A generator doesn’t create electric energy, it is only an energy pump. It requires a mechanical prime mover.

My question, other than chemical or solar cells. Is there another way to harness electrical power by tuning into oscillations of background radiation?

I believe that what you described are the principals which a crystal radio set operates under; it uses the AM broadcast to power the speaker directly.
Of course, it's not very loud because the signal is weak; the power of the stations signal falls off with the inverse square of the distance.

-Andrew

A generator doesn’t create electric energy, it is only an energy pump. A mechanical prime mover.

My question, other than chemical or solar cells. Is there another way to harness electrical power by tuning into oscillations of background radiation?

You've sort of got the idea but your terms are a little off.;)

Yes, a generator IS only an energy pump but it isn't the prime mover. The prime mover is the turbine, engine or whatever that is driving the generator.

I don't believe you understand what background radiation actually is. It doesn't have "oscillations" as such - it's such things as the radiation given off by the natural decay of radioactive elements like uranium and radium and it includes things like the solar wind and cosmic rays. And no, there's no practical way to harness that.

Background radiation, except maybe in a Radium mine, is so weak in total strength that you probably could never make a profit by somehow capturing it in a device.

Atomic batteries capture the energy of particles escaping from fissioning atoms, which is what you would need to do to get energy from background radiation. However, the environment inside an atomic battery is pretty much the same as being in a Radium mine.

I believe that what you described are the principals which a crystal radio set operates under; it uses the AM broadcast to power the speaker directly.
Of course, it's not very loud because the signal is weak; the power of the stations signal falls off with the inverse square of the distance.

-Andrew

OK, what about a signal originating as cosmic rays? Or Cosmic Radient wave energy?

To account for the propagation of heat and light or of radiant energy we have postulated the existence of a medium filling all space.

The transference of the energy of radiant heat and light is not the only evidence in favor of the existence of such a medium. Electric, magnetic, and electro-magnetic phenomena (and gravitation itself) point in the same direction.

It is a common observation that attractions and repulsions take place between electrified bodies, magnets, and circuits conveying electric currents.

If an electric current is started in any circuit, corresponding induced currents spring up in all very close neighboring conductors; yet, there is no visible connection between the circuit and the conductors.

To originate a current in any conductor requires the expenditure of energy.

How is the energy propagated from the circuit to the conductors?

If we believe that when it disappears at one place and reappears at another, it must have passed through the intervening space, and therefore have existed there somehow in the meantime.

we are forced to postulate a vehicle for its conveyance from place to place.

It has been proven that this oscillatory energy will drive special constructed electric motors at a speeds never thought possible. Tesla had a glimpse of the idea in his one wire motor.

Considering oscillations, mechanical and electrical and or mathematical. Electrical resistance is the same as mechanical friction and current comparable to mechanical velocity.

Inertia and inductance then must be considered in analogous terms. In mechanics the greater the inertia of a body, the longer it will keep in motion.

If we obtain a circuit tuned to the cosmic ray oscillations. Could it be the greater the electrical inductance the longer the current will continue to flow once it is established by a synchronized cosmic surge?

Expressed mathematically, the equations are the same for electrical or mechanical phenomena.

In the Gamma Rays we find potentials which are equivalent to as much as 2,000,000 volts, yet their wave lengths are not the shortest known to the physicists.

In octaves still higher lie Cosmic Rays. Who can draw a definite line and say how much higher other octaves exist than Cosmic Rays?

The discovery of these different ray vibrations was electrical conductivity of the air.

Conductivity is just as strong by night as by day, so radiations emitted by the sun can hardly be the cause of this energy.

Are we sure it can’t be accessed and utilized?

There's no practical way to harness that.

Did you forget to say "as of today" or do you think it will never happen?

Background radiation, except maybe in a Radium mine, is so weak in total strength that you probably could never make a profit by somehow capturing it in a device.

