energy created by congress critters, when
they lie, could be used replace all of the power generators in the US?
 
On Sat, 09 Nov 2013 15:39:45 -0800, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 9 Nov 2013 13:35:36 -0800 (PST), edward.ming.lee@gmail.com wrote:

A transmitter can supply many receivers. Lets say it's a TV transmitter
of 10kW and it's being picked up by 10,000 receivers each using -10W
(minus of course because the power is coming in). That's a surplus of
90kW.

There are two reasons this is kept secret. Safety as alluded to above is
one, Exxon Mobil is the other.
I don think Exxon cares about who is paying for power: consumers or transmission companies. But AT&T & Verizon would, if people starts drawing powers from cell signals.

A tree draws more power from a cell signal than any antenna that you could
afford to erect. Ban trees?


No, but when you own one you may have to pay a global warming mitigation
tax because this increases the temperature of the tree by a few
femtodegrees. Of course it will be called a fee, in order to dodge any
legislative roadblocks.
Click to expand...

But it will also be called a tax to get around the Supremes.

The power density of ambient RF is very, very low, and nobody can put up a
structure to capture much of it.


Try to explain that to folks in Berkeley ...
Click to expand...

Can't explain anything to them.
 
John Larkin wrote:

Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators
The undergrad there also invented an artificial snow blowing machine. The snow is artificial not the machine.

For a second there, I wondered if there was a natural snow-blowing machine.
Click to expand...

Winter sky, it used to be.
 
On Saturday, November 9, 2013 4:19:05 PM UTC-5, edward....@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, November 9, 2013 1:09:31 PM UTC-8, Syd Rumpo wrote:
On 09/11/2013 20:50, edward.ming.lee@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, November 9, 2013 12:47:34 PM UTC-8, Syd Rumpo wrote:

On 09/11/2013 19:27, John Larkin wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2493931/New-device-harvests-electricity-background-radiation-like-Wi-Fi.html

You could use the energy captured from your cell phone to charge your cell
phone!

I used this technology back in the mid sixties to provide power for a
radio receiver.

No, you didn't. Some of us, including you and me (at first), missed his joke of recharging by itself.

I meant the energy capture technology, which I did use. John's idea is
good but dangerous. What if the safety systems went wrong and the
'phone just kept charging? Kabooom, that's what.
No difference from wired charging. You can protect it with good charging chip and algorithm. Charging from itself is a joke, but charging from cell towers or even nearby phones are possible. But they might outlaw it with Digital Signal CopyRight Act (DSCA), you can't steal other's people signals or wireless power.
Click to expand...

I think you need to recall, that though Syd is a smart guy, he also claims to have worked on the hendershot generator.

George H.
 
On Sunday, November 10, 2013 9:08:55 AM UTC+11, Tim Williams wrote:
"amdx" <nojunk@knology.net> wrote in message

news:l5mavt$r2f$1@dont-email.me...

How long before we change the impedance of (not so) free space?

....

and it would only need to drop Zo by a fraction of an ohm to generate more

than enough revenue to cover the defecit! Instead of that pesky inexact

377.something ohms, we could also round it to exactly 377, or even 375, a

nice round number!...
Click to expand...

Z_0 is actually 120*pi, so while we're at it we could declare pi to be 3, e to be 2.7. Death to irrational numbers and physical constants! What's next?
 
I prefer only genuine quack devices.
Look for the Monster label on your cable.

RIP Robert W. McCoy 1927-2010

http://www.museumofquackery.com/

Is there a museum like this for
quack electronics claims?

Monster should sponsor it.
 
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 06:32:36 -0800 (PST), George Herold
<gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:

On Saturday, November 9, 2013 4:19:05 PM UTC-5, edward....@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, November 9, 2013 1:09:31 PM UTC-8, Syd Rumpo wrote:
On 09/11/2013 20:50, edward.ming.lee@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, November 9, 2013 12:47:34 PM UTC-8, Syd Rumpo wrote:

On 09/11/2013 19:27, John Larkin wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2493931/New-device-harvests-electricity-background-radiation-like-Wi-Fi.html

You could use the energy captured from your cell phone to charge your cell
phone!

