What will you do with this technology?
-
u can pm me on the last question which i ask, as i can get some1 to check out whether he want to finance this, but he is currently not in Singapore, only will be back next week.
-
Has anyone considered waste heat from internal resistance? Did your engineers do any Bode plot on RLC circuits with the secondary power source? Has your system been calibrated for the expected wastage?(i.e increasing the effiency of system to minimise wastage) Kindly run that prototype of yours for 48 hours straight and check for spikes in the S-transform of components.Originally posted by NewAgeSensitiveBoy:What we have is not theory only but a working prototype. A little intro about the theory behind the discovery:
At present, in order to charge up a rechargeable battery, energy is needed to force free electrons into the negative terminal, alter the equilibrium of the battery and cause the positive terminal to expel free electrons. The new device deploys the same principle, but it further employs the principle as stated above during the charging process, i.e. deliberately causing breaks in the circuit to create a series of fractured current in order to introduce several timed electrons shockwave instantaneously across the circuit during the breaks.
By deliberately creating a series of current breaks throughout the charging process, the fractured form of current is being use to charge the rechargeable battery B while also serves as a triggering energy to produce an electrons shockwave that creates a situation whereby the potential energy of the individual electron within the positive terminal is used to repel each other out of the positive terminal and spreading across the vacuum zone without injecting any extra energy. -
I think the scale itself is beyond our teams financial capabilities and i tink at that scale of 300MW plant, it would be quite difficult to replicate.Originally posted by hisoka:obviously set up your own business unit and convince the govenments to allow you to set up the plants etc to replace the current feuls. of course you must find a way to make sure its not pirated. you would be saving earth AND making money for yourself at the same time. Or if you find it abit too duanting, you can offer to sell the technology to some company/merger.
the problem is i doubt what you said is possible without some drawbacks or perhaps other materials since what you described seems to violate energy conservation laws.
Somethign along the lines of perpetual motion machines.
I would also like to market to our local govt, but imagine just posting here draws so many questions, the agencies would probably think i am crazy. Our position now is almost like the wright brothers in the good old days convincing ppl that human being can take the sky.
And again, what we have discovered is not witch craft science tat violates the laws of physics nor require any special element that will deplete to function. We have merely discovered a waterfall within the electric circuit where a dam can be built upon. As long as electricity runs through the circuit as configured, the "dam" can function and generate the power to create further electricity. -
something similar has been done in India.
getting it out of the lab and being commercially viable is another story.
becareful. the oil producing countries might put a contract on your head. the cost of getting you killed is nothing to the billions that they earn. -
Make a small local company first or elsewhere. start small and later you can expand or mergeOriginally posted by NewAgeSensitiveBoy:I think the scale itself is beyond our teams financial capabilities and i tink at that scale of 300MW plant, it would be quite difficult to replicate.
I would also like to market to our local govt, but imagine just posting here draws so many questions, the agencies would probably think i am crazy. Our position now is almost like the wright brothers in the good old days convincing ppl that human being can take the sky.
And again, what we have discovered is not witch craft science tat violates the laws of physics nor require any special element that will deplete to function. We have merely discovered a waterfall within the electric circuit where a dam can be built upon. As long as electricity runs through the circuit as configured, the "dam" can function and generate the power to create further electricity.
If you got a workign product then you can market it. To the govt. or to another company, joint ventures?
It will draw questions definitely. You will have to be prepared to field those questions. But if you really do have a working prototype then it would probably be easier.
You did patent the product everywhere didn't you? -
A full discharge test has been conducted and all of the above has been done, all satisfying beyond reasonable doubts.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Has anyone considered waste heat from internal resistance? Did your engineers do any Bode plot on RLC circuits with the secondary power source? Has your system been calibrated for the expected wastage?(i.e increasing the effiency of system to minimise wastage) Kindly run that prototype of yours for 48 hours straight and check for spikes in the S-transform of components.
-
That I am aware. The question about upscaling commercially has been considered while designing the device and it has been designed in a way where it can be practically applied.Originally posted by pwnz0r:something similar has been done in India.
getting it out of the lab and being commercially viable is another story.
becareful. the oil producing countries might put a contract on your head. the cost of getting you killed is nothing to the billions that they earn.
