Weekend_Climberz Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 Old Concept Revived With a little more investment and respect, I bet Nikola could have had this thing working about 90 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 He was too busy making that machine that makes duplicates of stage magicians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 At 40% power transmission the efficiency leaves something to be desired. The idea here is to convert alternating electric current into magnetic flux, then collecting the energy by capturing that flux and converting it back into alternating current. It works something like your avalanche transceiver but at higher power. People now worry about the magnetic flux produced by high voltage electric wires. There are studies which show effects on animals. This system would put far higher flux right into the home. It radiates 5 watts to transmit 60 watts. We already know that cell phones can cause brain cancer. They say they can improve the efficiency. Let us hope so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 OMFG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 ummmm....hello you assclowns! tesla brokeup, but they are not dead. That song Signs was so poignant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 At 40% power transmission the efficiency leaves something to be desired. The idea here is to convert alternating electric current into magnetic flux, then collecting the energy by capturing that flux and converting it back into alternating current. It works something like your avalanche transceiver but at higher power. People now worry about the magnetic flux produced by high voltage electric wires. There are studies which show effects on animals. This system would put far higher flux right into the home. It radiates 5 watts to transmit 60 watts. We already know that cell phones can cause brain cancer. They say they can improve the efficiency. Let us hope so. " Int J Cancer. 2007 Apr 15;120(8):1769-75. Links Mobile phone use and risk of glioma in 5 North European countries.Lahkola A, Auvinen A, Raitanen J, Schoemaker MJ, Christensen HC, Feychting M, Johansen C, Klaeboe L, Lönn S, Swerdlow AJ, Tynes T, Salminen T. STUK, Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, Helsinki, Finland. anna.lahkola@stuk.fi Public concern has been expressed about the possible adverse health effects of mobile telephones, mainly related to intracranial tumors. We conducted a population-based case-control study to investigate the relationship between mobile phone use and risk of glioma among 1,522 glioma patients and 3,301 controls. We found no evidence of increased risk of glioma related to regular mobile phone use (odds ratio, OR = 0.78, 95% confidence interval, CI: 0.68, 0.91). No significant association was found across categories with duration of use, years since first use, cumulative number of calls or cumulative hours of use. When the linear trend was examined, the OR for cumulative hours of mobile phone use was 1.006 (1.002, 1.010) per 100 hr, but no such relationship was found for the years of use or the number of calls. We found no increased risks when analogue and digital phones were analyzed separately. For more than 10 years of mobile phone use reported on the side of the head where the tumor was located, an increased OR of borderline statistical significance (OR = 1.39, 95% CI 1.01, 1.92, p trend 0.04) was found, whereas similar use on the opposite side of the head resulted in an OR of 0.98 (95% CI 0.71, 1.37). Although our results overall do not indicate an increased risk of glioma in relation to mobile phone use, the possible risk in the most heavily exposed part of the brain with long-term use needs to be explored further before firm conclusions can be drawn. © 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc." "1: Environ Health Perspect. 2001 Dec;109 Suppl 6:911-33. Links Review of the epidemiologic literature on EMF and Health.Ahlbom IC, Cardis E, Green A, Linet M, Savitz D, Swerdlow A; ICNIRP (International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) Standing Committee on Epidemiology. Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. anders.ahlblom@imm.ki.se Exposures to extremely low-frequency electric and magnetic fields (EMF) emanating from the generation, transmission, and use of electricity are a ubiquitous part of modern life. Concern about potential adverse health effects was initially brought to prominence by an epidemiologic report two decades ago from Denver on childhood cancer. We reviewed the now voluminous epidemiologic literature on EMF and risks of chronic disease and conclude the following: a) The quality of epidemiologic studies on this topic has improved over time and several of the recent studies on childhood leukemia and on cancer associated with occupational exposure are close to the limit of what can realistically be achieved in terms of size of study and methodological rigor. b) Exposure assessment is a particular difficulty of EMF epidemiology, in several respects: i) The exposure is imperceptible, ubiquitous, has multiple sources, and can vary greatly over time and short distances. ii) The exposure period of relevance is before the date at which measurements can realistically be obtained and of unknown duration and induction period. iii) The appropriate exposure metric is not known and there are no biological data from which to impute it. c) In the absence of experimental evidence and given the methodological uncertainties in the epidemiologic literature, there is no chronic disease for which an etiological relation to EMF can be regarded as established. d) There has been a large body of high quality data for childhood cancer, and also for adult leukemia and brain tumor in relation to occupational exposure. Among all the outcomes evaluated in epidemiologic studies of EMF, childhood leukemia in relation to postnatal exposures above 0.4 microT is the one for which there is most evidence of an association. The relative risk has been estimated at 2.0 (95% confidence limit: 1.27-3.13) in a large pooled analysis. This is unlikely to be due to chance but, may be, in part, due to bias. This is difficult to interpret in the absence of a known mechanism or reproducible experimental support. In the large pooled analysis only 0.8% of all children were exposed above 0.4 microT. Further studies need to be designed to test specific hypotheses such as aspects of selection bias or exposure. On the basis of epidemiologic findings, evidence shows an association of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis with occupational EMF exposure although confounding is a potential explanation. Breast cancer, cardiovascular disease, and suicide and depression remain unresolved. PMID: 11744509 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE" I got the sense that there was no conclusive data linking either. There certainly doesn't seem to be a general consensus on these points amongst those who are qualified to evaluate the evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 My wife is steadfast in her testimony that living under high-voltage transmission lines was the cause for our last child to be born black. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-rock Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 ummmm....hello you assclowns! tesla brokeup, but they are not dead. That song Signs was so poignant. ummmm.... hello genex crack-baby. Tesla's version was a cover. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 My wife is steadfast in her testimony that living under high-voltage transmission lines was the cause for our last child to be born black. It wasnt the power lines....it was the milk man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 ummmm....hello you assclowns! tesla brokeup, but they are not dead. That song Signs was so poignant. ummmm.... hello genex crack-baby. Tesla's version was a cover. Yes, but to be done right it has be sung by a guy with big hair wearing tights. All else are pretenders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 We already know that cell phones can cause brain cancer. Presenting theory or anecdote as fact does not make it fact. Kinda' like anthropogenic global warming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogerJ Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 Public concern has been expressed about the possible adverse health effects of mobile telephones, mainly related to intracranial tumors I fear getting cancer of the distal phalanges from too much text messaging. -r Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 Distel joined a phalange Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 We already know that cell phones can cause brain cancer. Presenting theory or anecdote as fact does not make it fact. Kinda' like anthropogenic global warming. Or like evolution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 The earth is sitting on top of a giant turtle. Fuck you nonbelievers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_like_sun Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 That is really cool! Two years ago in physics I was discussing this kind of stuff with my professor. We did an experiment where we set up a coil around a line with current flowing, and actually "stole" electricity from it without actually touching it! Basically, the magnetic field resonating perpendicular around the electric field in the power line created another charge and subsequent current through our coil. It then lit a light-bulb in the lab. Essentially the exact same principle as discussed in that article. Freaking radical man! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 Patent infringement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_like_sun Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 Patent infringement. You are an infringement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choada_Boy Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 That is really cool! Two years ago in physics I was discussing this kind of stuff with my professor. We did an experiment where we set up a coil around a line with current flowing, and actually "stole" electricity from it without actually touching it! Basically, the magnetic field resonating perpendicular around the electric field in the power line created another charge and subsequent current through our coil. It then lit a light-bulb in the lab. Essentially the exact same principle as discussed in that article. Freaking radical man! What changed in the power line so that you didn't violate any conservation laws? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bstach Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 (edited) That is really cool! Two years ago in physics I was discussing this kind of stuff with my professor. We did an experiment where we set up a coil around a line with current flowing, and actually "stole" electricity from it without actually touching it! Basically, the magnetic field resonating perpendicular around the electric field in the power line created another charge and subsequent current through our coil. It then lit a light-bulb in the lab. Essentially the exact same principle as discussed in that article. Freaking radical man! This is grade 10 physics. Cool - yes. Radical - not really. Edited June 12, 2007 by bstach Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogerJ Posted June 11, 2007 Share Posted June 11, 2007 Yawn.. I saw this stuff on TV when I was a kid... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 That is really cool! Two years ago in physics I was discussing this kind of stuff with my professor. We did an experiment where we set up a coil around a line with current flowing, and actually "stole" electricity from it without actually touching it! Basically, the magnetic field resonating perpendicular around the electric field in the power line created another charge and subsequent current through our coil. It then lit a light-bulb in the lab. Essentially the exact same principle as discussed in that article. Freaking radical man! This is grade 10 physics in Canada. Cool - yes. Radical - not really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TREETOAD Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_like_sun Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 That is really cool! Two years ago in physics I was discussing this kind of stuff with my professor. We did an experiment where we set up a coil around a line with current flowing, and actually "stole" electricity from it without actually touching it! Basically, the magnetic field resonating perpendicular around the electric field in the power line created another charge and subsequent current through our coil. It then lit a light-bulb in the lab. Essentially the exact same principle as discussed in that article. Freaking radical man! What changed in the power line so that you didn't violate any conservation laws? Nothing. Its genuine innocent energy theft. Do you have a problem with it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choada_Boy Posted June 12, 2007 Share Posted June 12, 2007 Figured it out. It's essentially a transformer. The voltage would drop in the primary circuit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.