Don’t try to do it to often, don’t push your luck, but it’s actually easy to experience. Just buy lottery tickets (as a weak example, but easy to understand) until you win. Look at that transaction only: you beat the odds but you won. With some games, you might win immediately, you’ll have a net lifetime gain, unless you continue playing, having decided that you are lucky or smart or whatever. Then it becomes
Usually, anyway. This post is inspired by Simon Derricut’s defense of his ideas, and because he’s exposing some basic principles, worth looking at, and commonly misunderstood, I’m giving this a primary post here, instead of it merely being discussion on posts that aren’t on the point. So below is his last effort, responding to me:
(The Laws of Thermodynamics are statistical: they may be violated with isolated interactions, and this is all well-known, except that people forget and say things, quite commonly, that are inconsistent with that, giving impossibility arguments that are not actually the Laws as understood by those who know them well. This sometimes impacts LENR discussions.)
Take it away, Simon: (my comments are in indented italics):
Abd – the example of the solar cell in sunlight was not intended as an example of 2LoT violation, but that the conditions are different when you connect a load to the PV and when you don’t. When you connect the load to the PV, then energy leaves the PV and so it does not get so hot. This ought to obvious from CoE considerations, but it is not normally considered. The difference in temperature should be easily measurable, as well, being several degrees.
I don’t know about the difference in temperature, but with significant power, I’d expect the cooling effect to be measurable. I don’t think there is any disagreement so far, though there is a minor point:
Encapsulation of the PVs you can buy makes attachment of a TC a bit difficult, though.
I would not use a thermocouple, but rather a device with far better temperature resolution. Since what will be measured is difference temperature, precision is more important than accuracy. However, the effect described, cooling depending on generated photovoltaic power, is not controversial at all. Measuring it, though, could be part of creating a broader data set that would expose elements of the ideas here.
The concepts of temperature and of thermal equilibrium actually do not apply at the individual transaction level. This is an important observation, but is difficult to internalise given that we are used to both in daily life.
Well, it’s commonly misunderstood, but if it is difficult to “internalize,” it has probably not been well-understood. I have made the argument about temperature as a bulk concept in private discussions with at least one scientist who should know better, and … he didn’t get it. Do him, the laws of thermodynamics were inviolable, and that idea led him into analytical errors. I think, at least. But who am I to disagree with a world-famous scientist? Well, I am — or was — a snot-nosed kid who wasn’t afraid of being wrong, having figured out long ago that I learn much more by being wrong than by being right, which is usually boring.
When you are talking about a flux, that is also a summation of a lot of transactions, whereas for an individual atom it either receives a photon and emits an electron/hole pair or it doesn’t. The flux has no meaning in this situation. To take account of the flux we have to have an extended time in which to count the number of photons.
That’s quite correct. Now, it is not controversial that the Second Law does not apply to individual events, it’s essentially meaningless, as you state.
Where I am narrowing my focus to what happens in the individual transaction, the terms you are using to refute it (and say I’m sadly mistaken) largely have the connotations of large numbers.
My goal is not refutation, but understanding. You say you are focusing on individual transactions, but that’s not accurate. Yes, you focus on individual transactions, but then you generalize from them, assuming that you can control or steer these transactions such that the sum of them goes in some direction. To do this you need to understand repetition of the “experiment,” which you have as a single-photon thought-experiment. There is no doubt that you may be able to create a single-photon event that shows the effect you are predicting, but you are also talking about your work as being of possible major importance to the world’s need for power, which is going to require an enormous number of transactions, and so the sum of them becomes important. I’d like to back down from “practical,” to just what can be measured, and I don’t care if the effect is large, I would only want it to stand out significantly above noise.
This is where the difference is, and why most people have a problem with what I’m saying as well. Our concepts for heat energy are defined in terms of large numbers of transactions.
