At 03:16 PM 3/2/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
I imagine they do not think it is worth the trouble to comment on,
or to check out. That is how I feel about claims of "harvesting
energy from the surroundings" such as the one just reported here, by Aviso:
http://pesn.com/2011/02/27/9501773_Aviso_Ponders_Open_Sourcing_Self-Running_EV_Tech/
I resemble Park in that I consider that a violation of the
conservation of energy; I think it cannot be right, and I wouldn't
spend 10 minutes checking it out. I differ from Park in that I don't
mind this claim, and I would not attack it either. Aviso has every
right to be mistaken. Being mistaken about such things seldom causes harm.
Interesting and very weird. A linked story appears to claim that he's
harvesting cell tower energy. I built a radio when I was in high
school that was powered by rectifying and filtering radio energy, to
then power a small radio. It worked. However, the energy was very, very small.
If that cell tower is putting out a lot of energy, and the receiving
antenna was able to intercept and use a decent chunk of it, this
would work. Of course, the cell tower coverage would get whacked!
"Big enough antenna" would be key here!
It's amazing that he's got a device, and is depending on apparent
battery charge to determine "overunity." He's claiming 135%, is that
35 percent more than battery, or is that 135% more? If the lower
figure, this is iffy. If the higher, then it should be possible to
make the thing self-powered, you could get it going with the battery,
then it would generate its own power and you could pull the battery.
But he hasn't done that.
These breathless reporters never seem to ask hard questions!
