QM vs Waves vs “Photon Rectifiers”

Will Janoschka has asked for a longer discussion of Quantum Mechanics vs Wave Functions vs a hypothetical ability to differentially rectify some higher energy photons into electricity (and an implication that it isn’t possible due to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. A paraphrase of the 3 laws is: You can’t win, you can’t break even, and you can’t quit the game. ;-)

The discussion broke out here:

https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2017/04/20/unlimiting-growth/#comment-82276

with this summary:

Simon Derricutt says:
20 April 2017 at 10:36 am (Edit)

As regards energy running out, it should be noted that since energy is conserved that can’t actually happen. All that happens when we “use” energy is that we change the incoming stream of directional energy to a situation where the energy now has random directions, which we call waste heat. If we use conducted heat, then in order to get a direction of movement of that energy (and thus be able to move things in a particular direction) we need both a source and a sink for that random heat energy, and thus we’ll be limited by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (2LoT).

If instead we look at radiated heat, then we already have devices that will change IR radiation into electricity. Devices such as a nantenna array will change long-wave infra-red radiation into electrical power. Admittedly the amount of power these will produce (around 1W/m²) is not currently that useful, and the array is currently expensive to make, but in principle this shows that the 2LoT does not apply to radiated heat, and that what we are currently regarding as “waste heat” and thus unusable is in fact a limitless resource of usable energy if we can make a better way to give it back the directionality we need to perform useful work.

I’m currently working on such a device that should do this job a lot better than the nantenna array (orders of magnitude). This, if it works as hoped, should make energy an almost-free resource, and that in turn will make all sorts of recycling and resource-recovery economically viable where currently the energy-costs are too high to be worthwhile. That will really put the lid on that idea of running out of anything. We should have data this year as to whether the device works. We’ve had the technology to make these devices for at least 50 years, and it seems the only reason we haven’t made them is the belief that 2LoT is universally applicable, even though the fault in the logic is pretty obvious once you’ve seen it. Since other people I know are working on alternative methods of environmental energy-rectification, I expect that in the next 2-3 years we’ll be seeing recycled energy as a major source of the energy we actually use.

Will Janoschka says:
20 April 2017 at 12:03 pm (Edit)

Simon Derricutt says: 20 April 2017 at 10:36 am

“As regards energy running out, it should be noted that since energy is conserved that can’t actually happen.”

In what way is “energy” conserved? Energy is but an accumulation of “power” (stored power), in many forms. Sometimes that energy may be converted to a different form in a reversible process. Generally that stored power is converted to ‘work’, not a different accumulation of power but a conversion of power into structure. This in every case (even plowing a field) some of that power is lost to “entropy”, the specific heat of the matter with the lowest temperature (gone)!
Thermal radiative electromagnetic flux, powered by only sensible heat,o is always spontaneous and always in a direction of lower radiance. How is this ‘energy’ ever conserved?

Simon Derricutt says:
20 April 2017 at 1:03 pm (Edit)

Will – thermal radiation (EM waves) does not go only from hotter to colder, but also goes from a colder object to a hotter object. Check the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for the truth of this. It is however precisely that logical error that makes people think that recycling energy is impossible. However, for a practical demonstration of the fact that all objects radiate energy, you only need to consider a thermal camera. If objects only radiated towards other objects at a lower temperature, then a thermal image would not be possible. All objects above absolute zero thus radiate energy, and those photons can be translated into electrical energy.

Energy is thus not lost, and can be recycled into the directional energy we actually need to do work with. 2LoT does not apply to radiant energy. We are taught that it does, but this is simply wrong.

Will Janoschka says:
20 April 2017 at 5:34 pm (Edit)

Simon Derricutt says: 20 April 2017 at 1:03 pm

“Will – thermal radiation (EM waves) does not go only from hotter to colder, but also goes from a colder object to a hotter object.”
If you are writing of actual power transfer (flux not radiance) That thermal EMR power is “only” emitted in the direction of lower radiance at each frequency. There is not one experiment, demonstration, that has ever shown any EMR power transfer in the opposing direction. To due so would violate at least 6 of Maxwell’s equations, describing all field and flux of electromagnetic potential! Flux φ is not Power/area, but W(power) normalized by area! ε ε σ σ

“Check the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for the truth of this.”

Indeed do that! S-B equation: φ = εσ(Ta^4-Tb^4) . Note the required parenthesis containing the difference in Temperature functions (Δ radiance), to be evaluated firstly with the sign indicating direction of singular flux.

“It is however precisely that logical error that makes people think that recycling energy is impossible. However, for a practical demonstration of the fact that all objects radiate energy, you only need to consider a thermal camera. If objects only radiated towards other objects at a lower temperature, then a thermal image would not be possible.”

BS The camera can create an image independent of flux direction just by correctly using the same S-B equation above! There is no ambiguity as to temperatures or direction of flux.
.
“All objects above absolute zero thus radiate energy, and those photons can be translated into electrical energy”

More BS!! Only surfaces at zero Kelvin have zero “radiance” at every frequency! The difference in ‘radiance’ of the two surfaces is always a limit to such flux. Goody (64) got that way way wrong!
EMR flux is not heat, but can be transformed int whatever power form the receiver is capable
.
“Energy is thus not lost, and can be recycled into the directional energy we actually need to do work with.”

Any work not ‘isentropic’ must generate ‘entropy’ so is indeed lost!

“2LoT does not apply to radiant energy. We are taught that it does, but this is simply wrong.”

Gee! Even though is is not heat, Maxwell himself commented that thermal EMR flux is always spontaneous and always complies with 2LTD!

Simon Derricutt says:
20 April 2017 at 10:15 pm (Edit)

Will – if you have two bodies of different temperature, and the radiated heat only goes from the hotter one to the colder one (and definitely not the other way) at a rate of the difference between the 4th power of their absolute temperatures, how does the hotter body know what temperature the cooler one is (and the solid angle subtended) so that it can set the amount it radiates (and only in the direction of the cooler body) with just the right amount of heat? What happens when you have 3 or more bodies? What happens when they are a significant distance apart so that the time of flight of that EM radiation becomes significant?

If you spend some time trying to solve this paradox of how the inanimate body gets all the calculations correct, you will likely end up with the reality of the situation in that each body will radiate according to its own absolute temperature alone, and takes absolutely no account of whatever other bodies may receive that radiation or at what time that radiation is stopped.

What you quote as the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is simply the elided version that gives the net energy flow. However, each body must radiate according only to its own temperature, and receive radiation from all other bodies that are radiating. If it receives more energy in radiation than it is emitting, it will warm up, if less then it will cool down.

This logical error of only seeing the net energy flow and saying that is all the energy that is being radiated, rather than seeing that the energy-flow is actually bidirectional and that the colder body is radiating energy and that the hotter body is receiving it, is unfortunately what is taught. It is wrong, and it is obviously wrong. That radiation cannot be in one direction only, but must be multi-directional.

The random movements of the heat in a hot body are thus translated into EM radiation. The EM radiation is photons, which we can convert fairly easily into electricity to do work. We can receive and convert this radiation even from something that is at a lower temperature (as measured using a thermometer or thermocouple) than the receiving device.

It is definitely heretical to say that the 2LoT is wrong. However, it only applies to conducted heat and not to radiated heat. If we recognise that loophole, then we can drive a truck through it. Literally. In the meantime, though, I expect people will be upset about the idea that a theory can be wrong when it has stood for 150-odd years. However, there it is, and that faith that 2LoT is absolutely unbreakable has stopped most people from even trying to find the error.

Will Janoschka says:
21 April 2017 at 11:54 am (Edit)

E.M.Smith says: 20 April 2017 at 8:56 pm

“@All: I’m glad you like it. Gives me some motivation to press on into the next 100 pages ;-) ”

Please do keep up your excellent work! Looking forward to it. All the Best!

“@LoT: Note that low energy flux as sunlight can turn into very high energy flux as rocket fuel with some various “rectifying” and concentrating steps. Nothing prevents turning a low energy photon into “something else” then using that to pump energy up hill. All of life depends on it. From photons to chlorophyll to ATP to sugars to alcohols to rocket fuel… Energy CAN be pumped up hill; and used. That some goes down hill in the process is unimportant in the short run.”

Indeed! That some down hill is very important in the long run, else CAGW! All the downhill would stack up if not for the spontaneous effective EMR to space. If this ‘energy’ is ‘conserved’ and comes back; (collapsing universe), all the CAGW nonsense will be trivial! :-)

Will Janoschka says:
21 April 2017 at 1:51 pm (Edit)

Simon Derricutt says: 20 April 2017 at 10:15 pm

“Will – if you have two bodies of different temperature, and the radiated heat only goes”

Simon, Woha! There is no such thing as EMR (heat) or energy! Such is only power or flux as for EMR there is no such thing as your fanciful ‘time!

“from the hotter one to the colder one (and definitely not the other way) at a rate of the difference between the 4th power of their absolute temperatures, how does the hotter body know what temperature the cooler one is (and the solid angle subtended) so that it can set the amount it radiates (and only in the direction of the cooler body) with just the right amount of heat?”

I wrote that the Enclosing parenthesis is a representation of Δ radiance both magnitude and direction. This is but a summation over all wavelengths and is proportional to ΔT^4 from Planck’s equations as done by Boltzmann. No knowledge is required only the invariant proper solution to Maxwell’s field equations. There is no requirement for surfaces to have knowledge.

“What happens when you have 3 or more bodies?” Each surface is treated separately as to magnitude and direction!

” What happens when they are a significant distance apart so that the time of flight of that EM radiation becomes significant?”

The electric field is time invariant and exists as a function of T^4. This is the part where stupid Richard Goody (64) misinterpreted the work of Bose as flux rather than field strength!!
The corresponding magnetic field carries the flux and can only be ‘measured’ by the time\space modulation of said flux! The ‘modulations’ also can be measured simultaneously in both directions even when there is zero flux over a time epoch of both modulations. This effect James Hansen knew well before his deliberate corruption of science! I was there when such was carefully explained to him.

“If you spend some time trying to solve this paradox of how the inanimate body gets all the calculations correct, you will likely end up with the reality of the situation in that each body will radiate according to its own absolute temperature alone, and takes absolutely no account of whatever other bodies may receive that radiation or at what time that radiation is stopped.”

If you would spend some time trying to understand Maxwell’s equations you would discover that there is none at all of your illusory paradox!

“What you quote as the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is simply the elided version that gives the net energy flow. However, each body must radiate according only to its own temperature, and receive radiation from all other bodies that are radiating. If it receives more energy in radiation than it is emitting, it will warm up, if less then it will cool down.”

You and your cohorts are the ones eliding the extremely well verified ‘whole’ Stefan-Boltzmann equation for your own personal gain!

“This logical error of only seeing the net energy flow and saying that is all the energy that is being radiated, rather than seeing that the energy-flow is actually bidirectional and that the colder body is radiating energy and that the hotter body is receiving it, is unfortunately what is taught. It is wrong, and it is obviously wrong. That radiation cannot be in one direction only, but must be multi-directional.”

“This is your logical error of imagining bidirectional energy flow something that has never been observed nor measured. Such is unfortunately what is taught now since the post normal revolution. It is wrong, and it is obviously wrong.

The random movements of the heat in a hot body are thus translated into EM radiation. The EM radiation is photons”

The EM radiation is unidirectional power flux, which is easily rectified into electricity to do work, or stored as electrical energy; Such is also converted into chemical energy by lower radiance plants.

“We can receive and convert this radiation even from something that is at a lower temperature (as measured using a thermometer or thermocouple) than the receiving device.”

Can you please show even one demonstration of such nonsense!

“It is definitely heretical to say that the 2LoT is wrong. However, it only applies to conducted heat and not to radiated heat.”
True as there ts no such thing as ‘radiated heat’, only EMR flux.

” If we recognize that loophole, then we can drive a truck through it. Literally. In the meantime, though, I expect people will be upset about the idea that a theory can be wrong when it has stood for 150-odd years. However, there it is, and that faith that 2LoT is absolutely unbreakable has stopped most people from even trying to find the error.”

No such loophole only your Richard Goody fantasy\brainwashing that you refuse to correct!
All the best! -will-

Simon Derricutt says:
21 April 2017 at 4:45 pm (Edit)

Will – have you ever heard of photons? Have you looked up what a nantenna does? This is mainstream physics, and is in Wikipedia. As is the speed of light…. Time does pass during the transition of the photons. If you stick to 19th century ideas you’ll get 19th century answers, and thus you’ll see no way to rectify the photon energy for re-use. If you’ve used a scintillator or a photomultiplier, then you will know that we can detect individual photons, whereas if you’re using wave equations then you would not expect quantisation to occur.

You can find examples of how to make a nantenna and the measurements from it at http://drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/handle/1903/13528/Yesilkoy_umd_0117E_13795.pdf if you want to – this is a doctoral thesis (pdf download) from 2012. I’m working on what should be a higher-power idea, and with a bit of luck should know this year as to just how much power we can harvest from environmental heat. This is obviously possible, since it’s been done by a number of people. The problem is only in getting a useful amount of power in the watts to KW range without the device being too expensive.

Will Janoschka says:
21 April 2017 at 11:59 pm (Edit)

Simon Derricutt says: 21 April 2017 at 4:45 pm
“Will – have you ever heard of photons? Have you looked up what a nantenna does? This is mainstream physics, and is in Wikipedia. As is the speed of light…. Time does pass during the transition of the photons.”

Yes and yes! The so called ‘photon’ is some imaginary four-space EMR energy density sufficient to overcome the work function of “emitting an electron” for some mass at some temperature. For room temperature Ni that is about 5-7 cycles of 450 nanometer (nm)em flux., At the lower quantum level 550 nm flux the four space energy density is not sufficient for such electron emission..
The nantenna is a room temperature tunneling device that can detect 10,6 micron emitted from a CO2 laser with 10^6 higher ‘radiance’! So what?

Time itself is relativistic! Germanium (Ge) with an optical index of 4 appears to delay the passage of 10 micron wavelength amplitude modulation. Is that because the distance through Ge is four times the Ge thickness measured in air! Or is it because speed of flux is four times slower in Ge?
All the best! -will-

Will Janoschka says:
22 April 2017 at 1:15 am (Edit)

Simon Derricutt says: 21 April 2017 at 4:45 pm
“If you stick to 19th century ideas you’ll get 19th century answers, and thus you’ll see no way to rectify the photon energy for re-use. If you’ve used a scintillator or a photomultiplier, then you will know that we can detect individual photons, whereas if you’re using wave equations then you would not expect quantization to occur.”

How condescending! Most 19th century demonstrations are currently reproducible. Doped silicon (Si) has since 1955,. always rectified incident EM flux at wavelengths less than 3 microns. This is used to charge batteries all over the world. I have not personally observed any ‘action’ by the energy of one cycle of EM flux. Electron microscope images of 10 Kelvin (Me:Cd:Te) surface detectors does indicate, minority carrier generation, at very few cycles of EM flux.
Have you found even one error in what I have posted? What is it? Can you explain such error in physical\measurable terms? Do you only call such an ‘error’ because it conflicts with your religious beliefs?

“You can find examples of how to make a nantenna and the measurements from it at http://drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/handle/1903/13528/Yesilkoy_umd_0117E_13795.pdf if you want to – this is a doctoral thesis (pdf download) from 2012.”

Thank you! I find no error in what he has measured, His claims not so much!

” I’m working on what should be a higher-power idea, and with a bit of luck should know this year as to just how much power we can harvest from environmental heat. This is obviously possible, since it’s been done by a number of people. The problem is only in getting a useful amount of power in the watts to KW range without the device being too expensive.”

I wish you much luck in demonstrating EMR flux (power) in a direction of higher ‘radiance’ at any frequency!.! You are going to need it! -will-
Simon Derricutt says:
22 April 2017 at 11:28 am (Edit)

Will – the appearance of condescension is simply a mirror; re-read what you wrote. You are sticking to the idea of an un-quantised flux which mostly gives the right answers if you ask questions it can cope with, whereas I’m working on the measured reality that EM energy is emitted in packets (photons) that carry a specific quantum of energy. Those photons travel at the speed of light and therefore are logically separate from the source as soon as they are emitted. There will be no exchange of information between two entities where one is moving away from the other at c. A single photon thus will not tell you what temperature the source of it was. It is simply a moving packet of energy that also acts as if it is a particle.

In a PV, the incident photons will knock electrons across the band-gap leaving a hole behind, and the electron/hole pair is split by the inbuilt electrical field, giving a current. This is not rectification of a wave, and if you make the PV area small then you can track the incidence of an individual photon. For MerCaT sensors, the band-gap is of the order of 100meV, and so photons above this energy will produce a current at around 100mV. Since the internal heat will also produce this current, in use they are cooled to liquid Nitrogen temperatures and the circuit needs to calibrate out that base current in order to see the signal from the incident IR. If instead you run the MerCaT sensor (they cost around $1500 last I looked) at room temperature, it will develop power in the pW range, and this power will be produced from the environmental energy. It breaks 2LoT, and if you have the money you can test this. The die size is either 0.5mm² or 1mm², so the power produced is somewhat small and very expensive, but it is there and is measurable.

The problem of 2LoT has bothered me for over 40 years, and it’s only in the last couple of years that I’ve come to the understanding of why it normally works and the existence of the loophole for radiated heat (photons). Your rejection of the idea is not unreasonable as such – it is always taught that there is no way around it. Though there is experimental evidence that it can easily be broken, this is not seen for what it is because of the faith in 2LoT – anyone who points out that the emperor is naked is shouted down. As such, the only real way to prove my point is to make something that exploits the loophole and produces an undeniable quantity of energy and in the process cools below the lowest temperatures it can see.

This doesn’t need luck, just using a theory that more-closely describes what actually happens. All theories are “the best we know so far”, and we have a lot of evidence that solar panels do actually work (you can buy them in the hardware store). If we use a semiconductor with a small-enough band-gap, then we can convert the longer wavelengths into available power in exactly the same way as we currently convert visible and near-IR light. Actually making something that does this is a technical problem rather than going against theory.

A C Osborn says:
22 April 2017 at 1:04 pm (Edit)

Mr Derricot, I have to agree with Will, you have come across as a condescending Know it All.
Your last explanation is very enlightening, you admit that these devices are producing “background noise” levels of power.
The mere fact that you have to freeze the device to get more measurable amounts immediately reinforces the traditional position in as much that you have created conditions of a massive Temperature difference from ambient.
There have been many controlled experiments that show that the only useful work that can be obtained from DWILR is to convert a Solar Still or Oven in to a DWILR Refrigerator. ie you can COOL objects using nothing but DWILR. It cannot be used to “warm” anything.
Simon Derricutt says:
22 April 2017 at 2:26 pm (Edit)

A C Osborn – the MerCaT devices are normally cooled in order that they perform the function they were designed for, which is measuring incident radiant IR. If you don’t cool them, then the power they produce from their own temperature overwhelms the wanted signal. Where they are at ambient temperatures, they will produce a small amount of power and will also cool themselves very slightly.