Yes. As a practical example, Takahashi TSC theory requires that a local “temperature,” actually low relative momentum, exist with a cluster of two deuterium molecules, for an extremely short period of time, allowing collapse into a Bose-Einstein Condensate. This idea is often rejected knee-jerk because BECs require temperatures close to absolute zero. A much deeper understanding: the frequency of occurrence of BECs in a material that can form them will depend on the velocity distributions in the material, it will not be zero, but might be very small. As Kim points out in his own work on BEC theory and LENR, we do not know the velocity distribution of deuterium in palladium. So we can’t calculate the rate from primary considerations; the rejection, even though it seems obvious, is not solidly based. In discussions of this, I often claimed that ice forms in water at room temperature: it must, in fact, and the only question is rate and the size and lifetime of the crystals. They are probably well below observable levels at room temperature, but some recent work found ice at 100 C with water confined in carbon nanotubes. It is simply not surprising to me. Just because we don’t ordinarily see something doesn’t demonstrate that it does not exist. Since we know how ice forms (and how it melts), it’s predictable that it will exist far above the bulk freezing point. It would even exist in steam, just at a far lower rate, which, if there is no issue of confinement, should be possible to calculate from basic understandings.
Since I started at the same point you’re thinking from, with the implied (but not obviously-so) large numbers, I recognise the problem but had thought that once that semantic problem was pointed out then some degree of satori would result.
Since I got there years ago — in my twenties — you may not see the effects you anticipate.
If the words you use have the implications of large numbers attached, then you will miss my point. It is essential to consider only one transaction at a time. It took me a very long time to see that point, too….
Sure. But then go more deeply. What to be very careful about is extrapolating from single interactions to many interactions. If we consider each interaction as a spin of the roulette wheel, with certain probabilities, and if we only think of winning transactions, we can then think that we can multiply them up. This takes is right into Feynman’s quantum ratchet, and, if I’m correct, I saw him describe the Brownian motor, in person. The logic seems flawless, at first, and, in fact, his suggested failure mode is not “proven.” It is merely expected from the Second Law violation. That distinction between proven false and merely not expected based on a general consideration is often lost, and will lead to much frustration, as arguments are presented that assume the conclusion. I get it. However, I am not using that assumed conclusion to make you wrong, but in an effort to guide your experimental work to more likely satisfaction and genuine success, and “genuine success” means that you not only learn something valuable, but you also can share that with others, who will also learn.
Unless a body receives radiation or conducted heat from the environment, it will radiate its heat (according to Stefan-Boltzmann) until there is none left (barring the zero-point energy).
Yes, though you have not fully stated the condition. The condition is that the “environment” is at absolute zero, with unlimited thermal mass — or it is a limitless vacuum. Otherwise there will be an “energy return.” You are here stating a bulk result, and by eliminating half of the problem (the rest of the universe!) you imagine reduction to zero. The Stefan-Boltzmann relation is statistical, not individual. As I find common, you are mixing the individual reactions with bulk concepts, and, as you know, temperature itself is a bulk concept, though we may apply it to individual particles (i.e., the temperature of a particle would be the temperature of a collection of particles with the same kinetic energy, though randomly oriented. If the kinetic energies were all aligned, the internal temperature of that collection would be absolute zero. We get quickly crazy if we mix the concepts.
I found this surprising, in that the natural state of a body is that it will cool down and what stops it doing that is the energy it receives from the environment.
That is a conclusion or interpretation deriving from a fuzzy concept, the “natural state.” Black-body radiation is a statistical effect, based on temperature. All bodies radiate energy depending on temperature. Net energy transfer between two bodies depends on relative temperature (and other factors that influence rate). All bodies radiate, that deserves to be called “natural,” but not all bodies cool, because cooling depends on net energy transfer between the body and its environment. This is massively observed: bodies heat or cool depending on their environment, and it is symmetrical. The rate depends on temperature and emissivity difference.
Here I am specifically looking at a large number of transactions over time. If I’m looking at radiation only (because it’s simpler) then for an individual atom in that body it will (for some reason) radiate quanta of radiation of random size with a specific probability until it has none left (save zero-point, of course).
The radiation from the individual interaction is independent of the environmental temperature. The radiating atom doesn’t “know” that, it is basically irrelevant to the normal radiation. The environment, however, also radiates, and heating or cooling depend on net radiation flux. Two bodies at the same temperature, in thermal isolation, will exchange energy forever, that radiation is not reduced. Energy is flowing both ways. Forever — i.e., as long as the isolation from the rest of the universe is maintained.
Since we know that a charged body emits radiation when it is accelerated, that may be the reason for the radiation, but that’s only a suggestion and I haven’t chased down that rabbit-hole yet.
That is pretty much how I understand it. The atoms in a material interact, with higher-energy interactions, as the temperature increases. Those interactions create radiation.