I used this technology back in the mid sixties to provide power for a
radio receiver.

No, you didn't. Some of us, including you and me (at first), missed his joke of recharging by itself.

I meant the energy capture technology, which I did use. John's idea is
good but dangerous. What if the safety systems went wrong and the
'phone just kept charging? Kabooom, that's what.
No difference from wired charging. You can protect it with good charging chip and algorithm. Charging from itself is a joke, but charging from cell towers or even nearby phones are possible. But they might outlaw it with Digital Signal CopyRight Act (DSCA), you can't steal other's people signals or wireless power.

I think you need to recall, that though Syd is a smart guy, he also claims to have worked on the hendershot generator.

George H.
Click to expand...

So, why harvest energy when it's free?


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom laser drivers and controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME thermocouple, LVDT, synchro acquisition and simulation
 
On 11/11/2013 21:12, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 06:32:36 -0800 (PST), George Herold
gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:

On Saturday, November 9, 2013 4:19:05 PM UTC-5, edward....@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, November 9, 2013 1:09:31 PM UTC-8, Syd Rumpo wrote:
On 09/11/2013 20:50, edward.ming.lee@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, November 9, 2013 12:47:34 PM UTC-8, Syd Rumpo wrote:

On 09/11/2013 19:27, John Larkin wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2493931/New-device-harvests-electricity-background-radiation-like-Wi-Fi.html

You could use the energy captured from your cell phone to charge your cell
phone!

I used this technology back in the mid sixties to provide power for a
radio receiver.

No, you didn't. Some of us, including you and me (at first), missed his joke of recharging by itself.

I meant the energy capture technology, which I did use. John's idea is
good but dangerous. What if the safety systems went wrong and the
'phone just kept charging? Kabooom, that's what.
No difference from wired charging. You can protect it with good charging chip and algorithm. Charging from itself is a joke, but charging from cell towers or even nearby phones are possible. But they might outlaw it with Digital Signal CopyRight Act (DSCA), you can't steal other's people signals or wireless power.

I think you need to recall, that though Syd is a smart guy, he also claims to have worked on the hendershot generator.

George H.

So, why harvest energy when it's free?
Click to expand...

It's a question of quality. For example, while free energy is great for
heating your house, you wouldn't really want to use it for cooking.
Likewise, you could run your TV from free power for the soaps or
'reality TV', but you wouldn't use it for serious drama or classical music.

Essentially, harvested energy uses better quality electrons, and
organically harvested energy is among the best you can get. Many people
claim that electrons are indistinguishable, but it is a fact that no two
have ever been measured to be the same.

Cheers
--
Syd
 
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 22:51:44 +0000, Syd Rumpo <usenet@nononono.co.uk>
wrote:

On 11/11/2013 21:12, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 06:32:36 -0800 (PST), George Herold
gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:
On Saturday, November 9, 2013 4:19:05 PM UTC-5, edward....@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, November 9, 2013 1:09:31 PM UTC-8, Syd Rumpo wrote:
On 09/11/2013 20:50, edward.ming.lee@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, November 9, 2013 12:47:34 PM UTC-8, Syd Rumpo wrote:
On 09/11/2013 19:27, John Larkin wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2493931/New-device-harvests-electricity-background-radiation-like-Wi-Fi.html
You could use the energy captured from your cell phone to charge your cell
phone!
I used this technology back in the mid sixties to provide power for a
radio receiver.
No, you didn't. Some of us, including you and me (at first), missed his joke of recharging by itself.
I meant the energy capture technology, which I did use. John's idea is
good but dangerous. What if the safety systems went wrong and the
'phone just kept charging? Kabooom, that's what.
No difference from wired charging. You can protect it with good charging chip and algorithm. Charging from itself is a joke, but charging from cell towers or even nearby phones are possible. But they might outlaw it with Digital Signal CopyRight Act (DSCA), you can't steal other's people signals or wireless power.
I think you need to recall, that though Syd is a smart guy, he also claims to have worked on the hendershot generator.