I’m giving practical experimental evidence of this, and Will replied with a theoretical reason why it can’t happen. He also used an old theory from before we knew about photons and quantum theory. Experimental evidence trumps theory, as Feynman said. The essential problem is how you can turn random-direction energy into a unidirectional energy again. We do already have technologies that perform this function, with nantenna arrays being the easiest to understand (it’s much the same as a TV aerial and diode at a much smaller scale) and solar cells being a bit harder.

It is somewhat difficult to persuade people that such a well-established rule as the 2LoT has a loophole and that we’ve been using that loophole for a while without recognising it. Even (now) Dr. Yesilkov talked about harvesting the LWIR from ambient temperatures without mentioning the fact that doing that breaks 2LoT, and she produced the measurements that experimentally prove that it can be done. We can recycle the energy in the environment to give us usable power, but the currently-available methods of doing that are very low-power (and expensive) and thus not that useful practically. Getting more-useful amounts of power is now a technical problem, but solving it requires that we recognise the nature of the problem and that it is not theoretically impossible.

The reason for explaining this here is that since we can recycle energy, then it’s not something we’re going to “run out of” either. At the moment, solar cells could provide enough power to run our society, but of course they only produce power when the Sun shines. Without a cheap and high-capacity storage we can’t run 24/7. Environmental heat is however available 24/7 and does not need long-term storage. Since I know of several people working on devices to harvest environmental heat in various ways (which all therefore are against 2LoT) and a couple of those are looking good, I’d expect that within the next 5 years or so you should be able to buy such a device to run your house. We’re thus very close to the point where we won’t need to burn fuel to produce power, and where such power will be almost free (buy the device once and get power for life). Though this sounds like science-fiction, the experimental evidence at low power levels is already available. We just need to push the current technology from the mW level to a few orders of magnitude higher.

Simon Derricutt says:
23 April 2017 at 12:28 pm (Edit)

EM – about your nagging point…. At room temperature, photons are actually produced of high-enough energy that a standard Silicon solar panel will translate them into electricity. Unfortunately, this is somewhat hard to measure since there are only around 18 photons per square metre per second at that relatively high (~0.9eV) level. The general point is however valid, and quantum physics quite often produces answers that are initially counter-intuitive to classical physics but nevertheless actually work. Though it would be nice if more people saw the loopholes, since then I’d be able to go out and buy a device rather than get the kit together to make one, I figure most people will only be convinced by that commercially-available device. As such, the argument, such as it is, will be finished in a few years anyway.

M Simon says:
23 April 2017 at 3:06 pm (Edit)

Simon Derricutt says:
22 April 2017 at 2:26 pm

The second question to ask after “is it possible” is hardly ever mentioned.

“Is it economical?”

“What are the odds it will EVER be economical?”

Zero point energy is real. It has been measured. The odds of it ever being economical are very near zero.

So let us posit a “dark” space of 1 cu m. at 25°C. How many greater than .9 eV photons will be in that space? How many per second will be collected by a photocell? (How many photons are normal to the cell).

Is it feasible to make a refrigerator by extracting >.9eV photons from a 25°C space? How long would it take to cool 1Kg to 0°C? Assuming the box and photocell are zero mass.
Will Janoschka says:
23 April 2017 at 8:36 pm (Edit)

E.M.Smith says: 23 April 2017 at 2:28 am
“I’ve been standing aside from the 2nd Law Th. Debate since it is one of those things that can go on forever… but this point is nagging at me to be said.”

I agree with ‘go on for ever’, but perhaps it should; the equivalent of ‘I do not know’! Please consider the Rudy Clausius version of the LAW, “stuff don spontaneously go uphill”.
The ‘does not spontaneously proceed’, seems to have an agreed upon ‘meaning’, although a negative. Can we agree on that meaning for some construction of a law? The reason I ask is because, that would leave only ‘stuff’ and ‘uphill’ to ponder ’till hell freezes over’. What is the ‘stuff’ and ‘uphill’ that Rudy pondered?

E.M.Smith says: “S.B. Law says a spectrum of energy is emitted. That means some photons have below ambient energy and some fewer have above.”

Such ‘law’ was created by Wm Connolley while corrupting the ‘S.B. equation” for Wikipedia!! The Stefan Boltzmann equation, by Boltzmann never Conolley, remains useful for calculating the upper limit of ‘thermal’ radiative EMR flux in the direction of lower radiance at all and every frequency attributed to the sensible heat of matter, via the product of two human unphysical concepts (specific heat times temperature).
What can you possibly mean by either “photons” or “ambient energy”? Do your ‘blue’ photons have more accumulated power than your ‘red’ photons; or only the same accumulated power within a lesser time interval (assuming somehow relativistic time). Can you even define energy: or is power\energy\action ‘only’ some different POV of ‘time’? Time exist only before “now” the future is all 1/time!

E.M.Smith says: “Nothing prevents intercepting those higher energy photons and making electrons move rather than returning to molecules moving (heat).”

So true! If your so called thermal ‘photon’, is ever emitted in the direction of higher ‘radiance’; thermally (temperature at that frequency). Never ever been observed nor measured.

E.M.Smith says: “It is quantum mechanical randomness pumping some photons higher, coupled with selectively returning those photons to electron volts rather than molecule motion that enables energy harvesting from ambient IR.”

Quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, quantum chromodynamics, deal only with ‘probability’, never statistical randomness.. If Planck’s equation determines;the maximum spectral flux’ in a direction of zero opposing spectral radiance. than any returning absorbed spectral flux ‘must’ oversuscribe the probility of such quantum event. QED -> BS

E.M.Smith says: “Note this does NOT create energy. It sorts into some electrical that can be pumped up hill, and some molecules getting colder as they only get to absorbe lower energy photons after emitting higher.”

Please notice the graphs of Plank’s ‘radiance'(field strength vs frequency vs temperature (sensible heat)) At no frequency is the ‘radiance’ lower for increasing temperature. Many, many scamers normalize that to peak spectral radiance with temperature.What a hoot!

E.M.Smith says: “Like an inertial water pump (ram pump) that with no power supply connected, can turn lots of momentum of water at low pressure, into a little water at high pressure that seems like magic… but in fact just converts lots of low head into a little high head… slowing the average flow and energy a bit in the process.”

Why the claim of “inertial”? For the water jet cutters the lovely ‘tool’ transformed city water pressure x mass flow rate (work) into 60,000 PSI potential work, but with almost no mass flow.

That ‘tool’ did the job, but had obseine efficency! Mostly such genersted sensible heat (entropy) that must be spontaniously dispached to low radiance ‘space’ by atmospheric EMR. If not so dispatched to space, the entropy must accumulates, (so called conservation of energy) truly causing some CAGW, however that does not happen!
All the best! -will-
Will Janoschka says:
23 April 2017 at 9:29 pm (Edit)

M Simon says: 23 April 2017 at 3:06 pm

“So let us posit a “dark” space of 1 cu m. at 25°C. How many greater than .9 eV photons will be in that space? How many per second will be collected by a photocell? (How many photons are normal to the cell).”

Interesting conjecture! Your 0.9 ev is the apparent power density of EMR at a wavelength of one micron, energy density within one cycle, what are the 3 dimensional units of length with such a concept? If time itself is relativistic such remains fantasy\conjecture! This physical is totality different. If this nice horsey (good girl) transfers her gravitational mass to the front hoof that happens to be on your inside toes\foot, please deny the pain! another earthling concept!
What can you do about it? You can pray for a near apple, more interesting to nice horsey than your pain!
M Simon says:
24 April 2017 at 1:30 am (Edit)

Will,

I think Maxwell’s Demon ought to get an honorable mention.

E.M.Smith says:
24 April 2017 at 5:33 am (Edit)

@Will:

In QM some energy states do go “uphill”. It is a distribution. That is the key bit. On average nothing net goes up hill, but in particulars, some do.

BTW, I’m not relying on Wikis. Take a look at:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod6.html#c3

Beyond that, the rest will have to wait. I can’t multitask it with watching Spanish news and the coverage on Venezuela is compelling right now.
Simon Derricutt says:
24 April 2017 at 9:11 am (Edit)

M.Simon – at 0.9eV there’s so little radiation from room-temperature it’s not worth looking at, practically. It is calculable, but I haven’t bothered. By the time you get below around 100meV, however, there’s enough to be worth looking at. The cost of the device is critical, as you imply, and I expect that the cost will be roughly equivalent to a high-end PV at the moment for the same power per m², with delivery of that power 24/7 (though of course less power when it’s colder, since available power scales as fourth power of absolute temperature). There would be little point in making something that was more expensive than this, after all. Projected working life is indefinite – there’s nothing to wear out, and barring manufacturing errors this should be a one-off purchase.

Maxwell’s Daemon (and his limited-size notepad) was always an imaginary entity. It is depressingly easy to make something that demonstrates the ability to sort energy levels from an incoming wave and thus negate the Daemon argument. Even the humble diode is such a device. Give me a wave and a way of rectifying it, and I’ll give you power.

I wouldn’t have mentioned it on EM’s blog if I hadn’t done the calculations, since inaccurate claims would be shot down pretty quickly. All the previous attempts at free energy that I’ve looked at are failures because they try to deal with random-direction energy in bulk and the statistical probabilities end up as even, whereas if you change the method to dealing with each individual energy-transaction one-by-one you can affect the probability of each transaction to change the direction of the energy to the desired direction. Creating energy seems to be impossible, but redirecting energy that’s already there is something we do as a matter of course. Incidentally I’m not certain about the ZPE experiments, and I suspect that any claimed positive results may be a redirection of energy that is already there rather than creation of energy. It’s easy to fall into confirmation bias, and the results may be real while the explanation for them is wrong. When you’re working at dimensions for the Casimir gap, you’re also working at distances comparable to the mean-free-path of atmospheric air, and thus we might expect non-random reflections to happen.

As far as I can tell, devices that use conducted heat will be limited by 2LoT since I can’t see a way to bias the individual energy transactions to rectify the available energy. To produce a unidirectional flow of energy (which is what we need in order to do work) you’ll need a hot sink and a cold sink, and to allow the energy to do what it naturally does which is move from the hotter to the colder volume. For radiated energy, though, any body above absolute zero will radiate photons, and those photons can be both redirected and turned into electrical energy fairly easily. We’ve had the technology to do this for many years, and the only reason I can see that we haven’t made specific devices to give us usable power from room-temperature radiation is the belief that it’s impossible.
E.M.Smith says:
24 April 2017 at 3:17 pm (Edit)

I notice you refer to the 0.7 vdc band gap of silicon in your examples. But there are many lower band gaps
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_semiconductor_materials

Lists some alloys, like mercury zink telluride, have zero band gap and grey tin at 0.08 ev. I presume your device uses one of the very low band gap materials (and finds a way past their technical challenges)?

Down at 0.0x range band gap the population of photons energetic enough to harvest ought to be large enough to be of interest.
Will Janoschka says:
24 April 2017 at 9:51 pm (Edit)

hE.M.Smith says: 24 April 2017 at 5:33 am

“@Will: In QM some energy states do go “uphill”. It is a distribution. That is the key bit. On average nothing net goes up hill, but in particulars, some do.”

Perhaps in nuclear decay but never electromagnetic radiant flux. For any EMR flux “uphill is in a direction of higher electromagnetic field strength, “radiance” when normalized to fourspace. This is only the potential for flux, never flux itself. The power part the magnetic field as limited by the reactive permittivity and permeability of local space and any opposing radiance at each and every frequency. The flux though quantized by (hv) is never emitted in a direction of higher radiance as both the probability emission plus absorption at the SB sigma would oversuscribe quantum probability for such an event.
With nuclear decay only the gamma rays are EMR with no rest mass but with an apparent brightness temperature of several million Kelvin. The emission of EMR flux whether thermal or powered in a direction of higher radiance at any frequency has never ever been measured or even detected!
The fantasy of thermal EMR flux proportional to own T^4 without regard surround temperature is indeed the crux of the CAGW scam! Without this fantasy of atmosphere radiating flux to a higher temperature surface the CAGW mime disappears.
The Planck equation is a Bose-Einstein distribution; but a distribution of ‘what’ under what circumstances? See that factor hv/(e^(hv/kt)-1) Evaluate that over the range of frequencies and temperatures of your choice. See if you can find any frequency (v) except zero where such evaluates to a lower value with increasing temperature. This is the scaled expression for spectral radiance. Even in space where the fake ‘two-stream’ gives the same answer as the limited single stream flux. There is no frequency where the uphill radiance is not greater. There is no ‘particular’ that ‘may’ go uphill. Note: no thermodynamics was used at all, ‘only’ quantum electrodynamics! the specialty of Dr. Richard Phillips Feynman!

E.M.Smith says: 24 April 2017 at 3:17 pm
“Down at 0.0x range band gap the population of photons energetic enough to harvest ought to be large enough to be of interest.”

These tri-metals are not diodes and have not a band gap The 0.09ev work function, needed for 10 micron detection is the power density needed to generate a minority carrier from lattice defects. They do not generate any power but both voltage and current are required to detect such events. Near room temperature the Nyquist noise completely swamps any GR effects. You would be better off using a resistor that can generate thermal noise with sufficient AC power to operate a lower temperature device.
Simon Derricutt says:
24 April 2017 at 10:42 pm (Edit)

EM – yes, I’m using a very low band-gap material, where there is a reasonable amount of power to harvest. I think I know and have solved the technical challenges, but I won’t know for certain till the job is done. There may be an excessive amount of recombination because of the crystal structure, but I think there’s a way around that if it happens. Using a PV may not be the best way to convert environmental energy, but the construction is relatively simple. Other methods require micron-scale engineering or smaller, and would thus need a very large investment up-front.

An example of a commercially-available PV is made from Tellurium-doped Mercury-Cadmium alloy. Nasty stuff and hard to deal with, but produces around 100mV using a PN junction.

Will Janoschka says:
25 April 2017 at 1:11 am (Edit)

Simon Derricutt says: 24 April 2017 at 10:42 pm

“An example of a commercially-available PV is made from Tellurium-doped Mercury-Cadmium alloy. Nasty stuff and hard to deal with, but produces around 100mV using a PN junction.”

Sorry Hg:Cd:Te detector material is not photo-voltaic, and has no PN junction. It is a surface detector with photo-conductive gain down down to 27 Kelvin, liquid neon temperature. With the proper recipe can have a work function of less than 0.07 ev! Why don’t you go talk to the folk that use such devices. BTW; at room temperature the stuff has the consistency of a banana!

My Position

I’m only modestly biased on this one. I could see either case as being “correct”. The problem is that QM is correct at very small scales, classical physics is correct at large scales, and the two have incompatibilities. something MUST be wrong or incomplete.

So is it P.G.’s aether that is the answer? or the ‘N Dimensional Phase Space’ when N keeps growing as issues arise (last I looked they were playing with 10 or 11 dimensions… IIRC). Only much more work, experiments, and validated predictions will tell.

So, for me, the notion that a black body emits a distribution of photons based on the temperature and some of them are very high energy, so could be converted to electricity (even if not very much) seems reasonable. Yet I also think the 3 thermo laws are not negotiable, so “something needs explaining” between the two.

Similarly, the idea that a wave function from a rock 20 light years away can influence the emission of a photon over here via it’s ‘wave function’ seems impossible based on speed of light and travel times; yet we have quantum entanglement and the dual slit experiment telling us strange things are real. if you have some things communicating instantly, why not a wave function?

So while I lean a bit toward the notion a warm body can have electric production from a narrow band gap photo-voltaic panel, I’m also not going to be surprised if it doesn’t work. The proof is in the existence…

As to questions about when a junction exists, well, that’s when you dope the material, even for Si. Per something being the consistency of a banana, well, mercury is a liquid yet we use it. That just is an engineering problem. The real question is about QM vs wave functions, IMHO

With all that (re) said:

I’m not sure what more there is to be said, but Will wants more discussion, so anyone with more to say, here’s the spot. From my POV, the notion of black body radiation being sorted into hotter and colder photons and then using the hotter ones to make electricity seems plausible. Plants pump energy from photons “uphill” as does all of life create order from chaos. All it takes is the ability to degrade some energy to lower states to compensate. Since blackbody radiation already sorts photons into a spectrum, differential harvesting of the higher energy ones leaves the degraded ones; so effectively some energy goes up hill pumped by some that went downhill.

Or maybe not…

Subscribe to feed

Advertisements

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in Energy, Science Bits and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

77 Responses to QM vs Waves vs “Photon Rectifiers”

  1. Oliver K. Manuel says:

    Frankly, Chiefio, QM is the foundation of false, “altered awareness” that successfully isolated humanity from “reality, truth, God” in 1935, when Drs. Carl von Weizsacker and Francis William Aston endorsed the “neutron-proton model of the nucleus” because it was consistent with the “QM scheme,” although it violated experimental measurements and these basic conclusions in nuclear and atomic physics over the previous century:
    Prout (1815)
    Einstein (1905)
    Rutherford (1920)
    Aston (1922)
    Chadwick (1932)

    QM is the tap root of pseudo-science.

  2. Oliver K. Manuel says:

    Thanks to Climategate emails that surfaced in Nov 2009, we now know, beyond doubt, that quantum mechanics is the tap-root of “manufactured reality,” i.e., “altered awareness.”

    https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2017/04/25/ann-coulter-uc-berkeley-clash-reveals-massive-covert-op/#comment-222545

    Quantum mechanics became the tap-root in 1935 of “manufactured reality,” i.e., “an altered awareness” that blocked our joyful, continuous, natural discovery of reality:

    1. Prout (1815): Hydrogen (Element #1) is the basic building block of all heavier elements (Elements #2-120).

    2. Einstein (1905): Rest mass (m) is stored energy (E), E = mc^2.

    3. Rutherford (1920): Heavier elements also have compacted hydrogen atoms (compacted electron-proton pairs) called “neutrons.”

    4. Aston (1922): Rest masses of atoms are stored energy and offer mankind “powers beyond the dreams of scientific fiction.”

    5. Chadwick (1932): Discovered the neutron and agreed with Rutherford (1920) and the other discoveries listed above (1915-1932), “the neutron is an electron-proton pair in close combination.”

    6. Weizsacker (1935) and Chadwick (1935): The neutron is a fundamental particle, NOT a compacted hydrogen atom, NOT “an electron-proton pair in close combination,” and the nuclear energy of atoms is NOT rest mass, as Einstein (1905) and Aston (1922) claimed.

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Nuclear_Energy_Error7.pdf

    That is how humanity’s birthright to a joyful life of continuous discovery of “reality, God, truth” was blocked by quantum mechanics in 1935.