It is interesting that the concept of temperature does not apply to a single particle on its own, though, and we need the interactions between a group to both produce the radiation and to define a temperature.
You need two particles to generate the black body radiation, yes. Temperature is a bulk concept, but it can be extended by analogy to a single particle in some reference frame. The reference frame is generally defined by the bulk, so what is more realistically present is a temperature distribution, more easily understood simply as a velocity distribution. With heat, the velocity is random, though there is a constraint that the net momentum is zero (in that reference frame).
What we see in daily life, and what we measure, all depend on large numbers of transactions over a period of time. Physically, there is no such thing as temperature at a point in time – it can only be defined over a specific non-zero sample-time. At a point in time (if such a thing actually exists, but that is another question…) we only have velocities of particles, and even then we have the HUP making those a little uncertain.
Yes. Strictly speaking, we may imagine that momentum exists, even though it is velocity-dependent and velocity obviously depends on time. A “snapshot” doesn’t show velocity, but could, in theory, approach perfection as to position of everything — but then, by HUP, the velocity would be unknown.
The terminology you are using, to politely say that I’m messing up, includes temperature, flux, noise-levels, variation, heat, entropy, thermal mass, current…. All dealing inherently with large numbers, and for the individual transaction, these are all actually irrelevant. It’s hard to get away from them, though. It’s built-in to the language we use to understand what’s happening.
Yes, but. I’m not exactly saying you are “messing up.” Rather, some of your thinking is obviously a mess, and I’m pointing that out. I’m interested in something far deeper than “right” and “wrong.” I’m interested in fundamentals, how we know what we think we know, and, even more, how to expand our understanding, and ultimately our joy, beyond the limitations of the past.
This process will accelerate, to high benefit, if you will yourself recognize the sloppiness. Believe me, this is not painful, if one gives up the “looking good” that motivates far too many of us. When we give it up, what we get in return can be “beyond our wildest dreams.” I promise!
So we have that 10-year-old asking “why does heat move from hot to cold?”. And the answer is obvious – it just does, that’s the way it is, and it can’t be changed because that’s the way Nature works.
Yet heat is energy and obviously energy can move from cold to hot, when we look at individual transactions. The deeper analysis looks at the math, which THH has been pointing out, i.e., he actually does explain a “why” for the observation, and that is what “hot to cold” is, at core, an observation, not actually a Law, though it is then used to formulate Laws as methods of predicting behavior. Nature, however, never punishes herself for violating her own Laws, she is beyond all that. Humans make up laws and think them inviolable, but that merely describes certain of Nature’s apparent habits. She wants to do something different, no amount of scolding will prevent her.
I’ve shown however that for each individual transaction there is no such directionality evident – it’s random. The temperature in the different locations has absolutely no effect on that transaction.
That is correct. However, those temperatures have an effect on the sum of transactions. That is, material A at a temperature radiates black-body radiation depending only on the temperature of A, creating an outward flux. Material B also generates such radiation, creating an outward flux. At any point in a system that includes A and B, there will be a net flux. If this is a closed system (surrounded by a perfect insulator, we will imagine), the two bodies will constantly exchange energy. The rate of change of temperature of a body will depend on the net flux. If there is more outward flux, it will cool, if there is more inward flux, it will heat, and the Laws suggest that this will continue until the bodies reach equilibrium.
The reason we see heat moving from hot to cold is the result of the “spreading-out” of the energy-levels by a lot of individual and random transactions. At the individual transaction level all we have are energy-vectors and momentum-vectors, and temperature has no meaning at this level.
Yes. However, watch out what you then do with this fact!
If I can skew the probabilities on an individual transaction into going one way in preference to the other, then then sum of a large number of transactions will also be skewed.
“If.” You might as well write “If I can create a perpetual motion machine.” I cannot tell you that this is impossible, only that the probability that you can do this is, my estimate, very, very low. You can do it for individual transactions. You can imagine that you can rectify noise into net power flow, but actually doing that has been long seen as a desirable goal, with no success, beyond results that are close to noise (and then that may be cherry-picked to ignore failures or leakages. For example, you mention an electric charge field being maintained in a system where real materials will “leak,” and therefore maintaining the field requires work. You imagine walls that require no work to reflect photons, but each individual interaction does require work, supplied by inertia, generally — or another way to consider it is the photon is doing the work and will be transferring energy to the wall, which will heat, then. The sum of transactions may be close to zero, but will not exactly be zero. In all this, there are hidden bulk effects. This is why I’m suggesting that you examine what is known about the devices you are considering, and that, if you do experimental work (which is always recommended where possible) that you look at what data is missing and measure it and report it.