George H.

So, why harvest energy when it's free?

It's a question of quality. For example, while free energy is great for
heating your house, you wouldn't really want to use it for cooking.
Likewise, you could run your TV from free power for the soaps or
'reality TV', but you wouldn't use it for serious drama or classical music.

Essentially, harvested energy uses better quality electrons, and
organically harvested energy is among the best you can get. Many people
claim that electrons are indistinguishable, but it is a fact that no two
have ever been measured to be the same.

Cheers
Click to expand...

ROTFLMAO >:-}

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
 
grodzicky_j@yahoo.com.au wrote:
On Sunday, November 10, 2013 9:08:55 AM UTC+11, Tim Williams wrote:
"amdx"<nojunk@knology.net> wrote in message

news:l5mavt$r2f$1@dont-email.me...

How long before we change the impedance of (not so) free space?

...

and it would only need to drop Zo by a fraction of an ohm to generate more

than enough revenue to cover the defecit! Instead of that pesky inexact

377.something ohms, we could also round it to exactly 377, or even 375, a

nice round number!...


Z_0 is actually 120*pi, so while we're at it we could declare pi to be 3, e to be 2.7. Death to irrational numbers and physical constants! What's next?
Click to expand...
The Bible was first..saying that pi was 3.
So gotta be an absolute FACT that pi is three.
 
http://www.bluejeanscable.com/legal/mcp/

http://www.bluejeanscable.com/legal/mcp/response041408.pdf

Hilarious!
 
On Monday, November 11, 2013 5:51:44 PM UTC-5, Syd Rumpo wrote:
On 11/11/2013 21:12, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 06:32:36 -0800 (PST), George Herold
snip
I think you need to recall, that though Syd is a smart guy, he also claims to have worked on the hendershot generator.

George H

So, why harvest energy when it's free?
It's a question of quality. For example, while free energy is great for
heating your house, you wouldn't really want to use it for cooking.
Likewise, you could run your TV from free power for the soaps or
'reality TV', but you wouldn't use it for serious drama or classical music.

Essentially, harvested energy uses better quality electrons, and
organically harvested energy is among the best you can get. Many people
claim that electrons are indistinguishable, but it is a fact that no two
have ever been measured to be the same.
Click to expand...

Hi Syd, I assume your tongue is firmly in your cheek.
Am I mistaken in my claim that you 'worked on' the hedershot generator?
(If so I apologize.)

George H.
Cheers

--

Syd
Click to expand...
 
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 16:30:23 -0800 (PST), Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com>
Gave us:

I prefer only genuine quack devices.
Look for the Monster label on your cable.

RIP Robert W. McCoy 1927-2010

http://www.museumofquackery.com/

Is there a museum like this for
quack electronics claims?

Monster should sponsor it.
Click to expand...

Then, they would have to sue themselves.
 
On Mon, 11 Nov 2013 17:30:23 -0700, Greegor <greegor47@gmail.com> wrote:

I prefer only genuine quack devices.
Look for the Monster label on your cable.
RIP Robert W. McCoy 1927-2010
http://www.museumofquackery.com/
Is there a museum like this for
quack electronics claims?
Monster should sponsor it.
Click to expand...

find his letter in response to Monster 'suing' him...

Kurt Denke, Founder/Pres
Blue Jeans Cable
1419 Elliott Ave. W, Suite C
Seattle WA 98119
tel: (206) 284-2924
fax: (206) 284-2931
http://www.bluejeanscable.com

If you can't find, I have a text copy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top