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/HIGHER-POWERZ.pdf

  3. Oliver K. Manuel says:

    Do competing forces between neutrons and protons determine if the neutron expands into a hydrogen atom?

    I.e., is the force of “neutron repulsion” greater than the force of “proton repulsion” at A = 3?

    Is there another explanation for spontaneous decay of tritium into helium-3?

    Tritium => Helium-3 (half-life = 12 years)

  4. Oliver K. Manuel says: 28 April 2017 at 8:29 pm

    “Thanks to Climategate emails that surfaced in Nov 2009, we now know, beyond doubt, that quantum mechanics is the tap-root of “manufactured reality,” i.e., “altered awareness.””

    The weird part of QM is that it is all theoretical. Nothing is tested for being physical. The theory calculates the “probability of a quantum event” . The theory fails to insist that all probabilities need be accounted to 100%, including the probability of ‘no event’. This makes the theory ‘so far
    nonsense’!

    omanuel says: 27 April 2017 at 4:21 pm Different thread

    “@Will Janoschka ”
    @Oliver,

    Quantum weirdness considering acceleration E²=p²c²+m²c²c²….E=root(p²c²+m²c²c²)! .
    . Where p is the momentum of the object.
    Or your E = mc² can be E/c = mc, or zero = mc-E/c =. E/c -mc = zero! Also E²/c²=p²+m²c²! If Lorentz invariance\covariance is that t = -1/t, than t² = -1! That makes time imaginary, but chirality\parity is but an opposing POV! Time describes the past. Frequency describes the future. Scam describes right-now, right-cheer!
    Some quantum ‘stuff’ is interesting, most is nonsense! Nothing quantum can replace painful learning experience/practice!! I believe I will have another beer!!
    All the best! -will-

  5. Oliver K. Manuel says:

    Perhaps Will is right, but . . .

    Chadwick himself explained in his 1935 Nobel Lecture that he adopted Weizsacker’s neutron-proton model of the nucleus because it agreed with the QM scheme, but . . .

    the amount of energy released in every known beta decay disagrees with that predicted by the W/C neutron-proton model.

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Nuclear_Energy_Error7.pdf

    Why the reluctance to discuss the obvious reason for the conflict between WC’s predicted decay of He-3 into H-3, and the observed decay of H-3 into He-3?

    See the open dot at Z/A = 0.33333 and the filled dot at Z/A = 0.666667 in the upper right figure representing H-3 and He-3

  6. E.M. Smith says:
    “As to questions about when a junction exists, well, that’s when you dope the material, even for Si.”
    Not for II-IV Me:Cd:Te 0.1 ev detectors. There is no PN junction The devices work the same if you reverse the bias. When cooled below 70 Kelvin 0.1ev EMR radiation has a sufficient ‘work function’ to generate a minority carrier (hole) that drifts (mobility) toward the negative bias. That minority carrier has a statistical lifetime of about 0.1 micro-seconds.. All during that lifetime majority carriers (electrons) rush to the positive bias with 10,000 the mobility (photo-conductive gain) that makes the need for cooled amplifiers disappear. You still have generation-recombination (GR) noise, but at the kTb level (power) of 70 Kelvin.

    “Per something being the consistency of a banana, well, mercury is a liquid yet we use it. That just is an engineering problem. The real question is about QM vs wave functions, IMHO ”

    Indeed! Ruth, with experience sets the material on dry ice for ball bonding. Doris, master at attaching; mostly sits in our lab knitting booties for grandkids!. Doris can replace failed ball bonds at room temperature! There is only one Doris, that can demonstrate making monkey shit, stick to the wall!

    “I’m not sure what more there is to be said, but Will wants more discussion, so anyone with more to say, here’s the spot. From my POV, the notion of black body radiation being sorted into hotter and colder photons and then using the hotter ones to make electricity seems plausible. Plants pump energy from photons “uphill” as does all of life create order from chaos.”

    No not ever! Thermal EMR flux, at every frequency is always spontaneous, unlike broadcasts from CCN, or CO2 lasers!!.

    “All it takes is the ability to degrade some energy to lower states to compensate. Since blackbody radiation already sorts photons into a spectrum, differential harvesting of the higher energy ones leaves the degraded ones; so effectively some energy goes up hill pumped by some that went downhill. ”
    Pure Quantum BS and SCAM! Please note the Planck function of thermal radiance vs frequency\temperature. For thermal EMR flux at each frequency; all that is possibly emitted by the higher temperature then absorbed by the lower temperature surface, is the “difference” in ‘radiance’ at that frequency (vertical distance between the two temperature curves at all frequencies. That low level power can be automagically converted to any other power, for that surface. For the “same” temperature surfaces there can be no thermal EMR flux in either direction!
    All the best! -will-

  7. E.M.Smith says:

    @Will:

    So we are back to “does so” vs “does not”… You want to call BS at Q.M. and I’m not willing to overturn professional physicists from my armchair… which was sort of when I stopped tossing my 2 cents into the comment thread last time…

    I’d love to oblige you with a cogent defense of QM but that will need someone with a greater understanding of it than mine.

    So I see it as plausible, but await proof. You state it impossible, and provide theory. I see two theories and no test between them…

    Maybe someone else can sort it a bit.

  8. Will Janoschka says:

    E.M.Smith says:
    “@Will:So we are back to “does so” vs “does not”… You want to call BS at Q.M. and I’m not willing to overturn professional physicists from my armchair… which was sort of when I stopped tossing my 2 cents into the comment thread last time…”

    Just what is a “professional physicist” The good ones that I have met and learn from. in any topic always reply, “I do not know either; perhaps we can discover! Got a charge number”? ‘Tis cost over runs!

    “I’d love to oblige you with a cogent defense of QM but that will need someone with a greater understanding of it than mine.”
    That is not me. I am keen on ? “What is physical; vs. what remains fantasy

    So I see it as plausible, but await proof. You state it impossible, and provide theory. I see two theories and no test between them…

    Indeed! The claim of two stream thermal flux resulting in some NET flux. vs my claim limitation of spontaneous thermal EMR power transfer. The one way differential flux is demonstrated every day! The opposing two stream opposing flux resulting in some NET power transfer remains quantum nonsense! The two stream approach remains fantasy never observed, never rising to the level of scientific ‘conjecture’
    All the best!

    Maybe someone else can sort it a bit.

  9. p.g.sharrow says:

    ;-) Will reminds me of the story of a Educated man.
    “When an Educated man tells you some thing can be done, He is correct. If he tells you that it can’t be done. He is generally wrong.”
    As an Un-educated man I sometimes surprise educated men with miracles of success over things that they know can not be done.
    I for one, will encourage Simon. I can see routes to success. I would also suggest he consider using gravity to help bias his “Diode” much as GOD does with Lightning. Electrons have mass/inertia and can be “encouraged to “fall” into the positive “holes” of his diode. Earth gravity results in a static bias of 300 volts per meter. I have built “gravity batteries” and can attest to that fact. A measurable warpage of the dielectric, but no current flow through the material as it was insulative at that voltage stress. Old time electronics used this “grounding” bias to enhance the effects of the transmitted RF energy. Tesla worked electronic miracles in an age before there were electronic devices and test equipment available. Of course Tesla was an “Uneducated” man…pg

  10. Oliver K. Manuel says:

    Here are recent questions and discussions of QM:

    1. Weinberg, S. (2017): The trouble with quantum mechanics. In: The New York Review of Books, January 19, 2017 issue, 7 pages http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/01/19/trouble-with-quantum-mechanics/

    2. Weinberg, S., Mermin, N.D, Berstein, J., Nauenberg, M., Bricmont, J. Goldstein, S. et al. (2017): Steven Weinberg and the puzzle of quantum mechanics. In: The New York Review of Books, April 6, 2017 issue, 5 pages. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/04/06/steven-weinberg-puzzle-quantum-mechanics/

  11. If you use a photomultiplier tube, you can count individual photons of visible light – these tubes are still used in astronomy to pick up very faint light. A standard scintillator counts the incidence of gamma rays (also EM radiation) and can sort them by energy – the incoming gamma causes emission of many lower-energy photons which are then picked up (these days) using something like a PIN large-area diode. Back when I learned physics, though, a photomultiplier tube was used, since it was the best way to get the extremely high gain needed.

    If you wish to calculate what happens using Maxwell’s waves then you can’t explain why you get a pulse of electricity from reception of a photon in a photovoltaic structure, or why they arrive at random timings. Though there are probably errors in quantum theory, it is not reasonable to doubt that EM waves are quantised and are packets of energy (photons) travelling at the speed of light. Though it is maybe difficult to accept the reality of wave/particle duality, where a particle has wave properties and a wave has particle properties, reality just is and so we need to accept it and work with it rather than try to force Nature to obey the rules we’d like it to have.

    Experimental evidence therefore shows the existence of photons, and the flux methods of Maxwell won’t give the right answers once the time of flight of those photons becomes significant. Classical physics also doesn’t give the right answers for the shape of the black-body radiation spectrum (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe ) whereas once you realise that photons are emitted you do get the right answers.

    If we set up two black-body emitters some distance apart (say light-seconds or light-minutes), and near to each one we have a mirrored shutter that reflects back the radiation from the further body, the time-independent flux calculations will also give you the wrong answers when those shutters are activated. Since the photons have a time-of-flight of seconds or minutes, by the time you shut one shutter the photons from the other body are already on their way and can’t be changed. With photons, we can calculate what will happen, whereas with a time-independent flux idea we run into problems of which clock to use – the one locally or the one that is seconds or minutes away?

    Part of the fun of physics is that some of the theories we use are mutually-exclusive, but when used within their correct range they work well at predicting what we’ll measure. The skill is to use the theories correctly and to not go outside their realm of applicability. At some point, I expect the paradoxes will be resolved and we’ll get the Grand Unified Theory Of Everything, but that hasn’t appeared yet. In the meantime, we’ll need to pick the theories that give answers that match the experimental results. Quantum theory mostly works.

    Thought-experiments are often useful in sorting out the logic. Let’s start with a brand-new empty universe, and put a hot body into it. There’s nothing else it can radiate to, but logically it will still radiate according to Stefan-Bolzmann’s rule. A coupled flux calculation just isn’t going to work here. The body will emit photons, though, without anything else to radiate to. From the time you put it in, there will be a sphere around it expanding at the speed of light in all directions that will contain the photons emitted, where the spectrum at any point within that sphere shows you what temperature that body was when the photons were emitted. 20 light-minutes out from the body, you’ll know what temperature that body was 20 minutes ago if you collect enough photons to build a statistically-valid spectrum. One photon, though, tells you nothing about the temperature.

    For 2LoT, the energy is supposed to flow always from hotter to colder and not the other way, whether it’s radiated or conducted heat. I’d suggest a thought experiment (that can also be tested pretty easily) of using an LED and a small standard solar panel. Check that the solar panel produces some output when they are a certain distance apart and the LED is shone at the panel. Put the LED in the deep-freeze for a while, then bring it out and check that it still works the same. Experimental requirements are a dark room, a deep-freeze (or fridge), an LED torch, a small solar panel and a voltmeter. The photons from the LED carry no information about the temperature of the source, and the solar panel will work as long as it is within its operating area as regards temperature (efficiency drops off as it becomes hotter). 2LoT simply does not apply to radiated energy.

    Will will probably continue to say that there’s no way his theory can be wrong, but I’m not particularly worried since maybe someone here will see the point. Since it took me decades to finally see the error in 2LoT logic, and to disregard what I’ve been taught because the logic is wrong, I’m not about to insult anyone for not seeing the light (sorry…) that quickly. First you need to see and recognise the paradoxes. I know a fair number of people who’ve been searching for Free Energy for a long time, and they can’t believe it either – it can’t be that simple so must be wrong….

    Energy is conserved. That seems to be a very basic law and I’ve seen no evidence that there is a way around it. It’s also the 1st law of thermodynamics (1LoT). For this reason I’m not happy with the Big Bang theory, where somehow it was all created from nothing. However, there’s not a lot of point in worrying about that, since there’s no way to disprove it. The 2LoT is however a statistical law, and can only logically be applied to a large number of energy transactions. If you are looking at a single random energy transaction, you cannot actually be certain of the result but it can be expressed as a probability. Much the same as tossing coins by hand – almost half the time you’ll get heads and the other almost half will be tails (the odd discrepancy is if the coin lands on its edge…) and we’ve known that for a very long time. It’s also known that a two-headed coin gives you a slight advantage, and also these days that a robot can get the precise control needed to predict the face of a normal coin being tossed. If I’m very careful on a pool table, I can send a fast ball up the middle and a slow ball from the side and the slow ball will end up stopped and the fast ball will gain speed and change its angle. Newton’s laws (or their relativistic equivalent) will apply to any individual collision, although if we look at a large group of random collisions then on average the faster “hotter” balls will give up energy to the slower “colder” balls. It takes a specific setup which is non-random to produce a non-random result, and again this is well-known. We want a non-random result, so we need to design the device to produce that.

    So: here is the bottom line in energy. When we “use” energy we simply change the direction of it from a nice usable single direction to energy that’s going in random directions. Any method that will restore the directionality of that energy will make it useful again to do work with (we can only do useful work energy that has a direction). The reason we “lose” energy into heat (which is simply random-direction energy) is that it is far more probable for energy to be in random directions than it is to be all in the same direction. This is the underlying reality of 2LoT and 3LoT – that’s it’s more likely for the directions of a collection of energy to be random than to be in the same direction. Changing the direction does not take any energy to perform, either. You can bounce a ball from a wall to change its direction, or use a mirror with EM radiation. Any method that takes a random-direction energy input and produces energy in the same direction out will do the job we want. It’s thus an engineering choice of which method is easiest to actually make but will still do the job well-enough.

    The consequences of this are also pretty unbelievable, but logically follow on. Instead of using power to give air conditioning (cooling), it will deliver power from the cooling. We also won’t need to burn fuel to get energy, since we’re living in a sea of it that we just need to redirect to where we want it. The power we need to run things will not produce pollution, either – once the devices are made they simply keep working as long as they have energy around them. The cost of energy will go down to almost-zero (you still have to invest some energy and time at the start to make the device). Technically, methods I know of use techniques used in fabricating semiconductors so are a little beyond most amateur experimenters, with working dimensions measured in microns or nanometers. Still, we mass-produce things on that scale already, so I don’t see a problem with manufacture.

    That adds energy to the list of things we won’t run out of.

  12. A C Osborn says:

    Simon Derricutt says: 29 April 2017 at 12:58 pm
    ” I’d suggest a thought experiment (that can also be tested pretty easily) of using an LED and a small standard solar panel. Check that the solar panel produces some output when they are a certain distance apart and the LED is shone at the panel. Put the LED in the deep-freeze for a while, then bring it out and check that it still works the same. Experimental requirements are a dark room, a deep-freeze (or fridge), an LED torch, a small solar panel and a voltmeter. The photons from the LED carry no information about the temperature of the source, and the solar panel will work as long as it is within its operating area as regards temperature (efficiency drops off as it becomes hotter). 2LoT simply does not apply to radiated energy.”

    You do understand that an LED, even straight from a deep freeze will be emitting at from 2600 Kelvin to 3500 Kelvin.
    So I am afraid that your “experiment” would only prove 2LoT.

  13. Do not want to add too much to the discuss but here are some considerations
    1/ Photons are frequently mentioned in discussions about “Climate Change”
    Has it been thought out that photons do not exist?
    Here are two references which say that the concept of photons is wrong.
    Anti-photon
    Jacques Moret-Bailly
    (Submitted on 26 Sep 2010 (v1), last revised 11 Nov 2010 (this version, v2))

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.5119
    Anti-photon
    W E Lamb Jr
    Appl. Phys B ^0 77-84 (1995)
    http://www-3.unipv.it/fis/tamq/Anti-photon.pdf
    Willis Lamb Jr was a Nobel prize winner in Physics in 1955 when the Nobel prize meant something.
    It can be considered that waves can be combined having a series of amplitudes at various wavelengths. Mathematically a combined wave of a certain duration can be thought as a pulse which could represent a particle even having a mass such as an electon. Certain measurements taking time could register the wave as a particle. Waves in opposite direction can cancel completely or partially to have a net effect. May thought is that if a souce of radiant energy is more powerful (ie a higher temperature) than a receiver then the source at the receiver will cancel all energy emiited, in the direction of the source, by the receiver. That is the fourth proposition (or 2nd law) of thermodynamics.
    2/ People seem to miss understand the Stefan-Boltzmann. The original work by Stefan was based on surfaces in a vacuum. Boltzmann obtained constants based on black bodies in a vacuum from thermodynamic calculations. Boltzmanns work was used as the basis of Planck’s law which also applies to a black bodies in a vacuum (note the constant of the speed of light in vacuum – through a large body of water the speed of light reduces until it is zero)
    Various engineers from their experience with heat proposed that the S-B equation should be modified to include emissivities. It should be noted that emissivities are not constants and that the emissivity of the source and the receiver can differ. The emissivity of the receiver should be used with the higher temperature source. Eg a high temperature source may emit waves at the frequency of visible light, if the receiver is a highly polished surface it can reflect neary all the light so the emissivity will be very small. This can mean that the quantity of energy received by the receiver will be small.
    3/ Let us apply radiation to the earth from the sun, and the earth back to the sun and to space.
    The sun emits electro-magnetic waves with a range of frequencies dominated by the frequencies in the visible light range. The ozone/oxygen layer absorbs some of the UV, UV and visible light is reflected and to an extent absorbed by clouds, the IR part of the E-M waves is partly or fully absorbed by clouds. Some light, some IR and little UV get through to the earth surface where a portion is reflected and the remainder is absorbed (mainly by water surfaces which make up about 70% of the total surface). The earth surface radiates IR but nothing goes in the direction of the sun. The radiation is mainly to space at night. Some of the radiation from the surface is absorbed by clouds and a small amount by water vapor in the atmosphere. With some delay in turn the clouds and water vapour radiate to space. No radiation can occur from water vapor and clouds which are of a lower temperature back to a warmer earth surface. The effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is insignificant beause of a) its tiny effective emmissivity and b) of its miniscule concentration.

  14. A C Osborn – measure the temperature with a thermometer…. How do you reckon the temperature of a monochromatic LED? It doesn’t emit a black-body spectrum. Try a laser LED instead, which is even more monochromatic. With a standard solar panel actually receiving in the near IR region, photons above the band-gap are converted to electricity and any visible LED will thus work.

    For white LEDs, which are rated as 3000K to 5000K, the actual LED emits UV and uses fluorescent material to produce 3 colours that approximate the black-body radiation of a black-body at that temperature. If you look at the actual spectrum (hold a CD or DVD in the light of that LED) you’ll see the 3 colours very clearly.