We know from experience (distilled into the 2LoT) that if we try to do this with large numbers of transactions simultaneously then we can’t skew the probabilities without cost, and that all such attempts have failed. You can’t beat the probabilities after the event – they have to be fixed for each and every individual transaction in order to have an effect.
I’m unclear on this concept of “fixed probabilities.”
With the PV, and ignoring the minor probabilities, a photon comes in and produces an electron/hole pair. That electron/hole pair is then split by the inbuilt electrical field, and each part moves to the collection electrodes. If they are not allowed to move from there, the electrical field will build up and negate the inbuilt field, so this provides a limit to the open-circuit voltage available from the PV (but there we’re talking about a large number of photons and some time).
But, of course, you will allow the flow of current. As one issue, how is the “inbuilt electric field” maintained. But most of all, what I want to know is how the generated current varies with net flux. Another way of stating this is that if we have a fixed source temperature, how does the current vary with the sink (i.e., PV) temperature? Or, equivalently, with a fixed PV temperature, how does the PV current vary with the source temperature. Especially, if wishes can be horses, I want to know what happens as the temperature difference goes to zero. Imagine a setup with two PVs or rectennae, in two bodies in thermal communication, but otherwise isolated. What happens to the PV or rectenna generated power when the device is at an elevated temperature, compared to the other device, and what happens as equilibrium is approached? I want to know from experiment, not from theory.
If we connect a load to the PV, then those electrons and holes can move outside the PV (of course, in the wires it’s only electrons moving). Such movement reduces the countering of the internal electric field, so allows another electron/hole pair to be split to the collection electrodes. Each individual transaction is skewed by the internally-generated electrical field, without which we wouldn’t have a solar-cell that worked. The sum of all those skewed transactions is that we get unidirectional energy out of the PV whereas the incoming photon can be in any direction, even from the bottom of the PV towards the top (this is why some PV designs have a mirror at the base-level, to reflect the photons that would otherwise pass through the structure, and give them a second chance to get absorbed).
All those designs work with very substantial net flux. Your analysis is theoretical, not based — as far as I’ve seen — on actual experimental results, only on ideas about how PVs work, which may or may not be accurate. I’m suggesting that instead of attempting to create some new device, you could find it more productive to characterize and study how existing, available devices work, by testing them. Your expectation that you can make a 2lot-violating machine is based on your understanding, as shown here, of how existing devices work. THH, who is, after all, an electrical engineer and who might be expected to understand these things, is not agreeing with you, which is a clue. So test the ideas, don’t just argue theory, which I can predict will be mostly useless except for some possible pedagogical value.
The PV thus takes energy with any direction (as photons) and outputs some of that energy in a single direction. This is precisely the property we need to overcome the limitations of 2LoT, in that each photon is individually dealt with and the packet of incoming energy in any direction is converted to a packet of electrical energy on the output terminals. Providing we attach a load to the PV, that energy leaves the PV and the reverse reaction is not possible. We know that the photon to electricity transaction is biased in one direction, because there are millions of working solar-cells in the world.
It is biased under certain conditions, which are obviously, so far, high net flux. What happens as that net flux is reduced? How does the current vary? You are imagining that the device will generate current with no net flux, hence you have imagined a 2lot violating device, violating it in bulk, by extrapolating from your understanding of individual photon interactions. Testing that understanding should be more approachable than making a perpetual motion machine, and could be of substantial use, probably being more publishable than what you might imagine you could find: a supposed demonstration of PM. Yet if your ideas are correct, the raw data would be quite interesting, and if they are incorrect, wouldn’t you want to know?
Failure at creating a PM machine will teach you almost nothing except what didn’t work, which is relatively boring, though it’s occasionally publishable.
If we regard 2LoT as in stating that the direction of energy will tend to become randomised (which is actually a pretty good definition and is obviously true from probability considerations) then the humble solar cell, that you can easily buy, is in fact breaking 2LoT.
