The only possible way to get smaller joule to create bigger joule is to absorb stray energy in the ambient, including widely known wireless energy.

There is no such way to create something from nothing. That is the law. If somebody said had that it can be done, it was a lie.

If we talk about the solar energy, firstly we get it from the sun. That energy could not be used directly.

And then, in what form you want to use that energy, electrical?

If yes, we use a solar panel and convert the solar energy to electrical currents.

And then, the current was used to boil the water.

In these processes, we could loss some energy in the conversion process since the system itself was not really effective 100%.

When we get "a" amount of solar energy, we could get "b" maximum amount of electrical currents.

so, a ---> b, so at least we could get "b", we could not get more than "b". Why, huh?

Because "maths formula" is a perfect tool for conversion, its like, 3 = 2 + 1. There is no perfect thing in this world. Efficiency will make this formula, 3 = 2 + 1, to (less than or equal to 3) = 2 + 1.

if somebody said, uh, we can get more than that. Then i would ask, where the energy comes from. From heaven? You could NOT simply talk is it possible make a "smaller joule" to create "bigger joule". It was impossible and reckless.

Now days, we only make energy conversions, not energy creations.


"The only possible way to get smaller joule to create bigger joule is to absorb stray energy in the ambient, including widely known wireless energy."

This is a not a creation sir, you just absorb and store the energy. Wireless technology, loss more energy because of noise and interference. Wireless provides waves that simply goes everywhere they want.


"Power= voltage X current"

Vs Ip Ns
--- = --- = ---
Vp Is Np

This formula is considered ideal. But, you must know that flux leakage that happens and many things.


Thats true, P = V x I, but this must obey V = I x R. When we use coils inside transformer, we use it as Z (impedance).

so, V = I x Z,
P = (I^2) x Z

Z also consists imaginary number based on the coils. Complex numbers.

I thought i have write very clear that energy in overall has yet to be conversed according to the law. My example of creating bigger joule from smaller joule is just an illustration how he use less electrical energy to get more thermal heat throught absorbtion of heat from ambient. In fact, there is no statement in "make a smaller joule to create, a bigger joule" says that no external energy can be absorb. Therefore i can only say if the system manage to absorb energy from embient, then there will be an illusion that some one use smaller joule to get bigger joule. However, the additional joule is the amount of heat absorb from environment.
I just hope some one when read a statement, be more critical. Most importantly, be more creative, not just simply reject some idea base on common sense.

Being creative as in treating the incomplete truths as the whole truth? The way you are putting it implies that the energy absorbed from the environment doesn't count as a source of energy and should be ignored when comparing the total energy output of the system with the energy provided to the system.

The answer is simple. We "must" obey the law. That's why is was called as a law.

This is not the story of the "creativity" itself, but, the "creativity" could not be applied to that law.



Thats mean that "illusions" bring external joule to that smaller joule.




This kind of thinking could not apply, so, why giving idea (theory) that could not apply to that laws that already proven? If you can broke it, prove it. If you learn to some extent possible, then, you will know, there is not answer why we must obey the law. Why, because we are no god.


So, I will show you. Imagine you want to create a new world. Example, A second earth.

Where you will get the ingredients.

Take your sand from moon, mars, or anywhere, but you will not creating your sand without nothing. That's how the law works. No sand without changing anything, um... we call that equivalent trade.

Then, second example.

Burn your trash. It would at least converted to carbon, carbon dioxide, and anything. But you couldn't make it vanish, pooooosh without traces. Can you make it happen? And at least you must put it somewhere.

This is not about common sense. If we show you the details, it never fits this forum, where the answer will lead you to nowhere.

I thought that my statement is very clear that "energy in overall has yet to be conserved according to the law". Did i say energy absorb from environment is not counted in? I only mean that one can use some energy and add some energy from other sources to get more energy. The statement is written so clear and yet still got ppl want to forget what i had writen and simply comment on part of a statements....

The idea is like if i use a 1kW electric heater to cook water, my water heat content increase at rate of 1kW. If i use a 1kW heat pump, one can get 1kW plus extra heat(which may be around 3kW) which absorb from environment. For an end user, he/she only see the effect, one system produce 1kW of heat using 1kW of electric while another produce perhaps 3.0kW(for example) of heat using 1kW of electric. They see this effect because they are the one who pay for the electric bill by heating their water. It is clear that they can heat up more water for the same amount of electric bills by using an heat pump. Most importantly, they are not charged for stealing heat from the environment.

As for people who know the underlying theory such as Kekacang,Eventless, those who have good foundation on Physics and me , we know that the additional heat is absorb from environment. Most importantly, we know this facts because energy must always conserved in a close system(or energy cannot be simply created and destroyed, can only change from one form to another form). But For those who dont know the theory, they get an illusion that they got bigger joule out of smaller joule(because they pay less $$).

Another example is like Microsoft Windows operating system(OS), claiming it is multitasking. By theory, multitasking OS means that the operating sytsem running several task at a instance, which is something like parallel computing system use in supercomputer. Then, it reality, Windows is still a "singletasking" OS for the reason that there is only one processing unit running at one time(especially during the time when no multicore processor is in market). The end user see multitasking effect because Windows OS perform "time slicing", to allow each task have opportunity to run within a time frame. Windows OS give an illusion of multitasking to end user while for professional people will know what is happening inside.