    If you want to check the data, you should find the spectral curve for any desired LED in the specification-sheet available from the manufacturer.

    Measuring the temperature of anything by the spectrum it emits requires you to know its emissivity over the waveband you’re measuring, otherwise the answer you come up with will be wrong. A thermometer in contact with it will tell you the actual temperature, though.

  15. p.g.sharrow says: 29 April 2017 at 3:02 am

    ” ;-) Will reminds me of the story of a Educated man.
    “When an Educated man tells you some thing can be done, He is correct. If he tells you that it can’t be done. He is generally wrong.” As an Un-educated man I sometimes surprise educated men with miracles of success over things that they know can not be done ”

    p,g.,
    I definitely have little.formal education. Like you, I have years of painful experiance. I don’t think I have written of anything that ‘can’t be done’ In this venue. I admit that the fantasy of opposing thermal EMR flux gives the correct value for the admitted NET flux. I only claim that there is no physical evidence that EMR flux at any frequency is ever generated in a direction of higher field strength (radiance) at that frequency, as per Maxwell’s equations!! Never, not one, observable evidence of such occurrence. Without such evidence, the whole. CAGW fantasy falls flat; as does Simon Derricutt’s claim of generating power from the ambient by ‘harvesting’: what has never been observed.
    All the best! -will-

  16. Oliver K. Manuel says: 29 April 2017 at 5:09 am

    “Here are recent questions and discussions of QM:”

    Thank you for those references. I need to study them more.

  17. p.g.sharrow says:

    My examinations resulted in the creation of this visual representation of energy transfer;
    https://pgtruspace.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/energy-transfer/
    much of energy transfer we are familiar with is via atom to atom conduction. This is generally of low amounts of energy and is higher to lower energy densities. Radiation on the other hand is transferred via full packets or quanta of energy at seemly random directions and is absorbed by atoms that are below critical energy levels. If this overloads them, they emit a quanta to relieve themselves.
    all of those packets are at the emitting atoms critical energy levels. So we are talking about higher to lower energy transfer. BUT! those quanta of energy packets are much higher in energies then the stuff of space. Energy conversion to mater is as normal as mater conversion to energy. We just don’t recognize it yet in our POV of physics…pg

    (maybe Mr Smith can correct my link to render the picture into this comment) please

    [Reply: Not so much “correcting” as just pasting in the direct link to the .png file… -E.M.Smith ]

  18. Simon Derricutt says: 29 April 2017 at 12:58 pm

    “If you use a photomultiplier tube, you can count individual photons of visible light – these tubes are still used in astronomy to pick up very faint light. A standard scintillator counts the incidence of gamma rays (also EM radiation) and can sort them by energy – the incoming gamma causes emission of many lower-energy photons which are then picked up (these days) using something like a PIN large-area diode. Back when I learned physics, though, a photomultiplier tube was used, since it was the best way to get the extremely high gain needed.”.

    Indeed, just what is the ‘brightness temperature’ (radiance) of those ‘gamma rays’?

    “If you wish to calculate what happens using Maxwell’s waves then you can’t explain why you get a pulse of electricity from reception of a photon in a photovoltaic structure, or why they arrive at random timings. Though there are probably errors in quantum theory, it is not reasonable to doubt that EM waves are quantised and are packets of energy (photons) travelling at the speed of light. Though it is maybe difficult to accept the reality of wave/particle duality, where a particle has wave properties and a wave has particle properties, reality just is and so we need to accept it and work with it rather than try to force Nature to obey the rules we’d like it to have.”

    I have no idea of how you heard of Maxwell’s equations! Have you studied Maxwell’s treatise on Electricity and Magnetism (1873)? All 22 equations completely describe the method by which EMR may be generated even down to one cycle that you interpret as a ‘photon’, The 22 were considered over constrained, as Lorentz invariance was unknown at that time. They are not over constrained, but the ‘collapsed’ four vector equations by John Poynting, leave out all the good stuff about the ‘stationary’ EM field strength!.

    “Experimental evidence therefore shows the existence of photons, and the flux methods of Maxwell won’t give the right answers once the time of flight of those photons becomes significant. Classical physics also doesn’t give the right answers for the shape of the black-body radiation spectrum (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe ) whereas once you realise that photons are emitted you do get the right answers.”

    Can you please show even one of your ‘fantasy photons’ ever being emitted in a direction of higher field strength (radiance) at any frequency?

    “If we set up two black-body emitters some distance apart (say light-seconds or light-minutes), and near to each one we have a mirrored shutter that reflects back the radiation from the further body, the time-independent flux calculations will also give you the wrong answers when those shutters are activated. Since the photons have a time-of-flight of seconds or minutes, by the time you shut one shutter the photons from the other body are already on their way and can’t be changed. With photons, we can calculate what will happen, whereas with a time-independent flux idea we run into problems of which clock to use – the one locally or the one that is seconds or minutes away?”

    Only the time amplitude modulation ever involves transit time! Such modulation can directed in both directions even when the flux over an epoch of both modulators remains zero! Double sideband suppressed carrier.

    “Thought-experiments are often useful in sorting out the logic. Let’s start with a brand-new empty universe, and put a hot body into it. There’s nothing else it can radiate to, but logically it will still radiate according to Stefan-Bolzmann’s rule.”

    That is correct as there is no opposing ‘radiance’!

    “A coupled flux calculation just isn’t going to work here. The body will emit photons, though, without anything else to radiate to. From the time you put it in, there will be a sphere around it expanding at the speed of light in all directions that will contain the photons emitted, where the spectrum at any point within that sphere shows you what temperature that body was when the photons were emitted. 20 light-minutes out from the body, you’ll know what temperature that body was 20 minutes ago if you collect enough photons to build a statistically-valid spectrum. One photon, though, tells you nothing about the temperature”

    Indeed! EMR has no temperature, only power, within a fixed time interval. Such is never energy!

    “Will will probably continue to say that there’s no way his theory can be wrong, but I’m not particularly worried since maybe someone here will see the point”

    I have no theory; only measurement and the lack there of in this deliberate scam!

    “Energy is conserved. That seems to be a very basic law and I’ve seen no evidence that there is a way around it.”

    Mathematically falsified within a gravitational field, by Emmy Noether’s theorem (1915)!

    “The consequences of this are also pretty unbelievable, but logically follow on. Instead of using power to give air conditioning (cooling), it will deliver power from the cooling. That adds energy to the list of things we won’t run out of.”

    What total nonsense! Most of the power used to remove sensible heat is dispatched to lower radiance space! The “colder” can be used as a ‘sink’ for other sensible heat at yet a higher temperature. You propose only perpetuum mobile of the second kind!!

  19. pearce m. schaudies says:

    Hi All. Having read the thread, seems many repeats. Mabe consider different ‘thought space’, Bose-Einstein statistics vs Fermi-Dirac, heh.

    Harvesting ambient energy would be like pumping a laser or maser like device with some narrow bandwidth of ambient to a higher level then power a steam boiler. amirite?

    Regards,
    Pearce M. Schaudies.
    Minister of Future

  20. pearce m. schaudies says:

    Hi All. This wiki has a coherent set of equations for reference …

    Sounds like Seebeck, Peltier effect, magnified.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_effect#Peltier_effect

    Regards,
    Pearce M. Schaudies.
    Minister of Future

  21. Will – yep, this is perpetual motion of the second kind. It is axiomatic that this is impossible, but however it isn’t. It is an axiom because it was found that no-one could build anything that actually worked, and there were a lot of fraudulent claims of machines that did that (and there still are). We have devices that actually do this already (nantenna arrays), but no-one has realised that this is what they are doing because they believe it’s impossible. You are not alone in this.

    It is not however a scam – am I asking you for money or for support in some way? I’m simply giving you the information which you can either use if you feel it is worthwhile or you can ignore if you think it is rubbish.

    Obviously you will not believe in photons and there’s no way of changing your mind on this. I have however the measurement kit to count individual photons (a Geiger counter will do this, as well as the scintillator/photomultiplier for X-ray and gamma-ray spectrometer), and for me photons are a reality. Once they are emitted they have no connection with the source (since they travel at the speed of light) and similarly it makes no difference what temperature the body is that they are received on. It may be reflected, but if it is absorbed then it gives that thermal energy to the body no matter what temperature it is. The probability of it being absorbed is the emissivity at that energy-level – the emissivity though is actually measured at a certain temperature so there can be some confusion there since of course then we’re dealing with a full spectrum with a peak radiance. I expect we could de-convolute the measured data to give us emissivity by wavelength if we wanted to, since there’s enough data, but it’s not normally needed. The only place we’d need that data is for metamaterials, where a large array of similar structures gives rise to some interesting and useful properties.

    Gamma rays don’t have a radiance temperature, only a quantum of energy. The concept of temperature simply does not apply to them. Similarly, the concept of temperature does not apply to any photon – once it is emitted all it has is the energy it is made of. When we are talking about a single particle, the concept of temperature also has no meaning, either, since all it has is kinetic energy. When there are a lot of particles (say a sample of gas) and the directions of their energy are random, then we can assign a temperature, but if they are largely moving in the same direction then we have a wind at a possibly much lower temperature. The concept of temperature is an emergent property of a collection of particles, and can be somewhat tricky once you start to look really closely. Even the surface of a solid in thermal equilibrium will have local variations of energy if you look on a small-enough scale in time and space. Those sound-waves (or phonons) that contain the heat energy are actually quantised too because the body is not infinite but has a specific size and number of atoms in each dimension – one of the reasons that what we know about materials is somewhat different when we are dealing with nanoparticles of a few hundred or a few thousand atoms.

    Asking the question “what temperature is it?” leads down some very interesting rabbit-holes once you really start exploring it.

  22. Simon Derricutt says: 29 April 2017 at 1:55 pm

    “A C Osborn – measure the temperature with a thermometer…. How do you reckon the temperature of a monochromatic LED? It doesn’t emit a black-body spectrum. Try a laser LED instead, which is even more monochromatic. With a standard solar panel actually receiving in the near IR region, photons above the band-gap are converted to electricity and any visible LED will thus work.”

    The long wave IR region, has a ‘work function’ between 0.001 and 0.3 eV! Not nearly sufficient to produce a current in a solar panel! Tunnel diodes only at very high power densities, never at the quantum level! The “radiance” of any narrow band emitters is referred as the ‘brightness temperature’. This is but the radiance of a BB within that same narrow band. Brightness temperature need not have any relation to thermodynamic temperature. Your Microwave oven has a brightness temperature of about 500 Kelvin at 2.45 GHz when turned on. Ambient temperature when unplugged at ambient, such can never boil water as no thermal EMR is ever generated in either direction if at the same temperature. As with any RF, a difference in ‘radiance’ is a requirement for emission at any/all frequencies, as per Maxwell!! Only Harvard’s Dr. Goody (64) misinterpreted the previous work of Dr. Bose, as flux rather than ‘radiance’! Dr. Einstein and Dr. Feynman never made that mistake.

  23. Pierce – the Peltier effect requires the movement of (random) energy from a hotter place to a colder one, and gets a bit of directional energy from that movement. It’s thus going to be limited by 2LoT and isn’t a way to produce energy from a single heat-sink. Current efficiencies are in the 2% range, though there’s some new trick semiconductor that is more resistant to heat movement than electron movement, so we might at some point see up to 10% or so. Sorry, I didn’t bookmark that one, so can’t give you a link. As far as I can tell, anything dealing with conducted heat will be thus limited and will not recycle energy.

  24. Will – a black body produces all wavelengths, so your definition of brightness temperature has no meaning. If you want to define it as the peak of radiation for a black body, then it would have some meaning but not really any relevance.

    2.45GHz is actually a very very long-wave IR, and IIRC corresponds to around 0.27K if we’re looking at the peak radiance of a black body. I haven’t re-checked that, but it’s in the right ballpark.

    Tunnel diodes are integral in Flash memory and the majority of non-volatile memory in a computer. These work at very low voltages and currents, as well, down to a few mV and µA. Maybe you’re thinking about Gunn diodes?

  25. Simon Derricutt says: 29 April 2017 at 7:35 pm

    “Will – yep, this is perpetual motion of the second kind. It is not however a scam – am I asking you for money or for support in some way? I’m simply giving you the information which you can either use if you feel it is worthwhile or you can ignore if you think it is rubbish”

    I did not man you, but instead the Climate Clowns!! As I said before, I wish you luck in your endeavors! You are going to need it! . I’m simply giving you the information which you can either use if you feel it is worthwhile or you can ignore if you think it is rubbish”. The argument between a two flux scheme and the demonstrated difference in radiance function can only be resolved if someone can repeatably demonstrate the generation of EMR flux in the direction of higher radiance!

    “Obviously you will not believe in photons and there’s no way of changing your mind on this. I have however the measurement kit to count individual photons (a Geiger counter will do this, as well as the scintillator/photomultiplier for X-ray and gamma-ray spectrometer), and for me photons are a reality. Once they are emitted they have no connection with the source (since they travel at the speed of light) and similarly it makes no difference what temperature the body is that they are received on. It may be reflected, but if it is absorbed then it gives that thermal energy to the body no matter what temperature it is.”

    No body can absorb EMR flux that is never generated.The Geiger counter is an instrument used for measuring ionizing nuclear radiation that has mass but not a velocity of c, called alpha and beta particles. these are physical quanta! Gamma radiation is EMR flux that has no mass, but magnetic power transfer. Such EMR always has a ‘brightness temperature’ called ‘radiance! Photons are gauge bosons that only. mediate the absorption, transmission or reflection of EMR flux that is physically generated. When the four space power density is sufficiently high sometimes an electron may be emitted, A physical quantum. Photons do not carry the power of the EM field, the number of quanta per cycle in eV, carries such power at every frequency!.

    “The probability of it being absorbed is the emissivity at that energy-level – the emissivity though is actually measured at a certain temperature so there can be some confusion there since of course then we’re dealing with a full spectrum with a peak radiance.”

    Emissivity can also be referred as surface antenna gain\loss, always a function of frequency. For thermal EMR, such is zero db or less, and always much less at angles far from normal (reflection loss)

    “I expect we could de-convolute the measured data to give us emissivity by wavelength if we wanted to, since there’s enough data, but it’s not normally needed.”
    Only if you know the power needed to generated the spectral field and some complex conjugate exists!

  26. Simon Derricutt says: 29 April 2017 at 7:52 pm

    “Will – a black body produces all wavelengths, so your definition of brightness temperature has no meaning. If you want to define it as the peak of radiation for a black body, then it would have some meaning but not really any relevance.”

    Brightness temperature unlike the word brightness, always has a clearly defined useful meaning. That is “the temperature of a black body that would produce the same ‘radiance’ within some limited frequency band. Never the peak radiance at that temperature!
    .
    2.45GHz is actually a very very long-wave IR, and IIRC corresponds to around 0.27K if we’re looking at the peak radiance of a black body. I haven’t re-checked that, but it’s in the right ballpark.”

    See the immediate above!

    “Tunnel diodes are integral in Flash memory and the majority of non-volatile memory in a computer. These work at very low voltages and currents, as well, down to a few mV and µA. Maybe you’re thinking about Gunn diodes?”

    At 10 µA, a 1N914 diode has a forward junction voltage extremely linear all the way down to 25 Kelvin! Your PhD candidate wrote her thesis on using tunnel diodes to measure the ‘radiance’ of a CO2 laser. The same laser that can raise the surface temperature of steel for effective surface Nitriding. That is because that very narrow 10.6 micron band has a ‘brightness temperature above 4000 Kelvin!! The harvesting nonsense appears to be her adviser’s attempt to obtain CAGW funding! Are we having fun yet?

  27. Will – Geiger counters measure mainly gammas, since alphas are stopped very easily. A GM tube with a very thin skin is used for beta radiation, but a simple GM counter doesn’t have that. Only high-energy betas will normally get counted – check the spec for any particular counter to find out the sensitivity.

    For emission of an electron when a photon hits a photoemissive surface, it does not depend on the intensity of the wave or the power contained in the flux. When that photon hits, it has a certain probability of ejecting an electron only if it has enough energy, if the frequency is high enough (and of course if it is not reflected). If the frequency isn’t high enough it just won’t happen. If absorbed, a photon under that threshold becomes heat energy in the body. All the way down the line, though, we’re dealing with probabilities but the result for each transaction must be one of them.

    The idea of surface antenna gain/loss is a nice one. We can get a close approximation of the emissivity by wavelength by measuring the absorption using a narrow-band spectrum. Only really useful if there’s an undiscovered sharp peak or gap at some precise wavelength, but then that’s the idea of metamaterials to produce that.

    It seems what you mean by “brightness temperature” is the temperature of a black body that would emit the same amount of energy. As such, a 1kW 1kHz transmitter would be brighter than a 100W visible laser that could raise local temperatures very much higher. Maybe the brightness temperature isn’t quite so useful. If I’m misreading your definition of the term, then please write a correction. The interesting point there is that for photovoltaic use it’s only the wavelength that matters. You can’t use a 1N914 diode for IR because the forward voltage will always be too high – that’s unavoidable. It also won’t handle the frequency.

    Because of the probabilities, the important thing in the doctoral thesis is the ratio between the irradiance per m² and the power out per m². That is pretty good. Other people have simply used natural radiation to produce power out, but as I noted there’s only around 100µW/cm² available so you need a big area to get any reasonable amount of power out. This is not worthwhile as a way of getting power from the environment, but the power is in fact measurable when you don’t use a laser to boost the input power.

    It remains that if you use a theory from 1893, which was some years before Einstein explained photoelectricity correctly, then that theory won’t take account of quantum theory. If you don’t accept that photons exist, then you can’t explain the details of it or the detection of individual photons. You also can’t explain why a gamma detector counts in clicks rather than give an even flux. You also can’t explain the shape of the black-body radiation spectrum or avoid the ultraviolet catastrophe. As such, I regard photons as having a real existence, and things such as tunnel diodes wouldn’t work without that quantum weirdness of tunnelling.

    Within its limits, of course Maxwell’s equations work. The problem is that they don’t predict those quantum weirdnesses, and the things I’m dealing with need those quantum properties to work at all. Solar panels wouldn’t work according to Maxwell, yet they do. Since solar panels do work, then changing the parameters a bit whilst retaining the principles of operation will also work.

  28. Will Janoschka says:

    Simon Derricutt says: 29 April 2017 at 10:43 pm
    “Within its limits, of course Maxwell’s equations work. The problem is that they don’t predict those quantum weirdnesses, and the things I’m dealing with need those quantum properties to work at all. Solar panels wouldn’t work according to Maxwell, yet they do. Since solar panels do work, then changing the parameters a bit whilst retaining the principles of operation will also work.!’