According to your analysis. So show that, experimentally, with readily available devices. If you do it with unobtainium, something rare or proprietary or simply not readily available, requiring much work to create, your work will have practically no impact. But if I can buy a device, to test according to your method, at Mouser or from some supplier, already, I’d be much more likely to test your results, to see if I could confirm them.
A photon from any direction will result in an electrical charge in a single direction. It’s also obvious that you can also mathematically show that it doesn’t break 2LoT because the Sun is a lot hotter than the PV and so there is an obvious energy flux from the Sun to the PV, and so you can rest assured that 2LoT reigns supreme after all (and this is the route most people take, except crackpots like me). However, when you narrow your viewpoint to only individual energy transactions (and remove the concepts that have inbuilt reference to large numbers) then the diode function is clear.
As has been stated, if you can make a perfect diode, you can make a perpetual motion machine. If you can make an “almost perfect diode,” then you might be able to make an “almost perpetual motion machine,” but the Grail is continuous energy extraction from a system (which, if we keep conservation of energy, requires that the system cool). A current at some finite voltage defines power, which is a rate of energy movement. If we have a rectenna in a closed system, will it generate a current based on the self-irradiation? This is an experimental question, even though we may attempt to predict it with some kind of theory. Testing ordinary photovoltaics is much more difficult, because they are normally operating at a source temperature probably well above the failure temperature of the material.
What is missing from your writing on this, generally, is reference to existing experimental work (or device characterization) that would confirm your expectation. I’d suggest that if such work exists, citing it would be useful. If it does not exist, you are standing far out on a weak limb of self-satisfying theory.
We can’t destroy energy. That’s an axiom, but I can see no evidence of it being broken anywhere. All that is lost when we use energy is the directionality, which we need since in order to move something from here to there we need directionality.
The 2LoT tells me that directionality is easily lost, and probability theory says the same, and these statements are obviously true. Toss a fair coin or an unweighted die enough times, and we can demonstrate those probabilities. Paint a single dot on a boule and toss it enough times, and the loss of directionality of energy can also be modelled. If however I toss a subtly-weighted die (it doesn’t need to be overwhelmingly weighted) then over enough throws the probabilities mount up for the preferred face to be up when it stops spinning. If I roll a bowl (as in English game of bowling) then it will curve according to which side the weight is, and there will be a higher probability that, when it stops, the weight will be at the bottom. We don’t need a perfect diode – it only has to be good-enough, but it does need to act on each individual transaction.
This is fuzzy. You are working, not with a perfect or almost-perfect diode, but with an idea of a diode which is, of course, as a “function” — you called it — perfect. The devil is in the details. What is the effect of reality on diode function? The reality will increase noise, and when noise is greater than the expected effect, the effect may actually disappear, even though correlation may still punch through much noise. But we are not even close to that point, we have no experimental evidence to look at, at all. Overcoming a massive expectation like the Second Law takes clear evidence, not some theoretical argument, that simply never will fly (even if the argument is correct! That is what Eddington was pointing to with his as-usual brilliant sarcasm).
To see the problem clearly you need to shift your viewpoint from what we spent our lives experiencing and what we were taught of the reasons such things happen.
I did this years ago, Simon. It’s routine for me, I merely avoided tossing the baby out with the bathwater.
We need to remove the terminology that inherently refers to large numbers of transactions, and only use language suitable for a single transaction at a time.
Sure, if we want to think outside the box. But … you mix analysis of single and bulk transactions, extrapolating from single to bulk. In other words, physician, heal thyself. Physicist, hew to experiment and distinctions and analysis, not fuzzy mixtures that incorporate unstated assumptions.
The problem is simply that of making a single quantum of energy go in the direction we want it to.
Take that simple statement. How is this normally done? What does it take? There are two answers: first of all, direction, thermally, is normally random, but we can pick a quantum to look at that is going in the direction we want. But this is not “making” it do that. If we want to “make it,” which means bulk control, that takes work, applying a force. By relying on bulk concepts, not stated as such (such as the concept of a material object as a stable entity), you imagine that you can change the motion of a quantum of energy without work, by setting up a “material condition” that you imagine is work-free.
The solution is to find a system that takes in energy of any direction and, quantum-by-quantum, tends to redirect it in a uniform direction.
