Good post, Jed. Let me add some new information from DrS:
Last night he took a Luxton light meter and singled out one LED and took a measurement. He recorded the reading and then took that same LED from the circuit and placed a 1K series resistor to it and connected it to a variable DC supply. He adjusted until the Luxton read the same, and then recorded the current. Current was 23.2mA. So what is wrong with this? Do any vorts think this was an inaccurate way to measure (and then to guesstimate) the power being dissipated in the circuit when operating? Now remember he can drive many LEDs with this circuit-- the actual limit is unknown, as the more he adds, the more it seems to "want" BUT catch-22 this is tedious to do, since matching voltage drop per diode is necessary. There is too much variation otherwise- to hold a resonance. He had 1000 LEDs from the initial shipment and has been able to match 150 of them close enough to be powered by the circuit (two banks of 75 in series). The low powered AM radio station business nearby is not a very likely power source. If the near field is about a 1/3 wave length, taking the broadcast band, figuring the wave lengths and then the uV per meter density to get an apparent 11 watts would mean he could reach out and touch the tower (or climb up a few feet ;-). This is looking to me like a non-issue, but YES we all agree that the next step, when time permits, will be to take the setup to a remote area with very little RF. Jones --- Jed Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I know little about electrical engineering, but > surely we can resolve all questions about this > device fairly easily. If the device can be scaled > up a little, and power can be ramped up to a few > watts that will rule out things like radio tower > transmissions as the source of energy. We would > all be fried if there was that much power in RF > transmission. > > The gadget is small: ~200 cm^2. No matter how > good it is as an antenna and cannot intercept > more power than the tower puts out. There have > been many studies of RF intensity because it is a > health issue, especially for people who live near > broadcast towers. See for example, the FCC Radio > Frequency Safety FAQ: > > http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/rf-faqs.html > > It does not actually say what the typical power > density is, but it is measured in milliwatts or > microwatts per cm^2: "Power density is defined as > power per unit area. For example, power density > can be expressed in terms of milliwatts per > square centimeter (mW/cm^2) or microwatts per > square centimeter (µW/cm^2)." Assuming the > strongest allowed signal is 1 mW/cm^2 (my guess) > the gadget would intercept 0.2 W. Bring it up to > 2 W and you can rule out this kind of thing > completely. You don't need a Faraday cage. > > It says: "the threshold level is a Specific > Absorption Rate (SAR) value for the whole body of > 4 watts per kilogram (4 W/kg)." You can take that as > 4 W/kg for water. > > > I do not think that cold fusion energy is > intercepted, the way RF or a putative "neutrino" > source would be. I think it is generated by nuclear > reactions in the cell. > > I have never seen any evidence that conservation > of energy is wrong, although I will grant it > seems to be more of a rule of thumb or an > observation than a rigorous law of physics. > > - Jed > >