Finally, "Creativity" is build on the criterion where fundamental truth to be obeyed by all means. I would also like to provide a link for those who interested on the work for those inventor who attempt to get more joule out of less joule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

One of the most important concept for those who study deep in theory is that no matter how complete a theory is, the theory is still not complete. Please refer to the following link to understand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del...teness_theorems


This post has been edited by VA1701wb: Sep 16 2009, 03:42 AM

lower current OLOLOLOL

eh?

i believe it's fundamentally impossible.. It's as per conservation of energy theory. Sum of energy before and after an event must be equal.

Yes, it is fundamentally impossible. But most of our methods of producing energy give the "impression" that we are creating larger amounts of energy from smaller ones. A casual observer would contend that energy is being "created" in devices such as engines etc, when actually it is just conversion

XD
come on, any person with basic knowledge in physics would know any process would produce less energy than its input.
Losses due to stray capacitance, to environment.

i dunno, i just find it very hard to accept it.

However, that being said, i've seen a Master's Project which able to produce 1000V with just 5V input.
I don't know how they did it. When i asked they just replied they spent alot of effort in it, can't just tell out like that
XD

That's sucks, where a master graduate couldn't tell whats he doing.

this is normal, but take a look first. the question is how many ampere is generated. I also could do that, by using a DC transformer.

no la.. they wanna copyright their idea.. XD

lol of cos i've asked them how much supply is used and what's the output.

Most misunderstood transformers can actually step-up energy, when all it does is just step-up voltages. The power transferred remains the same (ok maybe less due to core and copper losses)

You bold the wrong section la sis. I said IMPRESSION, big emphasis on that. And I'm referring to ppl with little or no scientific background at all

----

This post has been edited by marsalee: Nov 10 2010, 04:44 PM

is it possible make a smaller joule to create, a bigger joule?

The answer is no, as what law of conservation energy stated.

It is like asking the question whether we can open the door of the refigerator and trying to cool down the entire kithen.

Within an enclose system (e.g. the refigurator), the electrical energy is translated to mechanical energy to compress and expand the gas to cool down the temperature within the enclose system.

Say 100K joules were transformed. Only 90k were effective while 10k joule were released/wasted as a form of heat.

Let looks at the more open system (the kithen), the second law of thermodynamic stated that the entrophy (disorder, wasted energy, heat) would increase.

We are increasing the entrophy (disorder, heat) in our day to day lives by using air con per says. In an enclose system, the house, the office they are cooling to the expand of warming up the open system (the environment). The more we use the air con, the more we heat up the env. It is a chain reaction (in a bad way unfortunately).

If we look at the enclosed system, sometime we may misinterpreted that the energy within is increased. However, looking at the macro view of the larger open system, useable energy is getting reduced and entrophy increase as what stated by the second law.

Energy is always conserve in the super set macro view.

Many of you here are laughing your ass off at the TS question and giving him a big NO. I think you all are still stuck wil elementary physics.

Of course you all know the that according to the first law of thermodynamics, the quantity of energy in the whole universe is constant. No matter how the form of energy changes, the total amount when measured in joules is the same.

However, there have been a few phenomenas that seem to violate the first law of termodynamics. I can't remember those phenomenas anymore but I did have a discussion about it with a friend in uni before. Of course, until now we don't understand the phenomena yet nor are we able to replicate it. But in the future maybe the first law of termodynamics will be proven wrong. Scientist are interested in these phenomenas as if we can reproduce them it would mean an infinite source of energy.

Unless you can specify these phenomenons, your entire post is equivalent to one of those stories that you hear from a friend's uncle's relative. It is not relevant since it practically says nothing.

It is not scientific since you say that it cannot be replicated. Look at cold fusion, an experiment that could not be replicated successfully. If you can't cause a phenomenon to occurs in a reliable and measurable manner, good luck in having your hypothesis accepted by the scientific community.

Scientific laws will always change when a better one is found. You just have to prove it scientifically for that to happen.

LOL. It's people like the TS who wonder about these 'impossibles' and do years of research to better understand our universe. When curiosity if met with such negative attitude, it only hampers scientific development.

Obvious those phenomenons that I am talking about having been scientifically proved yet. It may be just some hocus pocus after all. But it has been claimed to be observed and people taken note about it. Btw, it's not some friend's uncle's relative stuff k, it's stuff that professors in good universities are looking at. It's just too bad I can't remember what is it. If anyone's interested you can search for them online yourself and if anyone wants to think I'm all words, doesn't really matter either.

The problem is that you can't even name these so called phenomenons.

How is someone supposed to discuss something when you are the only one who knows something about it?

It should at least have a name even if it hasn't been proven yet. Until you name these so called phenomenons, it's no different from a friend's uncle's relative's type story.

Ooops. My bad ><

i'm really beginning to wonder if you're contributing anything at all in any of the discussions here. Been seeing your posts today and it all seems rather, poor if i may say

Ah? So, what exactly is it?
you can't just possibly expect us to take your words for it eh?