Yes, more or less. What, then, happens with such a system when there is energy flowing in all directions? Does the “directing force” operate work-free? That is not a “solution,” it is the problem itself. If you can do this, even a little, you already have a perpetual motion machine, the rest is practical detail. Close this system, drop a crystal of Directionase in it, and the system will partition itself into hotter and colder subsystems, which can then run a heat engine forever. Surely life, which is clever as hell, would have figured out how to do this on a microscopic scale. That is billions of years of experimental variation. (And this argument, I’ll say again, is never a proof, only an indication.)
If the solution works (with a defined probability) for one quantum of energy, then it will work for any number of quanta and our probability then becomes a predictable output of usable energy.
Can you see how you are contradicting your intention? First of all, you are imagining a probability distribution that is not related to work, yet creating such a distribution probably requires work. Your predictions are not grounded in experimental results, but in a theoretical analysis that seems plausible to you (but not to an electrical engineer, THH, nor to me).
As you already know, if you think, “defined probability” is meaningless if looking at just one transaction. You know it’s meaningless, but freely refer to it without apparently noticing.
The PV is one of the set of solutions for the problem. The others, so far, are mostly somewhat harder to actually make, though one that is easier to make does rely on some sneaky quantum physics – that’s also being tested.
I suppose you know how useless this comment is, if there are no details. Here is what is obvious to me. A PV may be difficult to test for 2LoT violation, because of the high temperatures involved in the necessary source, but a rectenna may be possible. Rectennae exist, apparently. The story I read about one had the rectenna array generating power from room temperature, presumably by running on the difference between ambient and night sky, or space (which is close to absolute zero), which would be a temperature difference of roughly 300 K. This seems like it could be tested. That is, the rectenna could be cooled to much closer to absolute zero. What happens to the output? Or, in the other direction, which may be better and easier, flux to space could be suppressed by interposing a good reflector, so that the device is, when the outgoing radiation is reflected, seeing its own temperature. This should be measurable even in the presence of substantial noise, through correlation.
Again, thanks for continuing to engage on this question, despite obviously thinking I’m totally misguided (same goes for Tom). It shows me where my explanations are inadequate (and of course I think I’m right, otherwise I’d collapse in deepest humiliation).
Just realize that Eddington would love you. In fact, he does love you, I say so. “Deepest humiliation” — or at least humility — is the price of entry of the true genius club. The initiation fee. Most people stay away from the club because they won’t risk it, that risk is too high for them, but … genius recognizes how ultimately unimportant those social considerations are, as to personal success. (They are important when our goal is to influence society, but that is on another level, and those who learn to lead society, powerfully, into massive tranformation, mostly DGAF about how they look, but take full responsibility for all effects.)
The language we normally use tends to hide the underlying reality, since the words often have an assumption of statistically-valid numbers, whereas to beat it you need to use individual energy transactions and only individual transactions. This change in viewpoint is not easy to achieve.
Indeed. You failed, so far, proving your point. However, you get extra credit for at least recognizing the problem, which puts you head and shoulders above many.
As I said, I’m an engineer so I want something that I can measure in order to settle the question as to whether my view is closer to Reality than the view I learned during my education.
Let’s start with this: what you learned during your education was largely garbage, shallow, and to move beyond those limitations you do, indeed, need to set it aside, at least temporarily. I am suggesting, not that you decide, without clear evidence, that you are Wrong, — I would never recommend that — but that you can test your basic concepts more efficiently, by taking those “existing devices,” which you think operate in a certain way, to test, to see if they actually operate as you think. If that is not measurable, then you are truly up the creek without a paddle, the paddle of experimental evidence, which we might as well call Reality, as long as we don’t confuse evidence with interpretation.
As such, I will be making the things, since I can’t buy them ready-made. I can’t make a nantenna or get hold of one ready-made, so no point in aiming at that. Also notable is that those arrays wear out pretty quickly and they cost way too much for the power they generate – they’ll demonstrate the principle but are not practical.
Demanding practical levels of power seriously damaged LENR research for years. Learn from that. Again, what’s the experimental evidence behind your theoretical analysis, or is it just “I think so, therefore it is”?
Given the low level of power-generation, the temperature-drop will also be extremely hard to measure with the kit I can afford.
You don’t need to measure temperature drop, that’s way down the road, requiring a much stronger effect. Go for what is simple: measuring current and voltage! From that, you can predict temperature drop, and only work on confirming it if the predicted drop is large enough to measure.