Atomic batteries capture the energy of particles escaping from fissioning atoms, which is what you would need to do to get energy from background radiation. However, the environment inside an atomic battery is pretty much the same as being in a Radium mine.

Oscillations, vibration of all mass and energy is background radiation, is it not?

Is it not evident, radiant energy exist everywhere in the observable Universe?

Did you forget to say "as of today" or do you think it will never happen?

While "as of today" is correct, there's no reason to expect it to ever happen.

The reason is quite simple: there isn't enough energy present in background radiation to make it worth the effort. It would be similar to trying to heat your home by carrying in leaves by hand from a mile away.

Oscillations, vibration of all mass and energy is background radiation, is it not?


That is not correct. Again, I'm afraid you don't understand the terms you're trying to use.

I've already described what background radiation REALLY is and if you doubt it, go check it out somewhere like Wikipedia.com and hundreds of other places on the web.

While "as of today" is correct, there's no reason to expect it to ever happen.

The reason is quite simple: there isn't enough energy present in background radiation to make it worth the effort. It would be similar to trying to heat your home by carrying in leaves by hand from a mile away.

It has been done. One inventor was able to pull 50KW out of the atmosphere with a 60 pound apparatus. The power was a steady supply all the while it exhibited unique properties compared to AC/DC current. One of which was extremely low resistance. This was probably due to the high frequency of the current.

It has been done. One inventor was able to pull 50KW out of the atmosphere with a 60 pound apparatus. The power was a steady supply all the while it exhibited unique properties compared to AC/DC current. One of which was extremely low resistance. This was probably due to the high frequency of the current.

Pardon my being so blunt but that's totally absurd! If such a silly thing were true, we wouldn't even need the power generating plants we currently have. We could just shut them all down.

Can you provide a link to this outrageous claim????

Pardon my being so blunt but that's totally absurd! If such a silly thing were true, we wouldn't even need the power generating plants we currently have. We could just shut them all down.

Can you provide a link to this outrageous claim????

http://www.rexresearch.com/moray2/morayrer.htm#ch8

Here it is, I would like to work on re-production of the experiment.

I have always considered a vortex hypothesis as the answer to theoretical physics. Morays work points in that direction. Creating a vacuum of the vortex shaped charge in spatial energy causes a kinetic flow.

Here is another web page.
http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/PowerPedia:Thomas_Henry_Moray

http://www.rexresearch.com/moray2/morayrer.htm#ch8

Here it is, I would like to work on re-production of the experiment.

I have always considered a vortex hypothesis as the answer to theoretical physics. Morays work points in that direction. Creating a vacuum of the vortex shaped charge in spatial energy causes a kinetic flow.

Here is another web page.
http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/PowerPedia:Thomas_Henry_Moray

One simple question: does it not strike you as odd that this "discovery" was made in the early 20th century and that nearly a hundred years later absolutely nothing has come of it?????

Things that actually work as claimed do not fall into obscurity.

Things that actually work as claimed do not fall into obscurity.

There was no reason to develope it. At the time fosil fuel was almost free.

The theory is interesting.

There was no reason to develope it. At the time fosil fuel was almost free.

The theory is interesting.

Heh! Even though it's much more expensive today, fossil fuel never came even close to being "almost free." At the value of money a century ago, it still cost quite a bit - compared to wages and everything else.

The theory isn't one bit intresting - the whole thing is nothing worth putting any effort (and money!) into. Basically, it was nothing more than an attempt to get "free energy" before the term was invented. It's a scientific dead-end - and that's exactly why NOTHING has come of it after all these decades.

Heh! Even though it's much more expensive today, fossil fuel never came even close to being "almost free." At the value of money a century ago, it still cost quite a bit - compared to wages and everything else.

The theory isn't one bit intresting - the whole thing is nothing worth putting any effort (and money!) into. Basically, it was nothing more than an attempt to get "free energy" before the term was invented. It's a scientific dead-end - and that's exactly why NOTHING has come of it after all these decades.