The consideration of marketing this technology is always the case of obsoleting other industries and professions ie. oil, so yes, we are taking the consipracy as you have mentioned very seriously which is why the device has been dismantled and parts held by various parties jus to calm our paranoid psychology -
if i were u, i will make it into handphone so one battery can charge up the other battery in the phone, so no need scared low battery
-
I think the question now is who do we market this to and how? and no we did not patent is as patent itself would require us to reveal the technology is full perspective. So like Coke, we are keeping the secret formula under our pillows....Originally posted by hisoka:Make a small local company first or elsewhere. start small and later you can expand or merge
If you got a workign product then you can market it. To the govt. or to another company, joint ventures?
It will draw questions definitely. You will have to be prepared to field those questions. But if you really do have a working prototype then it would probably be easier.
You did patent the product everywhere didn't you? -
there is always reverse engineering that the smart ass can do.Originally posted by NewAgeSensitiveBoy:I think the question now is who do we market this to and how? and no we did not patent is as patent itself would require us to reveal the technology is full perspective. So like Coke, we are keeping the secret formula under our pillows.... -
go for the govt. if you want. the problem is they might throw it to china and we all know whats it like there.Originally posted by NewAgeSensitiveBoy:I think the question now is who do we market this to and how? and no we did not patent is as patent itself would require us to reveal the technology is full perspective. So like Coke, we are keeping the secret formula under our pillows....
keeping it as a trade secret might not be the best choice given reverse engineering and espionage.
patenting, you can leave it very vague too if i'm not wrong. but its really up to you.
you might conisder throwing this to some of the petrol companies too. -
The minute you pressed "post"...the government has begun tracking you.
Your secret is no longer safe....and your idea no longer yours.
Question: Can we patent "intellectual property" such as a theory?
-
We are still trying to identify who we should approach at the moment before we go about thinking of the approach. But as a Singaporean, I'd think that the country ranks abv all but of cos provided it be implemented.
-
serious bo?Originally posted by Clandestine:The minute you pressed "post"...the government has begun tracking you.
Your secret is no longer safe....and your idea no longer yours.
Question: Can we patent "intellectual property" such as a theory? i wasn't aware of that and i tot enemy of the state was fiction....
as to your question, i dun tink so. but then, i haven't check so i may be wrong -
Sorry, but energy cannot be created or destroyed.
You cannot create free energy, and neither does free energy exist.
These are fundamental laws of physics, and certainly, there is no way to charge 2 batteries with 1, for that would violate the very basics of of the laws of conservation of energy. The only way that is almost achievable is to use one battery to partially charge 2 other identical battery, but that is only ideally, for in real life, there is the element of inherent inefficiency present.
Simply to put it, the "extra" energy must be coming from somewhere and since you mentioned nothing about nuclear fission/fusion, or any chemical reaction, i would assume that you are claiming these "extra" energies are pulled from thin air. This is not possible, for if you claim so, you are inadvertently claiming that you can create matter out of nothing, according to Einstein's E=mc^2 law.
You are making a very huge claim here. Being able to create matter out of nothing, and i wouldn't be surprised if it gets thrown out the patent office, for this is too absurd and you'll be possibly the greatest scientist and inventor ever if it were true. In fact, you'd be the first person in the world to create matter out of thin air.
But alas, i remain a skeptic.
Besides, are your researches even peer-reviewed? For that would surely be a good gauge of truthfulness and honesty.
All in all, I would say that you are most likely trying to amass investment from clueless investors. Scamming, in other words. -
Seriously, anyone who takes this guy with more than a grain of salt deserves to be put through Singapore's education system, again.
-
I was born in 1981....and went through the Education system right before they made a HUGE change in their teaching methods and content.Originally posted by Where Is God:Seriously, anyone who takes this guy with more than a grain of salt deserves to be put through Singapore's education system, again.
Kid's these days have a HUGE advantage in terms of content and information application.
I definately believe that i need to be re-educated....especially since i didn't understand half the scientific explanations some of the posters have replied with
However, due to time constraints, i can't afford to look back now to re-education.....
I'll just watch sesame street again this weekend and see how much i can pick up from there -
1. Like i've said in my earlier post, We did not violet the laws of physics and that we are not creating nor destroying energy.Originally posted by Where Is God:Sorry, but energy cannot be created or destroyed.
You cannot create free energy, and neither does zero point energy exist.