    You are using Poynting’s 3D vector arithmetic, rather than Maxwell’s 4D quaternion matrix arithmetic, discovered by Hamilton. These 22 equations may be 3D laws that clearly describe ‘time’ as ‘imaginary’, (orthogonal to the other 3Ds). Maxwell’s equations clearly describe quantum weirdness once you discover that time is ‘imaginary’! Time is never affected by some other dimensional velocity. This took me 15 years of measuring after the demanded college brainwashing, of Maxwell’s equations! Simple 2D multiplication remains asinine! Quaternion algebra should be taught to innocent children way way before division\normalization!
    At the college level Octonions can be introduced for higher dimensional space-time, as a mere extension to what has been learned! BTW computer 8 x 8 matrix! multiplication can be as fast as 4 x 4 multiplication and way way faster than conversion from Cartesian coordinates to Polar coordinates, with gimbal lock. All 6D missile trajectory solution use Quaternions, as local space-time does not need the extra dimensionality of Octonions. A wee bit of understanding possible GOD, likely will require 64 x 64 multiplication! Such is required for any glimmer of All powerful or all knowledgeable. Perhaps the whales and roaches have already learned this!!

  29. Will Janoschka says:

    Simon Derricutt says: 29 April 2017 at 10:43 pm

    Will – Geiger counters measure mainly gammas, since alphas are stopped very easily. A GM tube with a very thin skin is used for beta radiation, but a simple GM counter doesn’t have that. Only high-energy betas will normally get counted – check the spec for any particular counter to find out the sensitivity.
    So we can never know what is producing such “measurement” within this this time epoch (interval). Why not accept the unknown: rather than inventing some fantasy, never rising to the level of conjecture. The phrase “I do not know is always correct for Earthlings”. Why oh why do you demand fantasy as physical?

    “For emission of an electron when a photon hits a photoemissive surface, it does not depend on the intensity of the wave or the power contained in the flux.”

    Indeed! such mass ejection requires some four space power density. Always increasing with higher frequency. But only if such flux can possibly be emitted. Such so far has never been demonstrated in a direction of higher ‘radiance’ at that frequency!!

    ” When that photon hits, it has a certain probability of ejecting an electron only if it has enough energy, if the frequency is high enough (and of course if it is not reflected). If the frequency isn’t high enough it just won’t happen. If absorbed, a photon under that threshold becomes heat energy in the body. All the way down the line, though, we’re dealing with probabilities but the result for each transaction must be one of them.”

    Indeed! Can you please demonstrate any power (your photon) being ever emitted in a direction of higher radiance at that frequency? Any, any, even once!

    “It seems what you mean by “brightness temperature” is the temperature of a black body that would emit the same amount of energy.”

    Yes power never energy! As energy is never radiated as EMR only as a power flux. But only within a very limited bandwidth, never at the peak radiance of any BB temperature!

    ” As such, a 1kW 1kHz transmitter would be brighter than a 100W visible laser that could raise local temperatures very much higher.”

    The word brightness has been scientifically deprecated over the confusion between star visible brightness and star magnitude which is the star brightness integrated over the whole solid angle of that star as observed from way over yonder. In retaliation engineering created ‘brightness temperature’ with a extremely precise definition.
    Most still think of brightness as the integral of actual brightness over some poorly defined solid angle as described by astronomers. Oh woha, are we, with such nonsense!

    “Maybe the brightness temperature isn’t quite so useful. If I’m misreading your definition of the term, then please write a correction.”

    You seem to confuse the deprecated visible ‘brightness’ with the exactly defined defied “brightness temperature” as is used for every measurement of longer narrow band wavelength interval as ‘ radiance’ (field strength), never some fantasy of flux!

    “Interesting point there is that for photovoltaic use it’s only the wavelength that matters. You can’t use a 1N914 diode for IR because the forward voltage will always be too high – that’s unavoidable. It also won’t handle the frequency.”

    An opaque 1N914 diode forward biased PN junction voltage, at very low current is an excellent measure of junction temperature. Any absorbency of 2 eV (visible) radiation truly defeats all such measurement

    “Because of the probabilities, the important thing in the doctoral thesis is the ratio between the irradiance per m² and the power out per m². That is pretty good. Other people have simply used natural radiation to produce power out, but as I noted there’s only around 100µW/cm² available so you need a big area to get any reasonable amount of power out. This is not worthwhile as a way of getting power from the environment, but the power is in fact measurable when you don’t use a laser to boost the input power.”

    Again you confuse EM irradiance (W/m²), potential, for power transfer with actual flux(W/m²)The measurable power transfer. The two are not the same, or even related!

    “Within its limits, of course Maxwell’s equations work. The problem is that they don’t predict those quantum weirdnesses, and the things I’m dealing with need those quantum properties to work at all. Solar panels wouldn’t work according to Maxwell, yet they do. Since solar panels do work, then changing the parameters a bit whilst retaining the principles of operation will also work.”

    Never ever. Maxwell’s equations clearly explain why solar panels do work, without any quantum nonsense.

  30. gallopingcamel says:

    Will Janoschka,
    ““For emission of an electron when a photon hits a photoemissive surface, it does not depend on the intensity of the wave or the power contained in the flux.”

    Albert Einstein won the 1921 Nobel prize for physics for demonstrating:
    “One such light quantum, a photon, must have a certain minimum frequency before it can liberate an electron.”

    If that is what you said above, I agree. However I object to your verbose explanation which does more to confuse than to illuminate.

  31. Will Janoschka says:

    gallopingcamel says: 30 April 2017 at 4:01 am

    Will Janoschka,““For emission of an electron when a photon hits a photoemissive surface, it does not depend on the intensity of the wave or the power contained in the flux.”

    Indeed perhaps,! That electron mass emission must be dependent only on power density of EMR emission of such radiant flux! at that frequency and direction. No were is any evidence of such emission in the direction of higher opposing radiance at any frequency. Such fantasy must be a violent contradiction of all 22 Maxwell’s equations!

    “Albert Einstein won the 1921 Nobel prize for physics for demonstrating:
    “One such light quantum, a photon, must have a certain minimum frequency before it can liberate an electron.”
    Never ever! Einstein demonstrated that the work function of room temperature nickel requires the Rf power/energy density in fourspace needs to be at some value value the actual work function of such electron emission takes 5-7 cycles of your 2 eV Quanta. Such can never be a physical ‘photon’. Such is but fantasy from your now widespread conniving academic fools.!

    “If that is what you said above, I agree. However I object to your verbose explanation which does more to confuse than to illuminate.”

    My verbose is but an attempt at understanding a different verbage of some other EE with long time difference in experience. We are but trying to eliminate such obvious babble for some sort of viable communication. The excess verbose verbiage is never fun; but some attempt at meaningful dialog!

  32. I have noted a few of the things that can’t be explained by the 1893 theories, but instead need a somewhat newer theory to be able to predict what will actually happen. Trying to shoehorn imaginary time into the equations seems too complex to me, when I can measure the existence of photons and nothing imaginary is required. Will denies that photons can exist – he uses the term “Never ever!” is describing their existence in fact.

    If you stick to the idea that radiated energy can only flow from the hotter to the colder body and that none goes the other way, then we need to also specify that the emitting body can predict what the temperature of the receiving body will be by the time the radiation gets there at the speed of light, no matter how many light-years away it is. If we have a randomly-operated mirrored shutter in front of that body, then the emitting body also needs to be able to predict whether that shutter will be open or shut when the wave reaches the mirror, and also what will be reflected in the mirror (is it a hotter or colder body or nothing at all?). Somehow, that degree of prediction seems impossible to me.

    It is logically simpler to use the idea of photons, where there is no connection between the emitter and the receiver of those photons, and instead everything that happens is right here, right now where and when the interaction occurs. An emitted photon can have no foreknowledge of what will happen when it is received. It is simply emitted and when it hits something it is destroyed and gives up its energy (or it can be reflected). It carries no information about the temperature of its source, and does not know the temperature of its destination. Apart from my own experience of measuring single photons, there is a lot of other evidence for their reality. Though I can’t show Will an example he could accept of a photon coming from a colder object and being received on a hotter object (though I suppose gamma rays can be shown to do that) the absence of information of the source and destination temperatures (unless you choose a superluminal information-transfer and the ability to predict what will happen in the future) implies that the photon will indeed set off just as happily in the direction of a hotter object as a cooler one. Of course, this is also obvious from looking at the Stefan-Boltzmann equation (in either form) unless you want to preserve 2LoT at all costs.

    The logical result is that a hot body will emit photons in all directions equally, and will neither preferentially emit in the direction of a cooler body nor not emit them in the direction of a hotter body. That body has no foreknowledge of the future positions of shutters, lenses or mirrors etc. on the path of travel of those photons, either, in order to adjust the direction and quantity of photons emitted. If you drop a pebble into a still pond, do the waves spread out as perfect circles or do they have gaps where the wave won’t be able to travel at a later point in that direction?

    As such, radiated energy will be emitted by the colder body and received by the hotter body, though of course more will be passing in the hotter to colder direction. That also means that, in a system at thermal equilibrium, there will be equal and opposite radiation emitted and received by all those bodies in equilibrium The 2LoT view is that in thermal equilibrium, there is no radiation emitted or received. If you’ve looked into a hot kiln of pottery being fired once it’s at heat-soak and stable temperature, you’ll have seen that it’s all the same colour and it can be difficult to distinguish the pots from the shelves since they are all the same colour and all radiating. It would be pretty amazing if all those pots only radiated energy towards the spy-hole and nowhere else, wouldn’t it? Still, that is what Will is insisting will happen. I can’t believe that, when I open the spy-hole, that the edge of a pot I can only just see suddenly starts to radiate exactly in the direction of my eye and that it stops when I shut the spy-hole.

    For those that already accept photons as reality, this discussion has probably been mainly a washout. The important thing, though, is that the 2LoT only applies to conducted heat, and not to photons. This is the loophole in the 2LoT that nobody noticed even when devices existed that utilised this loophole. A standard solar panel is one of these devices since it takes light from any direction and gives us unidirectional electrical energy. I’ve seen explanations of this that are 2LoT-compliant because the Sun is so much hotter than the solar panel, but of course we can run the solar-panel from a LED – it’s not particularly useful, but it works when the LED is colder and various mental gymnastics are needed in order to hold on to the idea that 2LoT is supreme and unbreakable. The truth is that a photon hasn’t got a temperature, so 2LoT doesn’t apply.

    One thing you’ll have seen is just how fiercely 2LoT is defended. This is the main reason why we haven’t utilised the loophole already and been recycling energy for a long time. It’s a blind-spot. However, there have been some attempts. Robert Murray-Smith did a fairly-close replication of the Lovell device (see http://www.lovellpatentedtechnology.com/monothermal/what_is_monothermal.html ) and showed that it worked. He got 5.6µW from a hand-sized panel. Not exactly a useful amount of power, but measurable, though there’s maybe still some question there about pickup of electrosmog as the explanation for the output. Putting the device on a radiator did increase the output as expected, but again this could be spurious. Still, if you read the Lovell site you’ll see they have been trying to sell it without really understanding why it works, so they haven’t improved it and it is low power-density and pretty expensive. In order to convince people we need a small cheap device that outputs a useful amount of power in watts rather than microwatts, which is quite a few orders of magnitude improvement. I think this is possible. We just need to design the device somewhat more carefully and understand the principles by which it works.

  33. p.g.sharrow says:

    The so called “LAWs of physics” were created by men, not by GOD. We must investigate the the extents of creation and it’s causes. Perhaps some day we will truly understand.
    Besides, exploration is fun…pg

  34. cdquarles says:

    Thermodynamics is a bulk property, though, as I was taught. Thermal emission of EMR comes from the internal kinetic energy and any conversion of potential (here, not sensible, since sensible heat is a function of the mass, its thermal permititivity and conductivity, and the geometric mean of its constituent’s kinetic energy) into said kinetic energy.

    Thermodynamic temperature, by definition, is a statistical thing related to the distribution of individual component’s internal kinetic energy. For solid condensed objects, that’s necessarily limited by the amount and shape of the constituent’s packing. Given a packing, there is only so much space allowed for objects to move before they interact with the motions of the nearest neighbors, whose motions are impacted by the motions of their nearest neighbors, until you reach the condensed surface. Things at the surface do not have to act the same way things buried in the interior do. For liquids, we now have the complication of bulk flow in one direction at the expense of flow in the other two orthogonal directions. For gases, absent a constraint on occupied volume, we have another complication. At near surface thermodynamic temperatures and pressures, the constituents of our atmosphere are moving at about 1 km/sec, with just two constraints. Those constraints are the condensed surface and the gravitational field. Since the surface temperatures and pressures are low enough, and with most of the mass of the atmosphere near the surface, most of said gases can’t reach escape velocity (vertical), though some do (plus the Earth is still scooping up stuff near it). That said, a hotter gas is a faster moving gas, so it will expand vertically, too and may cool that way, in addition to possessing a higher radiative power.

  35. cdquarles says:

    @ Simon, yes, individual photons can and do get emitted from any bulk object above absolute zero (thermodynamic temperature). That, though, does not change the bulk emission, which is higher for the hotter object. The next flux will decay exponentially as the two objects approach equilibrium, with the hotter object cooling faster that the cooler object is warming, particularly when one object is vastly more massive than the other. The cooler object cannot measurably (from thermal emission alone) heat the warmer object, under ordinary conditions.

  36. E.M.Smith says:

    @Will:

    I don’t see how: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem falsifies conservation of matter and energy. Please explain.

    @Pearce:

    That’s the basic way I see it. The fundamental question, IMHO, comes down to this:

    Is an ELECTRON or electrical current a THERMAL property? If not, then applying the laws of THERMOdynamics to an ELECTROdynamic object seems a stretch unless more support can be found (i.e. connect the chain of logic from one to the other).

    Near as I can tell, the emission of a photon (and since substantially ALL of physics seems to claim they exist, I’m not willing to handwave them out of existence by muttering “wave function”…) moves from THERMAL to ElectroMagnetic then the absorption moves to Electron motion. I see no reason for a thermo law to apply to ether electromagnetic (where we know multiple low energy photons can be absorbed into one atom moving to the emission of one higher energy photon, so pumping energy ‘up hill’) or for it to apply to electricity in motion (where we regularly turn low grade forces like water falling 5 feet into very high grade forces like 18,000 volts – which I have done, BTW…)

    So for me, I’m not seeing why Thermodynamics applies to electricity…

    Then, just for grinns, we have the problem of the existence of IR solar cells.:

    http://news.mit.edu/2012/infrared-photovoltaic-0621

    Now if I take one of those, convert IR to electricity, then use that electricity in a UV LED, and shine that UV at, say, a yellow source from which I got that IR photon flux, am I not moving energy back “up hill” to it? And if NOT, then how can you say the IR was flowing DOWN HILL? To my way of thinking, you must isolate the electrical steps from the optical steps to avoid a “thermo catastrophe”…

    More a bit later as I try to catch up on the rest of the comment / thread…

  37. EM – maybe this might help. 2LoT can be derived from statistical mechanics, which deals with the interactions of random particles (at least I’m told it can be derived from it..) but when we are talking about electrical energy it is no longer random since it is all in the same direction. Otherwise we have no current and not electrical energy, after all. Both 2LoT and statistical mechanics therefore cannot apply to electrical currents. Once you have converted that wave to electricity, it is free of the 2LoT.

    Given any wave and a suitable diode, we can produce energy that moves in one direction. Apart from the uses of purely heat (keeping ourselves warm, cooking food etc.) the only way we can move things around is by using directional energy, which is turned into random-direction energy in the course of doing that work.

    I can generalise the principle even further, in that the 2LoT does not apply to waves that are propagating, since such waves are directional energy and we can reflect them to all go in the direction we want. With such waves, all you need is the right mirror and/or the right diode and they can do work. Such waves are independent of their source once they have left it, as well, for the same reasons that photons have no information about the source they left. It’s simply moving energy. Now remember that waves are particles and particles are waves…. With the right structure, you should be able to get usable energy from simple air-pressure, since it’s a collection of particles moving at high velocity (around 500m/s in fact). We now have the technical capability to actually do this, too.

    If you’d asked me a couple of years ago whether perpetual motion (of the second kind) was possible, I’d have said “No” because that’s what I’ve been taught. So many failures to make a device that did that, and so many scams…. However, you can easily make a device that does it or buy one (see the Lovell device, though I have not personally tested that) and many people (including MIT IIRC) have made nantenna arrays that also do this with a higher tech level. It’s real, and simply needs us to realise what’s actually happening rather than insist that it’s theoretically impossible.

    At heart, the 2LoT expresses the fact that when we have a large collection of energetic particles or waves, the most likely state will have them all going in random directions and the average direction will be zero. Things naturally get messed up, so if you start with a collection of such things all going the same way, then with collisions and interactions then they will tend towards the totally-random over time. We call the collection where they all in the same direction usable energy, and when it’s all messed up we call it waste heat. All we need to do to get usable energy out of that waste heat is to persuade it to go in the same direction again, and that’s where the right diode will do the job.

    Of course the 2LoT works for most things – throw a pack of pic-a-sticks on the floor and they’ll end up all in different directions. We just need to design the right sort of diode, and then we can re-use all the “waste” energy and then we can’t “run out” of it.

    This obviously requires people to look critically at what they think they know and to look at the logic and experimental evidence to decide as to whether I’m correct or not. It’s not easy to let go of those basic beliefs you’ve known to be true all your life. We should have some higher-power devices this year, though, whether it’s me who makes them or someone else. It’ll be harder to deny it works, then.

  38. Incidentally, here’s a thought-provoking article that I’ve only just come across, which gives a nice (working) model of an electron and also explains some of the problems with the photon paradoxes: http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Journal%20Reprints-Quantum%20Theory%20/%20Particle%20Physics/Download/3309 .

  39. Simon Derricutt says: 30 April 2017 at 12:15 pm

    “I have noted a few of the things that can’t be explained by the 1893 theories, but instead need a somewhat newer theory to be able to predict what will actually happen”
    \
    Have you ever even tried to understand Jimmie Maxwell’s 1893 work product? Not some interpretation. of an academic with way less intelligence than you? When? I received my BS in 64 and even then the only taught the vector version by John Poynting which only deals with measurable flux not the other 3/4 dealing with electric and magnetic field theory. the fields are stationary but cyclic for the space propagation of power flux that is only generated when there exists a difference in field strength (radiance) at each frequency and in each direction!

    “Trying to shoehorn imaginary time into the equations seems too complex to me, when I can measure the existence of photons and nothing imaginary is required. Will denies that photons can exist – he uses the term “Never ever!” is describing their existence in fact.”

    I only used never ever in reference to some demonstration of EMR flux being generated in a direction of higher radiance. Time is considered imaginary because time is orthogonal to every other to each of the other three space directions. All four space time dimensions are completely orthogonal to every other. If you had attempted to understand Jimmie’s work you would understand why he used quaternion matrix multiplication. The difference between time and frequency is merely now a complex conjugate.