One last question, how do you explain one small fact that the apparatus worked?

It was demonstrated in front of members of Congress along with some of the best minds of science in the day.

They couldn’t figure out how it worked.

That does not change the fact Moray repeatedly demonstrated that it did work.

So if I understand correctly, if it is not understood in the scientific community
it is an invalid theory. And warrents no investigation.

We observe gravity yet we do not understand how it works, we only understand it's effect.

How then on god's green earth do you explain scientist spending Millions every year still trying to figure it out.

So gravity must be another one of those scientific dead ends.

That kind of thinking reminds me of the fifties when they were going to close the patent office. They were SURE everything had been invented.

So gravity is worth exploring, DIFFERENT TYPES OF ENERGY are NOT.

Is it no wonder the United States is quickly loosing it's status as a leading scientific comunity.

One last question, how do you explain one small fact that the apparatus worked?

It was demonstrated in front of members of Congress along with some of the best minds of science in the day.

They couldn’t figure out how it worked.

That does not change the fact Moray repeatedly demonstrated that it did work.

So if I understand correctly, if it is not understood in the scientific community
it is an invalid theory. And warrents no investigation.

We observe gravity yet we do not understand how it works, we only understand it's effect.

How then on god's green earth do you explain scientist spending Millions every year still trying to figure it out.

So gravity must be another one of those scientific dead ends.

That kind of thinking reminds me of the fifties when they were going to close the patent office. They were SURE everything had been invented.

So gravity is worth exploring, DIFFERENT TYPES OF ENERGY are NOT.

Is it no wonder the United States is quickly loosing it's status as a leading scientific comunity.

Now you're just being silly! It most obviously DIDN'T work and that's why it wound up in the garbage heap. Anyone, including scientists, engineers and especially members of congress, can be fooled for a short period of time.

Where is actual, solid proof that the thing ever worked as claimed? Certainly not in those very old documents you presented earlier.

Bette yet - have you actually taken the trouble to see if there is information out there that shows that the device failed???

Oscillations, vibration of all mass and energy is background radiation, is it not?

Is it not evident, radiant energy exist everywhere in the observable Universe?

Starman, it is not nice to mousetrap UH.

You originally were talking about background radiation, which, in common language, is specifically defined as particle emanations and photon emanations normally detectable by relatively crude detection devices.

Therefore, you were originally not talking about any exotic form of energy which may or may not be universally available and which may or may not be amenable to some new theory.

Please do not lure me or anyone else into discussing cat when the whole time you were really meaning dog. Just say dog on the front end. It is What You See Is What You Get with me and I only trust people who are also the same way.

Having vented my steam on my lack of enjoyment at being tricked conversationally, I would like to respond to your real intention: I have long believed that Tesla's concept regarding electromagnetism should be effectively explored. And I believe that gravity has deserved to be explored as a potential source of practical energy.

Those who claim that any free source of energy would be here already if it really worked fail to realize that the people who already control the planet's 10 trillion US annual retail level energy market might be willing to be proactive in preserving their profits. And might have already been proactive in preserving their profits. Anybody who might get a specific idea of how to get free energy derived from the electromagnetic field or the gravity field or the quantum field or the zero point field should carefully consider their options. Jesus said to not cast a pearl before a pig. I say to not throw a pearl before a herd of 400 pound rabid boars either.

Having vented my steam on my lack of enjoyment at being tricked conversationally, I would like to respond to your real intention: I have long believed that Tesla's concept regarding electromagnetism should be effectively explored. And I believe that gravity has deserved to be explored as a potential source of practical energy.

Those who claim that any free source of energy would be here already if it really worked fail to realize that the people who already control the planet's 10 trillion US annual retail level energy market might be willing to be proactive in preserving their profits. And might have already been proactive in preserving their profits.

I apologize for beating around the bush.:o

I do not care for the label Free Energy.