It’s far too easy, therefore, to dismiss the results as experimental error, and for that reason it’s not worth bothering with nantenna arrays.
Thinking about skeptical reaction also badly damaged LENR research. Instead of looking at basic science, you are thinking about what will convince skeptics, so you are already swimming in a cesspool rather than in science.
Let’s face it, would you or Tom be convinced by a few microwatts of electrical power available from a single temperature-reservoir, where you can point to unevenness of heating and thus thermocouple effects, and there is no measurable temperature-drop? As I see it, you’d only be convinced by the correlation of temperature-drop with power-out, where the temperature-drop is far larger than experimental error. Anything less can easily be dismissed as bad experimental technique, systematic errors etc.. As such, the tests you’re asking me to do are precisely the ones that wouldn’t convince you of the results. Not much point in that… it would be cheaper and easier, for sure, but is a waste of time.
Simon, you don’t trust me or THH, apparently. Sad, but your choice.
Measuring temperature and power is very difficult, and if that were all I had on LENR, I’d have abandoned it long ago. It’s just too easy to make mistakes. But a few microwatts of maintained DC current, we could talk. How is this measured? What is the noise? And if we vary the net flux (as I described above), how does the net power correlate with that? (That variation could be done many times per second, so you’d be building up correlation over thousands or millions of repetitions, and signals like that can be extracted in the presence of high noise. How much signal is a radio receiving from the transmission tower?)
If you can develop a test that is easy to replicate, it will not, merely because you announce it, cause mainstream physics to collapse, but … many people repeating such a test will create conditions where, if there is an artifact, it is far more likely to be identified, and if it is not artifact, truth will out eventually. If you want immediate, instant revolution, well, get in line, there are many waiting for that with much more evidence than you have so far, in many fields.
One step at a time!
I don’t know if the IR-PV will work when it starts in thermal equilibrium.
One would not start there, one would start with a visible, measurable effect, then, vary it toward thermal equilibrium and see how it works. Normal 2LoT theory would predict that it declines to zero as equilibrium is approached. So if it doesn’t, we would have a possible 2LoT violation which, if you have done your work well, could then be studied by others. If your goal is to be right, forgeddaboudit. You will crash and burn, very likely, even if you are right! That’s what happens when facing a social consensus.
Logic says it should, and I want to test that. If I was certain of the answer, I wouldn’t bother testing, which is of course why nobody has done it. It’s so obviously disallowed by 2LoT. But then, LENR is also disallowed by the mainstream nuclear theories.
Actually, no. Those theories cannot be applied without having a model of what LENR is, and it was originally claimed to be an “unknown nuclear reaction.” Even the “theory” that the Anomalous Heat Effect is caused by the conversion of deuterium to helium cannot be compared with theory, except in one way, by measuring the ratio. As long as the conversion mechanism is unknown, there is no way to make the necessary rate predictions on which the normal rejection of LENR were based. Those were based on an imagined mechanism (“d-d fusion,” which seemed logical but also impossible.). The claimed absence of evidence is not a “nuclear theory,” it is a social decision-making mechanism, and is obviously false (i.e., there is evidence), with a confusion between “evidence” and “proof,” very common.
Here, Simon, I don’t see evidence, at all, but only a presumed “logical analysis,” which doesn’t seem logical to me. An ounce of experimental evidence is worth a ton of “logical analysis,” which is usually, in my experience, a euphemism for “pile of unstated assumptions.”
Incidentally, if you want microwatts of power from a single reservoir, Robert Murray-Smith can sell you the paints to make one (he’s not ripping people off on the costs, either), or will tell you how to make them. It hasn’t convinced anyone…. Like the nantenna, the power available is too low to be useful, though commercial devices have been available for around 7 years.
Simon, no details. How is the power measured? With what precision? How is “single reservoir” shown? Without details, Simon, this is useless fluff. I googled him. No clue was obvious. I did find your blog on this. I don’t waste time on youtube, ordinarily, without a much clearer indication of what I’m looking for (and I’ll often avoid it entirely). What I noticed quickly is that what you claimed about Murray-Smith is not what he is claiming for himself. So I’m suspicious! However, if I understood you correctly, he is using his paints to create IR photovoltaics. Cool. If a current is generated, this should be relatively easy to test. Trying to look for cooling, your idea, is really a bad idea, my opinion, very difficult and terribly easy to screw up.