    “If you stick to the idea that radiated energy can only flow from the hotter to the colder body and that none goes the other way, then we need to also specify that the emitting body can predict what the temperature of the receiving body will be by the time the radiation gets there at the speed of light, no matter how many light-years away it is. If we have a randomly-operated mirrored shutter in front of that body, then the emitting body also needs to be able to predict whether that shutter will be open or shut when the wave reaches the mirror, and also what will be reflected in the mirror (is it a hotter or colder body or nothing at all?). Somehow, that degree of prediction seems impossible to me.”

    Same old nonsense straight from the CAGW handbook. You certainly have been scammed!! The electric and magnetic fields are stationary! Have you never heard of “proper time”? There is nothing more relativistic than EMR flux.

    “One thing you’ll have seen is just how fiercely 2LoT is defended.”

    You are still claiming the cake heats the oven with your two way flux. I do not defend 2LTD for EMR flux as it has no temperature! Whether stored as sensible\latent heat or hydrocarbon structure is completely up to the absorber.

  40. gallopingcamel says:

    Will Janoschka and Simon Derricutt,
    Most phenomena involving electro-magnetic radiation can best be explained in terms of Planck’s equation…….. (Photon energy = PlancK’s constant times the frequency).

    The above equation treats E-M radiation such as light as particles rather than waves. However interference is easier to explain by treating light as a wave rather than a particle. Professor Gilbert Stead (Cantab) explains:
    https://ww3.haverford.edu/physics/songs/cavendish/hv.htm

    If you are still confused after reading this I recommend that you sing it as loud as you can to the tune “Men of Harlech”

  41. pearce m. schaudies says:

    Hi All. I suggest we use the wiki definition of photon and procede. If you want to deny photons exist … you’re the wrong church, heh. This is the church of Devine light!

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

    Minister of Future

  42. pearce m. schaudies says:

    Hi All. I had a journeyman’s licence in heating and Aircon when 19, in order to pay for college. Verbal combatants please note …

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html

    . . . . excerpt …

    Second Law: Refrigerator

    Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low  temperature object to a higher temperature object. This precludes a perfect refrigerator. The statements about refrigerators apply to air conditioners and heat pumps, which embody the same principles.

    This is the “second form” or Clausius statement of the second law.

    *please read following twice, heh.

    It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.

    Regards,
    Pearce M. Schaudies.
    Minister of Future

  43. p.g.sharrow says:

    Simon Derricutt says:
    30 April 2017 at 10:43 pm
    Simon, thanks for that link, good explanation of the science and it’s origins. While
    I don’t agree entirely with the conclusions offered by the author as to the causes and nature of the creation of photon and electron, This does look to be useful for further work adding the illumination of knowledge and thought.
    . Science evolves as new facts and theories are added. We should not be married to a busted theory that is in error due to new information becoming available. .

  44. p.g.sharrow says:

    pearce m. schaudies says:
    1 May 2017 at 4:14 am “Hi All. I had a journeyman’s licence in heating and Aircon when 19”,
    pearce, as my father had a refrigeration business, so I began trouble shooting and repair as a young teenager and was engineering and building commercial systems before I got out of high school.
    The most fascinating were absorption systems. Cold from the application of heat!
    The Serval design was impressive. Physics, gravity and gas pressures of hydrogen,
    water and ammonia to affect continuous refrigeration. Add electricity and a tour-de-force in applied science…pg

  45. pearce m. schaudies says:

    Eggzactly! Physics at work, right there in plain view.
    Minister of Future

  46. Will Janoschka says:

    gallopingcamel says: 1 May 2017 at 1:19 am

    Will Janoschka and Simon Derricutt,
    “Most phenomena involving electro-magnetic radiation can best be explained in terms of Planck’s equation…….. (Photon energy = PlancK’s constant times the frequency)”.

    Why the hang up with energy? Every source of RF power is limited to flux, Power normalized by projected area, (solid angle) That normalized power is all we can measure of EMR ever! Plank’s constant has units of Watts x t² multiplying by (v) frequency gives Watts x t or looks like Joules, or eV for a ‘sparky’! Please note that RF eV doubles at twice the frequency because the time interval for one cycle goes to 1/2 as the frequency doubles. Since the propagation velocity remains constant for every constant density matter, including none, the linear eV stays constant, but the expands that eV into the increasing projective area m² for the elapsed time distance at (c always relativistic). If RF is an energy ‘particle’ why oh why does it increase in volume as t²?

    “The above equation treats E-M radiation such as light as particles rather than waves. However interference is easier to explain by treating light as a wave rather than a particle. Professor Gilbert Stead (Cantab) explains:”

    Thank you! Interesting reading. The two exist because the complex conjugate of time (t) = -1/t. Since time is a dimensional variable t² = -1, making time imaginary (orthogonal) to every 4PI different directions! A Smith chart kinda helps understanding! We seem to be overrun by incompetent academics that think they know! Every ‘think they know’ needs to be challenged by the question What experiments have you yourself done to falsify your beliefs?

  47. Will Janoschka says:

    pearce m. schaudies says: 1 May 2017 at 5:43 am

    “Eggzactly! Physics at work, right there in plain view. Minister of Future”

    I find academic Physics only pal reviewed re-search! All the original searching seems to be done by beer drinking engineers that know if your aircraft has even one mistook, it shall fall from the sky, and DA BOSS will be ANGRY with you! Dis is why all calculations are peer reviewed. Da one with da most serious mistooks get to buy da first round!
    BTW ‘mistakes’ are when someone importatant notices with endless ‘meetings’! When you get to something like the Hubble telescope that is called a mistreak, and all you can do is bend way over and kiss your young ass GOODBYE!

  48. pearce m. schaudies says:

    @Will. That is why we always had two different people do FMEA (failure mode effect analysts) on Mission critical components/ systems.

    Regards,
    Pearce M. Schaudies.
    Minister of Future

  49. Will Janoschka says:

    p.g.sharrow says: 1 May 2017 at 5:18 am

    “The most fascinating were absorption systems. Cold from the application of heat!
    The Serval design was impressive. Physics, gravity and gas pressures of hydrogen,
    water and ammonia to affect continuous refrigeration. Add electricity and a tour-de-force in applied science…pg”

    Yes! But always with some ‘heatsink’ that could dispatch to elsewhere\when both the removed sensible heat, and also the entropy generated from such powered ‘action’!! Please check one of the latest ‘clever’ devises, the split cycle Sterling cryogenic coolers that transfer the power needed only through a 30 Hz pressure wave of helium that is also the non phase change ‘refrigerant’ 25 Watts input power moves 0.25 Watts of sensible heat from 75 Kelvin uphill to 300 Kelvin, with a truly lousy refrigerant!
    All the best! -will-

  50. CDQ – though I’m saying that a cooler object will transmit photons that will be absorbed by a hotter object, the net flow of energy will always be from hotter to cooler. The net flow of heat is always seen to be from hotter to colder, just as specified in the textbooks. The important point, though, is that when we’re talking of waves or photons then there is bidirectional flow of those photons, and in thermal equilibrium we have an equal and opposite flow of energy.

    Electricity, though, is not heat. It’s a directional flow of energy that is thus not amenable to calculations based on statistical mechanics or the 2LoT.

    If you accept that at thermal equilibrium there is an equal and opposite flow of photons, and that we can intercept those photons and convert them to electricity using either a photovoltaic panel or something else, then the energy that is converted to electricity will be removed from the thermodynamic equations. It has to be, since energy is conserved, and that electrical energy has gone down the wires to somewhere else.

    As regards the colder object not warming the warmer one, that is not exactly true either. Let’s say you have a warmer object and a colder one and they are radiating to each other. The hotter one will cool down at a certain rate and the colder one will warm up, just as you expect. Now replace the colder object with one that is even colder. You’ll now find that the hotter object will cool at a faster rate, and this is because it is receiving less heat from the even-colder object but is still radiating its own heat away at the rate appropriate for its temperature and emissivity.

    If you do the calculations based on the body radiating according to its own temperature and emissivity, and receiving radiation from around it based on the radiation density and its absorption, then the calculations work out just the same except that they contain fewer paradoxes, since all calculations are at the same time and place and do not depend on what happened in the past or what will happen in the future. All calculations are done on what is happening here and now, and any radiation that’s on its way from *somewhere else* will only have an effect when it reaches the object under consideration.

  51. One problem in physics is that when the maths is sorted out people forget that the maths is only a description of the reality, and not the reality itself.

    Time is mathematically treated as if it is a real dimension that is orthogonal to our x, y and z dimensions. However, whereas we can move forwards and backwards in x, y, and z, show me something that physically moves backwards in time. The reason that we can treat time as a dimension in the way we do is that all our measurement systems depend on the speed of light, and that nothing we can measure can go faster than that. That is also why we can’t measure the speed of light to vary in a vacuum. There are hints in quantum theory and some physical experiments that show that information can be tranmitted at superluminal speeds, but nothing physical actually moves that we can yet measure. There may be changes to this situation in future, but at the moment that’s where we stand.

    Physics is at heart experimental, and based on things we can measure and what we can actually see. The laws of physics tell us what we expect to measure when we do something, based on people measuring that thing happening in the past and working out what the rules are.

    In reality, heat does not move from hot to cold. Yes, that’s what we measure to happen, but that isn’t the real story. Instead, what is happening is a random walk of energy movements that, over time, will end up with an equal probaility of being in all the locations it can physically get to. Since this is a random process and the particles have a non-infinite speed, it takes time to happen but if we have a hot-spot in a container of gas or in a lump of solid, that energy will after enough time be evenly spread and the system will be in thermal equilibrium. When in thermal equilibrium, it suddenly doesn’t stop moving. That energy or those particles will carry on moving at the same rate, but on a macroscopic level we don’t see any changes any longer. If you’ve looked at Brownian motion under a microscope, that movement is very obvious.

    The mathematics of thermodynamics or statistical mechanics tells us about the movements of the net flows, but ignores what is happening at the level of the individual particle or packet of energy. The success of this mathematical treatment in designing real-world systems blinds us to that sub-microscopic level of continued movements. That continued movement is actually pretty important, and can be utilised to do work even though the bulk-scale mathematics tells us it can’t be.

  52. E.M.Smith says:

    Interesting… we also have a bunch of refrigeration folks… In the 90s I converted some of my R12 cars to run on a propane / isobutane mix. At about 12 years old I was taking old refrigerators apart and playing with the bits / process… At about 16? I had figured out how the absorption fridge in the camper worked… Still have my set of AC gauges / hose set in the garage…

    On the issue of EMR expanding increasing volumes of space, I think that is just for way more than one photon of energy. A single photon looks to have a single direction and not diffused over time.

    As per radio waves, I don’t know if anyone has ever created a single photon of 1 MHz … but we do have directional antennas where we have herded the mass of RF photons into one direction.

    I’m inclined to the points Simon is making. There is a flow of photons toward the PV panel. Some get turned into moving electrons and that energy leaves the panel. Energy moved from source to the panel. Those photons are no longer available to send back to the source, and they were not turned into heat in the panel. They have left the thermo part of the system description.

    So figure a flow of photons with 100 W of low range IR 50 W of higher range IR, and then 25 W of visible. Now have it impact a panel that captures the 50 W of higher range IR and turns it into electrons that go off miles away and charge a battery. You now have 100 W of low range IR and 25 W of visible that can turn into heat at the panel. The panel will, being the same temperature as the source, emit 100 W of low end IR and 25 W of visible, but having very low / no emmisivety in that higher range for IR (it absorbs there) will not produce that 50 W of emissions. The net is a thermo balance of the low range IR and visible, but a conversion of the upper range iR to electricity.

    This is substantially the same as any other PV panel using visible light. One just changes the frequency band being converted. Nobody loses sleep over the idea that sunshine gets converted to electricity and “goes off somewhere” leaving the thermo balance. Nobody loses sleep over the idea that the panel is NOT emitting in the visible range and looks black because of that (and so is not in ‘equilibrium’ with the source at visible ranges.

    So I’m just not seeing the problem with making a IR PV panel and getting electricity out of it. The fact that they already exist kind of makes that an easy path to accept…

    Basically, using equilibrium thermo ideas on a non-equilibrium system seems like an inappropriate straight jacket for the mind…

  53. Larry Ledwick says:

    So I’m just not seeing the problem with making a IR PV panel and getting electricity out of it. The fact that they already exist kind of makes that an easy path to accept…

    You can do that right now with an array of thermocouples, or Peltier Modules, IR heating in, electricity out. Same would happen with an IR driven sterling pump generator, we just tend to logically disconnect the idea that the IR is first converted to thermal energy then that is drives a mechanical generator from the concept of IR being turned into electrical energy. If you can do it one way doing it another would not violate any rules, as net energy flows would be the same.

    Generate Electricity with Peltier Module The Seebeck Effect

  54. EM – I published these ideas and the correction of the principle some time back, and it seems that few understood or wanted to understand what I was getting at. It maybe seems too simple to be the answer to all those people who tried and failed to get a device that produced work without needing to burn fuel.

    All those historical efforts (and quite a few are still under way) were trying to break Conservation of Energy or, alternatively, to access Zero Point Energy (because the maths seems to point to it being there) which is much the same thing. Instead, this idea gives us Perpetual Motion (or Free Energy if you’d prefer that term) _because_ energy is conserved. Though I’m not the first to think there’s a flaw in 2LoT, I may be the first to pinpoint both the flaw and the way around it in a way that makes a technical solution fairly obvious. All we need to do is to change the direction of the energy.

    Unlike the other resources you’ve been talking about, the Earth does in fact lose energy to space, but that is almost-exactly balanced by the amount of energy it receives from the Sun. Because of this, for a very long time we will have an almost-inexhaustible amount of environmental energy available to us, since most of the work we use our energy for ends up back in the environment almost-immediately as heat. We can recycle that heat into usable electricity again.

    We know that heat moves from a hotter to a colder body. In 1824 Sadi Carnot visualised heat as a fluid (Caloric) that flowed from the hotter body to the colder (and couldn’t flow the other way), and this idea was found to predict what happens with heat engines rather well. That idea of a unidirectional flow was however enshrined in the thinking and the teaching even after Caloric was replaced by the mechanical theory of heat. With conducted heat, there are no paradoxes and 2LoT will apply as far as I can see. For radiated heat, though, the paradoxes I mentioned above do exist – how can one body set the radiation in another direction to be exactly that which, when it finally hits another body, will be just the right power to obey the Stefan-Boltzmann laws? The body also cannot radiate in the direction of something that will be hotter when the radiation reaches it, maybe years in the future. This is the reason for the pebble analogy, where lots of photons are emitted and I pointed out that the ripples are complete and without gaps. How would the pebble know where those ripples will end up, and how can the body emitting IR radiation know where it will end up maybe millions of years in the future?

    The question I asked, therefore, was why the heat moves from the hotter to the cooler body. Even for conducted heat, this isn’t a simple answer. It’s a random process that tends towards an equal probability of any packet of energy being anywhere it can reach. For radiated heat, though, the transmission has to be purely dependent on the transmitting body since anything else breaks causality. Therefore a colder body must radiate towards a hotter body, and the hotter body must receive that radiation. The rate of heating or cooling of either body simply depends on the balance of the energy flows in and out at the instant we measure it. Rather than depending on what’s happening at some indeterminable distance in time and space, the rate of change of temperature only depends on things happening here and now at the location of that body. That’s logically far more satisfying.

    I’ve been looking at LENR and compact nuclear energy as a solution to the cost of energy, not because I had any worries about running out of it. This recycling of energy will however be even better (no fuel needed and no pollution) and be somewhat more disruptive than any fuelled method of generating energy. It’s obviously going to be cheaper per kWh the longer you own the device since I see no wear-out mechanism. It won’t be subject to damage by the weather (you can bury it underground if you want). No power cuts, therefore, and no-one can cut you off once you have it. You’ll probably want batteries and an inverter to cover peak uses (when you put the kettle on to make tea) but that’s not absolutely necessary.

    Devices that do this already exist, so it’s really only a question of making a better design that can be mass-produced cheaply and will deliver enough power for the size. I know I’m not the only person with a proposed solution here, too, since I know of one project that works already (but needs to be a bit warmer than room-temperature to work well) and another design that will soon be built and where I expect it will work, because the physics is well-known but applied a little differently. There may well be others, and there may well be better designs than mine. As such, I think we’ll be able to buy them in the local hardware store in a few years. Of course, that’s really going to annoy countries that make a lot of profit on selling oil. Still, it’s not like the governments have any reasonable way of banning them, considering how they keep telling us to reduce our Carbon footprints….

  55. Larry – thermopiles work on conduction of energy, so need somewhere cooler to dump the heat energy to, whilst harvesting some directional energy from the flow of energy from hotter to colder. They are thus limited by 2LoT and are normally far more severely limited by the fact that moving electrons also conduct heat. Maybe 10% tops for the efficiency.

    Where I break from the traditional methods is that we only need a single logical heat-sink. The device itself is that heat-sink, in fact, and conducted heat is turned into radiated heat which can then be converted into electricity. Since every body above absolute zero will radiate IR, every body also converts conducted heat to radiated heat. As such, 100% of the heat that goes in can be turned into electricity, though it may take some time to do that. Insulate the device well so it doesn’t gain or lose heat from outside, put a joule in to heat it up and by the time you’ve got that joule out again as electricity it will be back down to the temperature you started at. Of course, you can also keep taking energy from it, and it will continue to cool down further. For the design I’ve worked out, it seems that by the time you reach around -60°C it will only be putting electricity out at around 1/4 the rate it will at room temperature (20°C) but hey, nothing’s perfect. Living up in the Arctic, you’ll need quite a few more devices, but it will still work.

    Publishing the principle is a useful thing to do, and a few people dotted around the world either have or will have all the technical details of what my design entails and how to physically make it. If I want it mass-manufactured, some degree of secrecy is necessary to ensure that people will put money in and expect to make a profit. If someone else makes a better one, though, I’d buy theirs and save the effort of industrial design and fabrication. I’ve probably got enough money until I die, and cheaper electricity bills would stretch that money a lot further anyway. As it is, though, looks like I’ll need to push this one along in order that it achieves reality rather than just remain a theoretical exercise that very few people believe will work.

  56. E.M.Smith says:

    @Simon:

    The only place your description causes me a bif of itching is on the radiative flows just passing by each other. I wonder if there is not an opportunity for destuctive or constructive interference as two wave funcions pass. Not advocating it, just pondering.