Speaking for myself, the scope of the Moray project is so important for the reason that it explores wave/particle duality in a fresh direction.

Understanding the mutation of energy to mass is the key to everything.
IMO mass is nothing more than compressed energy. This translates into distorted 3dspace volume.
When energy is released from mass, say via explosion it looks to be obvious that 3d space is expanding from a compressed state. This expansion thus creates a wave in the fabric of space energy.

The secrete to gravity and the strong force, must lie in the vortex shaped electro magnetic charge as explained by Moray.

Moray Wrote:
"Whatever an electric charge is, or is not, it is certainly a focus of energy."

"And if we could imagine an vortex, containing the known mass of the electron and circulating with the velocity of light, its energy would be equal to that of the electric field in the space surrounding the electron. This coincidence, if it be a coincidence, can hardly fail to have some meaning. And there are those who are beginning to think that the whole material universe is built up of energy in various states of self contained or intrinsic motion; by which adjectives it is intended to discriminate between rotatory motion, like that of a top or a whirlpool, and ordinary locomotion, are shifting from place to place.

"Those who hold this view of the universe are strengthened in their position by the statements of Einstein on energy in general. It is well known that all the ordinary energy we are acquainted with, such as tile motion of railway trains, merely relative — relative to the earth, or to some other piece of matter. There is nothing absolute about it. But Einstein gives an expression for what one might be inclined to call absolute energy, in which the only relevant velocity is the velocity of the Cosmos"

Energy from the Cosmos, like radiant particles of matter, being composed of an infinitesimal quantity whose behaviors are described by mathematical equations similar to those used for describing electrical waves, keeping in mind to differentiate between wave length and frequence. Radiant- Energy being particles of energy, just as light is wave lengths and particles is comparable to the electron and magnetron; a ring of negative electricity traveling in a vortex with the speed of light. Streams of energy quanta, each quantum having energy and momentum where the electron revolves around the proton at a distance equal to the electron radius.

It begs to be explored.

To account for the propagation of heat and light or of radiant energy we have postulated the existence of a medium filling all space.

If you're talking about the ether, Michelson and Morley did extensive tests and never found a thing. Even classically, electric and magnetic fields don't need an external medium in which to vibrate, they form their own medium. Modern physics only strengthens that assertion, although it does turn out empty space is filled with some pretty strange stuff (like vacuum energy).


If we believe that when it disappears at one place and reappears at another, it must have passed through the intervening space, and therefore have existed there somehow in the meantime.

As Niels Bohr would have probably asked, "are you really so sure about that?" What a priori reason is there that the atomic world would have to make sense in terms of concepts and large scale observations from daily life?

To answer your question, any type of radiation can be used for a power source. Radiation, being composed of twinned electric and magnetic fields, can cause electric charges to oscillate and move about, thereby imparting energy to them which we can directly harness. The thing is, as numerous people have pointed out above, of all the present radiation sources in the atmosphere, only solar radiation is of any real use. For all other known sources of atmospheric radiation, including cosmic rays, you'd end up using up more energy collecting them than you'd get back in return. As one poster put it very well, it would be like travelling a mile to go collect some leaves to burn, when your back yard is already full of them. Except that the collecting leaves a mile away method would still be way more effective and efficient than trying to scoop up background radiation.

You gotta be careful what you read, especially (but not exclusively) on the web. There are tons of cranks out there, probably more than there are actual physicists. So just because someone says such and such a series of experiments was done by so and so, doesn't mean it actually happened as such. I'm sure all of us would love a cheap and effective source of energy, so it's not like we're trying to pooh pooh the idea and ruin Christmas for you.

I apologize for beating around the bush.:o

I do not care for the label Free Energy.


Dear Starman; And I do not care for someone putting arbitrary restrictions on my manner of expressing myself as long as I am being civil and reasonably respectful. Love it or leave it.

Remember what Mick said, " You don't always get what you want. But if you are lucky, you get what you need.".