These are fundamental laws of physics, and certainly, there is no way to charge 2 batteries with 1, for that would violate the very basics of of the laws of conservation of energy. The only way that is almost achievable is to use one battery to partially charge 2 other identical battery, but that is only ideally, for in real life, there is the element of inherent inefficiency present.
Simply to put it, the "extra" energy must be coming from somewhere and since you mentioned nothing about nuclear fission/fusion, or any chemical reaction, i would assume that you are claiming these "extra" energies are pulled from thin air. This is not possible, for if you claim so, you are inadvertently claiming that you can create matter out of nothing, according to Einstein's E=mc^2 law.
You are making a very huge claim here. Being able to create matter out of nothing, and i wouldn't be surprised if it gets thrown out the patent office, for this is too absurd and you'll be possibly the greatest scientist and inventor ever if it were true. Infact, you'd be the first person in the world to create matter out of thin air.
But alas, i remain a skeptic.
Besides, are your researches even peer-reviewed? For that would surely be a good gauge of truthfulness and honesty.
All in all, I would say that you are most likely trying to amass investment from clueless investors. Scamming, in other words.
2. We did not find a way to create energy. What we've discovered is a source of energy that can be tapped within a circuit and that we have found a way to convert that source into electrical energy.
3. The source of energy is the Electric shockwave that is created within the circuit as of any circuit will generate.
4. I would be a skeptic too if I were you with such claims made and i hope this technology will be implemented in the forseeable future for you to witness.
5. Nope I am not trying to amass investors but merely seeking opinion. -
well, i do hope what you say is true for the good of mankind. though i still doubt.Originally posted by NewAgeSensitiveBoy:1. Like i've said in my earlier post, We did not violet the laws of physics and that we are not creating nor destroying energy.
2. We did not find a way to create energy. What we've discovered is a source of energy that can be tapped within a circuit and that we have found a way to convert that source into electrical energy.
3. The source of energy is the Electric shockwave that is created within the circuit as of any circuit will generate.
4. I would be a skeptic too if I were you with such claims made and i hope this technology will be implemented in the forseeable future for you to witness.
5. Nope I am not trying to amass investors but merely seeking opinion.
Well if it exists and you manage to pull off a good business remember to employ me with high pay and benefits
-
Along the same lines...
There are speculations that Cars have been invented that run on water...
And that the governments are holding out on introducing this to the world in fear of what it might do to some of the oil economy....
Again...let me repeat....speculation -
Originally posted by NewAgeSensitiveBoy:
1. Like i've said in my earlier post, We did not violet the laws of physics and that we are not creating nor destroying energy.
2. We did not find a way to create energy. What we've discovered is a source of energy that can be tapped within a circuit and that we have found a way to convert that source into electrical energy.
3. The source of energy is the Electric shockwave that is created within the circuit as of any circuit will generate.
I'm sorry, but saying electric shockwave in a circuit is like saying swimming in air. Electric shockwave can only be present through an electromagnetic field in the absence of a physical medium, whereas, circuit implies a a closed path through which an electric current flows. Saying that a shockwave exist in a circuit is paradoxical and nonsensical.
4. I would be a skeptic too if I were you with such claims made and i hope this technology will be implemented in the forseeable future for you to witness.
5. Nope I am not trying to amass investors but merely seeking opinion.
Whatever you say, Hwang Woo-Suk. -
Well, why dun you guys assume that i am dreaming and that all these are jus a figment of my imagination.
Just for the sake of discussion or probably patronising a lunatic who has nothing better to do.
What would you do if you have such a technology on hand? -
So you are unable to defend your "technology", am i right? Do you even know half of what you are talking about? Or are you just blabbering what you remember from the Star Trek you watched last night.Originally posted by NewAgeSensitiveBoy:Well, why dun you guys assume that i am dreaming and that all these are jus a figment of my imagination.
Just for the sake of discussion or probably patronising a lunatic who has nothing better to do.
What would you do if you have such a technology on hand? -
can or not?Originally posted by MyPillowTalks:if i were u, i will make it into handphone so one battery can charge up the other battery in the phone, so no need scared low battery -
And to further illustrate, science is logical while innovation is about creativity, thinking out of the box.
Without innovation, we will probably still be riding horses looking up the sky envying the birds...