    In that case, 2 bodies radiating 1000 K at each other could have that radiation function cancel at the midpoint (so where did the energy go?) Or perhaps it doubles… Or maybe only if matter interacts with the wave…

    I need to find a pond somewhere, toss two rocks, and see if after the intersection, it goes back to smoothly expanding rings… I remember seeing the ripples interact, but don’t remember looking outside that interesting pattern to see if rings return… or maybe light is different anyway…

    I suspect the light must be going the same direction and 180 out of phase to cancel, but then where did the energy go? Sigh. I think this is not going to yield to reasoning by analogy…

  57. Will Janoschka says:

    E.M.Smith says:
    30 April 2017 at 7:40 pm

    “@Will: I don’t see how: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem falsifies conservation of matter and energy. Please explain.”
    From your wikipedia even:
    “it does not apply to systems that cannot be modeled with a Lagrangian alone (e.g. systems with a Rayleigh dissipation function). In particular, dissipative systems with continuous symmetries need not have a corresponding conservation law.”
    E.M. please use Wikipedia as a pointer to science never as science! Go read what the folk desperately trying to convey the meaning of their discovery. If you are unfamiliar with that language; go find some non BSer to translate. Including the inevitable, “I have no idea of what they were trying to express”. Those are the importintant parts!

    “@Pearce: That’s the basic way I see it. The fundamental question, IMHO, comes down to this:
    Is an ELECTRON or electrical current a THERMAL property? If not, then applying the laws of THERMOdynamics to an ELECTROdynamic object seems a stretch unless more support can be found (i.e. connect the chain of logic from one to the other).”

    Well the vacuum valve with a thorium cathode at 400 Kelvin,’ spontaneously emits electrons with mass that can be accelerated by a Coulomb field to any number of eV. Such requires no photo-emissive effect only sufficient (kTb) noise. Remember the CRT; electrons with energy of 12 KeV easily cause a phosphor to emit 2eV quanta. Wow!

    Near as I can tell, the emission of a photon (and since substantially ALL of physics seems to claim they exist, I’m not willing to handwave them out of existence by muttering “wave function”…)”

    The problem is: as A. Einstein (discoverer of photo-emissivity) pointed out, was the calling the EMR quantum a photon. It takes 5 to 7 cycles of 2 eV quanta (wavelet) to emit an electron from room temperature Nickel! What is a Photon?

    “moves from THERMAL to ElectroMagnetic then the absorption moves to Electron motion. I see no reason for a thermo law to apply to ether electromagnetic (where we know multiple low energy photons can be absorbed into one atom moving to the emission of one higher energy photon, so pumping energy ‘up hill’) or for it to apply to electricity in motion (where we regularly turn low grade forces like water falling 5 feet into very high grade forces like 18,000 volts – which I have done, BTW…)”

    The mass of falling water does work (power x distance) which can be converted to any amount of Coulomb electric field (18kV), but the power (Volts x Amperes) never will come close to the power of the falling water! 2LTD for the electric! I try to avoid using thermodynamics to describe the electric. Such is not needed, as Maxwell’s equations clearly define all macroscopic electric, even down to EMR flux which, I guess, can be considered orthogonal to EMR field strength (radiance), because of (time). Thermal BB ‘radiance’ is proportional to mass T^4.
    However thermal EMR flux is aways proportional to the difference in ‘radiance’. The T^4 is close enough only when opposing radiance is space! Even better at the lowest measured temperature 0.45 micro Kelvin.. This is conceptually the same as thermal conductivity, flux is only produced proportional to a difference in potential, Delta T^1; which so far gives both magnitude and direction of flux. Why your insistent incoherent difference for RF?

    “So for me, I’m not seeing why Thermodynamics applies to electricity”

    Only indirectly via Maxwell!
    All the best! -will-

  58. E.M.Smith says:

    @Will:

    So you point me at a general theorum name as proof of your point, then when I say “that does not seem to prove your point” and request an explanation of what YOU see as proof, your answer is to imply I’m a bit lazy and dense and need to do my homework?

    Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.

    YOU have a point to make and defend so YOU are the one who gets to explain YOUR point. “Go Fish” doesn’t cut it.

    So far, I see a lot of hand waving, some name-of-theorem dropping and not much connected chain of reasoning; coupled with requests that I do the homework…

  59. Will Janoschka says:

    E.M.Smith says: 1 May 2017 at 10:30 pm

    “@Simon: The only place your description causes me a bif of itching is on the radiative flows just passing by each other. I wonder if there is not an opportunity for destuctive or constructive interference as two wave functions pass. Not advocating it, just pondering.”

    The faster I go, the be-hinder I gets. I am peddling as fast as I can!
    Your opposing wave is never created at the same frequency. To the delta the lesser opposing ‘radiance’ at the location of the higher ‘radiance’ emitter strictly limits such flux to the delta radiance. The = one way RF flux so disparaged by your Climate Clown ‘scamming supporters’.
    This does not falsify superposition. An 1W/m² does not interfere with an orthogonal 1W/m² The result is a root 2 flux in a direction of Pi/4 to both fluxes (fluxi). The two have PI/2 difference between the electric and magnetic oscillating field, which determines the propagation direction of said flux. The lower radiance other end absorber only absorbs that flux normal to its own surface, (kinda). even with ‘solid angel’ . That 0.9 F# optics hopes that the detector accepts quanta 30 degrees from normal.
    All the best! -will-

  60. Will Janoschka says:

    E.M.Smith says: 2 May 2017 at 12:18 am

    “@Will: So you point me at a general theorum name as proof of your point, then when I say “that does not seem to prove your point” and request an explanation of what YOU see as proof, your answer is to imply I’m a bit lazy and dense and need to do my homework? Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.”

    You misunderstand I think!
    All of Einstein’s work is mathematical and interesting! Emmy mathematically demonstrated that Einsteins mathematical is incorrect, which Einstein greatly appreciated! She carefully demonstrated that the conservation stuff need not be true within a gravitational field.
    This does not falsifier that conservation of stuff is likely, but does indeed falsify the Climate Clown Claim of “must be’!

    “YOU have a point to make and defend so YOU are the one who gets to explain YOUR point. “Go Fish” doesn’t cut it.”

    My only point is that no one knows! But the Climate Clowns Claim knowledge! I only point out the deficiency in the claims that appear to me as political never scientific!

    “So far, I see a lot of hand waving, some name-of-theorem dropping and not much connected chain of reasoning; coupled with requests that I do the homework…”

    You seem to believe the scam! While doing no homework!

  61. E.M.Smith says:

    “You seem to believe the scam! While doing no homework!”

    Insulting people {with ! no less} is not proving your point.

  62. pearce m. schaudies says:

    @Will. Just to be sure we’re on the same page, please clearly delineate the climate clown scam you refer to, and how all these theorems relate to same. Thanks so much.

    Minister of Future

  63. pearce m. schaudies says:

    Hi Chief. Solitons, standing traveling waves in water ,(or light,) lose very little when two passing thru each other. Think same as ripples. Link has animation.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soliton

    Regards,
    Pearce M. Schaudies.
    Minister of Future

  64. EM – seeing what happens with two pebbles dropped simultaneously into water is a good idea. Analogy helps, and in this case one wave is as good as another (just choose same-size pebbles dropped from the same height, bearing in mind Pearce’s point on solitons, though in this case the different wavefront speeds won’t make a significant difference). Finding a pond may not be necessary, though – a bowl of water and a couple of peas should be enough.

    What you should see happening some distance away from the two splashes is the standard interference pattern of the two-slit experiment done with light. What we want to look at here though is what happens on the line joining the two pebbles, and here the wave-fronts will go through each other and re-appear as circular wavefronts.

    Waves pass through each other without change; particles would collide and change direction. As far as we can tell, photons do not collide but instead pass through each other.

    Even where two waves go through each other (where they have different directions) and we can’t see any wave at a particular point because of destructive interference, the energies of those waves are still there, just travelling in different directions. Where does the energy go when there’s no wave visible? There are mathematical descriptions using imaginary numbers, but the reality is that the two waves both reappear without change a bit further onwards. This is reminiscent of that old Greek question of whether the arrow can hit the tortoise: by the time the arrow has reached where the tortoise was at the release of the bow, the tortoise has gone a bit further forward and isn’t there. By the time the arrow has travelled the extra distance, the tortoise has again moved a bit further forward and is no longer there, and so on. We can demonstrate easily, though, that the arrow will indeed hit the tortoise. In the same way, with waves we can show that the energy is still there even though we can’t see it, since it’s again visibly there after the interference is past.

    One really big problem when talking about physics is that in order to understand the properties of something we find an analogy from daily life. Ocean waves are our model for light waves, tennis balls are our analogy for particles, put springs between those balls to visualise molecules. We need to be prepared for the analogies to have subtle differences. Whereas an ocean wave and a tennis ball are distinctly separate, though, photons and subatomic particles can act as both waves and as particles at the same time, and which property actually is dominant depends on the circumstances. We measure what actually happens and adjust our model accordingly.

    If we try to use Will’s model of radiative emission, we run into logical problems. If the “receiver” of that radiation is a very long way away (say, some star or frozen planet orbiting far from the star) then in order to emit the correct amount of radiation in the direction of that star (presumably much hotter so no radiation in that direction) or that icy planet (much colder so you will radiate) then you need to predict exactly where those objects will be by the time the radiation would arrive (and what temperature they will be at that time), and also take into account other planets/stars moving across the path, gas clouds that refract the wave direction or those pesky aliens with space mirrors to stop their planet from overheating because they’ve been burning their coal too much. That would effectively make the whole universe absolutely predetermined with no ability to deviate (no probability calculations and no free will). Flipping a coin would have a predetermined answer, even though we may not know how to find it out beforehand. This situation certainly appears to be logically impossible to me, so I reject the initial postulate that the energy is only radiated in the direction of hotter to colder. That model breaks causality. If we say instead that energy is radiated by a body solely dependent upon its temperature and emissivity, then there are no such logical inconsistencies.

    Will may have a point however in the Climate Change calculations, in that if everyone else is calculating emissions of those CO2 molecules as a one-way transmission then they’ll be getting the model wrong because it’s actually two-way. That one-way model of radiation seems to be deeply-seated, after all. Just another small point that the models are wrong, though it’s maybe easier to compare predictions with results (where the data hasn’t been adjusted to fit the predictions, of course).

    No-one can reasonably doubt that we can produce energy from ocean waves. You can see the machines in operation. Similarly, no-one can reasonably doubt that a solar panel will work, since it’s not science-fiction but you can buy them and use them whether or not you know how they actually work. You don’t need to point the solar panel exactly at the Sun, either – light from almost any direction will give you some power out. This shows that the solar panel will convert photons from any direction into electricity in one direction, which is the random-to-unidirectional conversion that we want. To convert “waste” or environmental heat to electricity, we just need to change the parameters of that solar panel to work at a lower frequency, and in theory this is possible as well since those semiconductors exist. As EM points out, there is a list of them in Wikipedia, so what more of a confirmation do you need that this is really the consensus of mainstream science?

    Yep, there are technical challenges in this. You can however already buy devices that do it, though they don’t deliver high power levels. The technical challenge is really how far we can push things in getting a reasonable amount of power. The bigger problem though is the widespread belief that it is de facto impossible since the old theories say so. I hope I’ve managed to show that it is not impossible from a theoretical point of view, and of course I’m working towards producing a real device that has a useful level of power output.

    At base, I’ve shown that when we “use” energy we simply change its directionality from unidirectional to random. In order to re-use that energy to do work, all we need to do is to re-align the directionality of that random energy back to unidirectional. It’s really ridiculously simple as a basic principle of operation, and we already have the technology to do it.

  65. E.M.Smith says:

    @Simon:

    The causality issue is a big one for me. We know that light has a speed limit, so we know that it can’t decide to not be emitted based on something existing far far away, since it will take time to get there and “everything is in motion” so even if instant communication were possible, but the time the light arrives things will have changed (and some of those changes will be to put a hot spot where a cold one had been…)

    The light must be emitted.

    The question then being what happens when that wave function interacts with the light from the target object… which I think is just that they pass through each other and you get the net of them as the energy flow. And that “net-net” is what causes warm things to heat up cold things. More photons directed at the cold thing from the warm thing than the other way round, now just tote them up over time and convert to heat until even…

    Now if some of those photons to NOT participate in the conversion to heat, but get converted to electrons and “go off somewhere else” to make heat, you can have a net flow of photons for a very long time. If the panel has a backer board, then you have the case that placing it in front of either the hot or cooler source will have photons converted to electricity in the panel, and the backing board is what deals with the other source… so we only need look at what the front of the panel does. Pointed at the hot source, it gets more photons and makes more electricity. Pointed at the cooler source it gets fewer photons, but still makes electricity. In both cases it does not reflect the light, so looks black in that “color band”. Incident light that is absorbed will get re-emitted as some kind of infrared, but very low color temperature, or will be removed by conduction if in a surface atmosphere.

    Again, as noted above where I posted a link to existing cells, we already have working IR solar cells. These exist, so the above description has an existence proof device to point at too. This pretty much proves it works at “high band IR” from the sun. Call it 800 C color temperature.

    Now at that color temperature, you still have a gradient. From 800 C to 50 C or so. I doubt anyone will argue that can’t be exploited. Yet that 800 C photon was NOT turned into 50 C IR emissions, it was turned into an electron flow…. Sure, the portion of the spectrum NOT converted to electrons got turned into ambient heat, but that isn’t relevant to the electron production…

    Where folks get hung up, IMHO, is thinking that gradient matters.

    So at room temperature, does a body at 50 C never ever emit any photons other than 50 C ones? S-B says it emits a spectrum (assuming emissivity is ‘black’) and only the NUMBER at any given temperature changes. Everything I know says they are right.

    Now stick that IR Panel in front of a black cube in a 50 C room. They will mutually be exchanging spectra of photons based on a 50 C curve BUT they have different emissivities at various colors. The black surface emits at 800 C (not many photons, but some) and the panel is designed to absorb those 800 C photons and turn them into electricity (that goes off somewhere…). That black object sees, effectively, cold dark empty space at 800 C and those photons just leave without any compensating ‘back radiation’ due to differential emissivities.

    Just like dew under a clear sky, turning to frost even though above freezing in the bulk air. Seeing that cold dark black, it radiates. And cools.

    Due to differential emissivities, there is a directional flow of photons at that color temperature, and into electrons and out of the system. It ought to cool in the process, just like the dew. Eventually heat will flow back into the source block. Either by conduction or by absorbing other photons in other color bands, so it ought not cool forever in any real environment (i.e. on the surface and not in a black vacuum).

    I don’t see this as violating any particular laws of physics. It depends only on the question of “Does a black body emit a spectrum of color temperature photons?” and “will differential emissivity bodies have a one way flow of photons at the color?” ( I think we can assume that turning photons into electrons is seen as not turning them into heat…)

    IMHO the turning to electrons with differential emissivity is the key bit. As long as that happens, the panel can stay cool. If it didn’t happen, then those excess photons would eventually end up as photons at other color temperatures and would be emitted to restore the “balance” needed by the 2LoT. That the electrons “run off somewhere” means this NOT a system in equilibrium and it is NOT using 2 surfaces that are theoretical black bodies. It is a dis-equilibrium system with unequal emissivities and with a non-thermal energy exit from one side. Which is why I think the Thermo argument does not apply… arguing what happens with two “black bodies” in an equilibrium problem isn’t relevant to two bodies of unequal emissivity out of equilibrium… and connected via electricity to “somewhere else”…

    You are still bound by conservation laws, but can redirect some of the flow along the way to do things you want done. Differential emissivity giving differential photons that give differential electricity flow, that does work and ends up back at heat, but somewhere else. Effectively making an 800 C to 50 C heat engine via differential emissivity / absorption of those 800 C photons.

    The biggest problem, IMHO, is just that there are not a whole lot of photons with energy in them coming from a 50 C black body. I suspect the mass of panels needed to make any usable amount of power will be horrifically expensive. But that’s a guess and needs numbers…

  66. EM – yep, the causality argument is pretty conclusive, as I see it. The light must be emitted independent of what other bodies are doing or their temperatures.

    Although an electron/positron pair will self-annihilate and produce two 511keV gammas going in opposite directions and with opposite spins (momentum and angular momentum are conserved) it seems you can’t do the opposite, but instead need a 1.022MeV photon to hit a nucleus, which can absorb the momentum and produces an electron/positron pair. Otherwise, it seems that photons do not collide or otherwise react with each other, and what we measure is a superposition. Much the same as you’d see dropping two rubber ducks (or two balls) in the bath-tub….

    For a nantenna array in thermal equilibrium with its insulated container, until we start to draw power it will be at the same temperature as the surroundings (as measured with a contact thermometer). Once we start to draw current from it, though, its measured temperature must go down in order to remain in equilibrium with its environment – some of the IR it receives is being sent “outside the box” and the new equilibrium will be reached when the sum of the electrical power and the emitted IR is equal to the received IR(plus any conducted heat, as well, if we’re talking about a real experiment not just ideals). At the lower temperature, it will emit less IR energy, and the difference between this and the energy it receives will go down the wires as electricity. I’ve used the nantenna example here since it is easier to see what is really happening, and also because the nantenna arrays already exist, but the same happens with a PV.

    The nantenna (or other device) will look “black” at the wavelengths it can convert.

    From experiment, the emissivity at a certain wavelength is normally the same as the absorption at that wavelength. Does this apply to a PV where it absorbs at a specific band and thus also doesn’t emit at that band either? It doesn’t apply to fluorescence (downshifting in frequency), though, or to the odd materials that upshift the frequency (takes in two photons and emits one at double the frequency).

    Still, once a photon has been emitted it is just a packet of energy travelling at the speed of light. The only relevance the temperature of the source has here is that it will affect the spectrum of the total number of photons in each energy band we choose to measure or convert. For one individual photon, we have no way of knowing what temperature the source was – it doesn’t carry that information. This point is really rather important. The source is actually irrelevant – that photon could have been produced by a cold LED, a spark, a hot black body or so on, but we can’t tell. It’s simply a packet of waves with that energy, and could have come from anywhere.

    As such, trying to bring the temperature of the source or the sink into the equations is also not relevant. How that particular wavelength interacts with our receiver is all that matters.

    For the photons emitted at room temperature, the peak power is at around the 10 micron wavelength band. As it happens, this is also the band for which there is a “window” in the atmosphere that allows those wavelengths to freely escape to space, which is an interesting (and possibly relevant) coincidence. The power in that band at room temperature is only around 1W/m² (though the energy per m³ is surprisingly large), so yes there are a few other technical problems in achieving a decent amount of power in a small volume, but the solutions are pretty obvious. Given that a PV active layer can be somewhere less than 10 microns thick, however, the material costs are pretty low and the mass is very low as well, so I think we can probably achieve a cost comparable to solar panels as regards the cost per rated watt output. Unlike a solar panel, though, it will give much the same output 24/7 and thus we won’t have the same need for batteries to store it, for days when the Sun isn’t shining.

    Given that we do actually get more power out as the IR-PV is taken above room temperature, we could get increased available power and a degree of storage by using hot water as the energy storage. By the time we reach 100°C we’d get about twice the rated power at 20°C. That makes the energy-storage problem a whole lot cheaper and longer-lasting than any sort of battery. I thus think it’s practically possible and also will be cheap enough to be commercially viable. Just a few technical problems to overcome….

  67. p.g.sharrow says:

    I have been following PV since the very earliest days of the silicon industry. These are basically open faced Diodes that are fairly frequency specific. They are as well, somewhat temperature sensitive. The requirement of “photon” creation from an over stimulate or energy over loaded atom is that is created at it’s escape velocity, at that atoms frequency, and the energy level set by the local EMF pressure density, a quanta unit of energy at the speed of light.
    In deep space where there are few other atoms to bump into, radiation is the only way that can happen. Radiation of quanta carries the greatest amount of energy. While Atoms in a deep atmosphere have lots of others to bump into and easier lower levels of energy transfer through conduction. So as we dive deeper into the atmosphere the less radiative energy is available to move electrons at the detector. I believe that most of the energy carried by a “Photon” is in the EMF pulse that travels with it due to it’s spin,wobble and travel speed. That energy field is the so called “Wave” that is a part of the Particle/Wave detector results of detection…pg

  68. E.M.Smith says:

    @Simon:

    I think there are two lines of reasoning that say a PV panel will have a black “color” at the absorption frequencies.

    First off, you can see this effect. As panels have gotten more efficient, they have changed from various blue / orange to more uniform black colors. So something of an existence proof.

    Second, the theoretical. Most PV layers are transparent to most frequencies of light and absorb a few bands. The “band pass” often absorbs any light above the target frequency (color) and transmits the rest. We stack different layers to progressively absorb the different energy photons to best effect, so the highly efficient ones don’t waste a blue photon in a red band gap layer. By definition, such a layered structure is designed to absorb and consume all the photons it can, hence be ‘black’ as possible. As it is near room temperature, it is emitting very very few photons at those color temperatures ( 2000 K to 5000 k) It must, therefor, have differential absorption / emission profiles. That is, it is NOT a “black body” but a “selective surface”…

    Or looked at another way: The basic material is transparent. It is the interaction of the photon with the EM fields of the junction that does the absorbing, so their is no “black stuff” present. Only transparent stuff and an EM photon converter…

    @P.G.:

    Like that image, BTW. I think it gets the idea across, of how things work

  69. Will Janoschka says:

    pearce m. schaudies says: 2 May 2017 at 2:07 am

    “@Will. Just to be sure we’re on the same page, please clearly delineate the climate clown scam you refer to, and how all these theorems relate to same. Thanks so much”.

    @pearce,
    The scam\claim from Climate Clowns is that the lower temperature\radiance atmosphere transfers power flux to the Earth’s surface. This claim has never ever been demonstrated! What has been demonstrated clearly; is even with low temperature (3 kelvin difference) black (100% emissivity) surfaces; the measurable flux is one way and observes the differential form of the S-B equation (flux of the lesser surface) W/m² ⇔ 4σεt³Δt. A reversible formula if and only if that flux is treated as a normalization not division!
    W/m² ⇔ 4σεt³Δt.W/m² ⇔ 4σεt³Δt….; Such function is linear in Δt.(Δt) and precisely goes through zero, at zero Δt Δt! This misinterpretation is first promoted by Harvard’s Dr. Goody (64) When he decided that radiance and flux were identical, with that resulting quantum nonsense!
    Radiance is a power field. EMR flux is the resultant current density in each of all 4Pi different directions through space between opposing radiance!
    At zero Δt There may or not be quantum interaction within some quantum epoch ,but still zero flux. The macroscopic T\t\(1/t) are not quantized as each ‘can’ have zero epoch (interval).
    All the best! -will-

  70. Will Janoschka says:

    E.M.Smith says: 2 May 2017 at 1:25 pm

    “The causality issue is a big one for me. We know that light has a speed limit, so we know that it can’t decide to not be emitted based on something existing far far away, since it will take time to get there and “everything is in motion” so even if instant communication were possible, but the time the light arrives things will have changed (and some of those changes will be to put a hot spot where a cold one had been…)”

    Not ever; when your two slits or grating is local to the display! Your slit interference pattern still has color shift at the edges The grating which transmits or reflects different frequencies in different directions both display not a particle behavior, but an interval behavior consisting of not a time function, but instead interval function imaginary √(-c/t, frequency² ), or imaginary √(-t/c,wavelength²) Both solutions must be true for any physical EMR flux to be generated.

    “The light must be emitted.”

    Why at the identical, or higher, opposing radiance at every frequency, polarization, etc! Just what is the potential that would spontaneously try to generate such light power flux.

    “The question then being what happens when that wave function interacts with the light from the target object… which I think is just that they pass through each other and you get the net of them as the energy flow. And that “net-net” is what causes warm things to heat up cold things.”

    Very good for 2LTD! Can you please demonstrate any spontaneous thermal flux from conduction, convection, EMR flux, or anything else, that goes in a direction of higher potential? also always called UP? Entropy is the power\energy that is destroyed trying to convert accumulated power into power x distance!!

    ” More photons directed at the cold thing from the warm thing than the other way round, now just tote them up over time and convert to heat until even…”
    Yes! And that is why the cold thing never increases above the temperature of your hot thing no-matter what the method; EMR flux always ceases at equilibrium temperature.

    “Again, as noted above where I posted a link to existing cells, we already have working IR solar cells. These exist, so the above description has an existence proof device to point at too. This pretty much proves it works at “high band IR” from the sun. Call it 800 C color temperature.”

    The new ones can absorb and convert high temperature isolation from 0.375 microns to 1.2 microns. You cannot visually detect the reflectivity at either end! The “nantennas” may be able to ‘harvest even 10 micron insolation as the Sun’s radiance is at every frequency Much much higher radiance than the Earth! The Sun exhibits A near 6000 Kelvin spectrum at almost all wavelengths. The Earth and its atmosphere exhibits near a surface temperature, spectrum from 8-13 microns, with no clouds. In all other conditions including wavelength It is near 215 Kelvin temperature from the tropopause! This is the result of arrogance of incompetent professors trying to shoehorn what the Earth radiates to space into some sort of average blackbody temperature. This Earth refuses to put up with such idiotic nonsense! GOD does not throw dice! God owns the Casino, and let the stupid folk throw dice!
    All the best! -will-

  71. EM – thanks for the time and space to explain things. The conclusions are somewhat difficult to swallow since we all learnt that perpetual motion machines have never worked and that it’s futile to try and prove the 2LoT wrong. You can’t get owt for nowt. Still, it’s going to be an essential part of your bug-out kit once the devices are available.

    Though I’ve presented the idea here as based on photons, the same logic also applies to any particles in motion. If there’s some energy moving around and we have a way to make enough of it go in the direction we want it to, then we have usable energy which can drive our cars, run industry and boil the kettle for some tea. The 2LoT basically tells us that, left to itself, energy will end up going in random directions if we start with energy in a single direction. This is both obvious when it’s stated that way and also true.

    In order to get around this limitation, we only need the equivalent of a diode that lets the energy pass when it’s in the direction we want, and doesn’t pass it otherwise. Of course, people have tried to rectify thermal noise using a Silicon diode, and it didn’t work because the potential of an electron jumping the barrier in the forward direction then gave an increased probability of it going back again. It wasn’t swept away by an internal field as happens in a PV – they used the wrong type of diode. Part of making a real solution is to know what the probabilities are and, rather than trying to skew them as a group (which doesn’t work), we need to skew the probabilities for each individual transaction. Weighting the dice, in a way. Tilting the pinball table. That way, the probability of things coming out the way you want is improved, and over a lot of transactions you win.

    PVs have improved a lot over the years. I still have some Selenium photocells I got as a kid, and they’re a light brown colour. Modern cells have been getting a lot blacker in appearance as people understood the technology better. An interesting thought is that if you leave a PV in the sun without drawing current it will get somewhat warm; when you draw current from it it will cool down because that energy that was being thermalised is now going down the wires and being used elsewhere. With a standard PV the temperature drop should be around1/5 of the difference between the highest temperature it reached and the air temperature. Yep, a bit off with higher winds etc., but rough estimate.

    Maybe a few other people have understood the logic, or at least will have thought about some of the underlying reasons for things happening. For me, this developed from the question “why does heat move from hotter to colder?” and spread from there. Simple questions can have complex answers.

  72. Will Janoschka says:

    p.g.sharrow says: 2 May 2017 at 4:59 pm

    I have been following PV since the very earliest days of the silicon industry. These are basically open faced Diodes that are fairly frequency specific. They are as well, somewhat temperature sensitive. The requirement of “photon” creation from an over stimulate or energy over loaded atom is that is created at it’s escape velocity, at that atoms frequency, and the energy level set by the local EMF pressure density, a quanta unit of energy at the speed of light.
    That is again the SCAM

    Indeed,
    With all electrical DC Power transfer is always voltage, V²/r or current, I² x r;
    The difference in radiated EMR, power transfer is only that the is the dissipative r = 377 Ohms is replaced by the non dissipative space Z = 377 Ohms reactive impedance never dissipating anything
    With all sort! of orthogonal nonsense depending on the phase angle between the two fields. This involves, t convolving to (-1/t) for the limitation of flux to only one direction always this is because t multiplied by t = -1. Therefor root t² must be imaginary (orthogonal)to all other 3 dimensions. The conflict between (t) and -(t/c) is driving everyone nutz! Such an opportunity of scam for political gain!!
    All the best! -will-

  73. pearce m. schaudies says:

    @Will. Thanks for the specific scam. The other 2 scams are a) their ‘models’ are just complex programs plotting what they say to plot and b) they altered the govt climate data sets to fit their political narrative. My replies are below.

    in other news …

    Climate warmista crazies are going to have trouble explaining 1 degrees Centigrade drop globally in the northern hemisphere and the half degree drop the southern hemisphere.
    This happened in April, the coldest April in long time (20 – 50 yrs). Also killed French vineyards … oh no! Maybe due to the Sun weakening its output via number of sunspots and intensity of ultraviolet radiation. So creeping colder plus more wierd storms. Just love it when a plan comes together, heh.

    x. x. x. x.

    Will says- #1
    The scam\claim from Climate Clowns is that the lower temperature\radiance atmosphere transfers power flux to the Earth’s surface. This claim has never ever been demonstrated!

    and …

    Will says- #2
    The Sun exhibits A near 6000 Kelvin spectrum at almost all wavelengths. 

    and …

    #3
    the measurable flux is one way and 

    and …

    Will says- #4
    Very good for 2LTD! Can you please demonstrate any spontaneous thermal flux from conduction, convection, EMR flux, or anything else, that goes in a direction of higher potential? also always called UP? 
    x. x. x. x.

    Reply …

    1. From the Stefan–Boltzmann wiki …

    However, long-wave radiation from the surface of the earth is partially absorbed and re-radiated back down by greenhouse gases, namely water vapor, carbon dioxide  and  methane. Since the emissivity with greenhouse effect (weighted more in the longer wavelengths where the Earth radiates) is reduced more than the absorptivity (weighted more in the shorter wavelengths of the Sun’s radiation) is reduced, the equilibrium temperature is higher than the simple black-body calculation estimates. As a result, the Earth’s actual average surface temperature is about 288 K (15 °C), which is higher than the 255 K effective temperature, and even higher than the 279 K temperature that a black body would have.

    *sounds good to me.

    2. Remember Wien approx to spectrum … it changes a bit.

    3. The measurable flux seems (is) one way because measuring ‘net- net’. Let’s do a thought experiment. On the left we have a carbon sphere approximately 1 meter diameter. 10 meters to the right we have another carbon sphere approximately 5 meters diameter. Not having any eyes or brain, the sphere on the left, at 255 K, radiates in all directions. The sphere on the right subtends a small fraction of the expanding wave front from the sphere on the left, then after a short delay radiates the energy in an expanding wavefront which the smaller spear subtends a small fraction. After a very very large number of bouncing energy back and forth they will tend to same temperature.

    This concept above is without considering the temperature of the Big Sphere on the right. Now consider the Big Spere on the right and play the same game. The Big Steer obviously has more mass and is at a temperature of 6000 K.

    That didnt hurt, did it?

    4. see 3 above.

    x. x. x. x.
    Links i used …

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law

    Wavelength- and subwavelength-scale particles,[1]metamaterials,[2] and other nanostructures are not subject to ray-optical limits and may be designed to exceed the

    The radiance (watts per square metre per steradian) is given by

    The energy of an individual photon is quantized and is greater for photons of higher frequency. This relationship is given byPlanck’s equation E = hν, where E is the energy per photon, ν is the frequency of the photon, and  h is Planck’s constant. A single gamma ray photon, for example, might carry ~100,000 times the energy of a single photon of visible light.

    In the case of fluxes, we have to take the integral, over a surface, of the flux through every element of the surface. The result of this operation is called the surface integral of the flux. It represents the quantity which passes through the surface.

    — James Clerk Maxwell

    http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/07/06/06climatewire-a-climate-change-dissenter-who-has-left-his-76048.html?pagewanted=all

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_transfer

    Regards,
    Pearce M. Schaudies.
    Minister of Future

  74. Will Janoschka says:

    pearce m. schaudies says: 3 May 2017 at 4:45 am
    (“Will says- #1 The scam\claim from Climate Clowns is that the lower temperature\radiance atmosphere transfers power flux to the Earth’s surface. This claim has never ever been demonstrated!”)
    “1. From the Stefan–Boltzmann wiki …”

    Thats enough! Wikipedia has been corrupted by Wm Connoly an any reference to Climate Change, to the proclaimed Religion. Back a while he did over 100 corrections in one month.
    Wm is the inventor of his “both flux and radiance are the same thing”. Wrong! Radiance is the electric field strength of only one object! Flux is the measurable transfer between two surfaces at different temperatures via EMR. In Boltzmann’s equation (never a law) has the two temperature terms (Ta^4-Tb^4) proportional to the difference in radiance between the two. That is the only flux ever measured. (your net net) as the term magnetic flux demands. Magnetic flux
    “The surface integral of the normal That surface component of the magnetic field B passing through that surface.”

    (“Will says- #2 The Sun exhibits A near 6000 Kelvin spectrum at almost all wavelengths. “)
    “2. Remember Wien approx to spectrum … it changes a bit.”

    I did write near spectrum, even the Sun is never a blackbody. UV changes dramatically in the UV and nigher frequencies What we can measure that spectral radiance is near 6000 Kelvin. And is mich higher than Earth’s radiance at every frequency!! Total Solar radiance is 10^5 that of the Earth! The difference is negligible!

    (“#3 the measurable flux is one way and “)

    “3. The measurable flux seems (is) one way because measuring ‘net- net’.”

    Yes indeed the only measurable thing. All the rest is fantasy and part of the scam!

    “Let’s do a thought experiment.”

    Why! Thought experiments are never an example of the physical! Why not a real physical experiment, one that has been repeated all over the the world and can demonstrate all that we ‘know’ about thermal EMR!
    “That didnt hurt, did it?” NO. thought experiments are always ‘fantasy”.

    (“Will says- #4 Very good for 2LTD! Can you please demonstrate any spontaneous thermal flux from conduction, convection, EMR flux, or anything else, that goes in a direction of higher potential? also always called UP?”)

    “4. see 3 above.”
    I guess that is a negative to “Can you please…”? Again can you, can you, please?

    “The radiance (watts per square meter per steradian) is given by The energy of an individual photon is quantized and is greater for photons of higher frequency. This relationship is given by Planck’s equation E = hν, where E is the energy per photon, ν is the frequency of the photon, and h is Planck’s constant.”

    And the spectral radiance is given by? Planck never wrote E = hν. Spectral radiance the E field at each frequency is the only thing Max actually wrote. Boltzmann actually demonstrated the resulting B field flux.

    “A single gamma ray photon, for example, might carry ~100,000 times the energy of a single photon of visible light.”

    Only if you think your photon physically exists! Planck’s constant (h) is a measure of action, in units of (joule-seconds) multiplying by ν = 299,792,458 meters per second per cm results in a (1/t) function. So each cycle appears as Joules to some Multiplying by frequency is totally different than dividing by time as t/ν is √t²= √…root( -299,792,458 meters)² an imaginary distance!

    “In the case of fluxes, we have to take the integral, over a surface, of the flux through every element of the surface. The result of this operation is called the surface integral of the flux. It represents the quantity which passes through the surface.— James Clerk Maxwell”

    Never ever J. Maxwell wrote:
    “In the case of fluxes, we have to take the integral, over a surface, of the not flux, Instead (normal B field), through every element of the surface.”
    Sounds like again from Wikipedia! A good place to find references to what was actually written.

    http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/07/06/06climatewire-a-climate-change-dissenter-who-has-left-his-76048.html?pagewanted=all

    See some that disagree:
    http://joannenova.com.au/2017/05/ny-times-furor-due-to-half-skeptic-mass-subscription-exodus-best-thing/#comment-1909948

    “https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_transfer”

    More wiki Gee thanks

    All the best!-will-

  75. Will Janoschka says:

    pearce m. schaudies says: 3 May 2017 at 4:45 am
    “Radiative_transfer” ????
    Please do a search For “Electromagnetic tensor” Even Wiki disagrees in what you claim.
    Many others disagree with the term itself because of this conflict.

  76. US patent 9640698 was issued on May 2nd 2017 (see http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=9640698.PN.&OS=pn/9640698&RS=PN/9640698 ) to harvest environmental heat using LWIR. This is actually backed by the US Army. Though they’ve not seen the wider implications and haven’t got an optimised design, the device they have specified (based on MerCaT variations) will in fact work if they manage to make it. It will also be pretty expensive for the actual power produced, but hey, this is what the military do as SOP. Money is not important, since it’s someone else’s pocket.

    I don’t know if they have actually made the specified device, since the manufacturing process they’ve specified needs a lot of masks to get the convoluted surface and thus more actual surface area than the physical area of the die, but the simple non-convoluted surface should be manufacturable since dies based on that structure and material have been available for years. The patent however does not give measured data but only predictions.

    If they have made one, then they should be able to measure the temperature drop below ambient when they draw power from it.

  77. E.M.Smith says:

    @Simon:

    Very interesting patent. I note their care in trying to avoid “perpetual motion machine” with the use of “harvester”: “perpetual thermal energy harvester”….

    Making 3D surfaces on semiconductors became main steam some years back. They needed to turn the transistors on edge to fit more on a die. Ought to be pretty much SOP and old hat by now.

    Will be very interesting when these things start showing up on Amazon ;-0

Anything to say?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s