Diode Array challenge to the Second Law of Thermodynamics

[charlesmbrown]

I was granted U.S. patent 3,890,161, DIODE ARRAY in 1975 on a chip which absorbs uniform ambient surrounding heat as it transforms thermal energy into a matching yield of electrical power. The chip, in mature form, will consist of billions of nanometer scale diodes in consistent alignment that rectify and aggregate radio frequency thermal noise into D.C. electricity. This thermal energy does not require antennas. The diodes are in parallel first so the diode currents bypass each other. The froward current that a random half of the diodes release intermittantly will overwhelm the low reverse current released by the other half of the diodes. The net forward current of the diodes is aggregated into useful power at low voltage. Balanced groups of diodes in parallel are then connected in series to build higher voltage.

The electrons move uphill into the buss voltage within the source diode so they loose momentum so they become colder. The loss of thermal energy is equal to the gain of electrical energy released from the buss.

The power needed to alter the width of the depletion region at the junction, which determines the conductivity of a diode, is deducted from the thermal noise leaving net rectified power meaning that less power is needed to sort the random power than is supplied by the random thermal power. This means that a varient of Maxwell's demon, Smoluchowski's trapdoor, applied to electrons will work. This is a challenge to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The concept was tested in 1993 where more power than ~2 nanowatts, the power a single diode can yield, 1 /2 kTB where 1 / 2 accounts for rectification, k=Boltzmann's constant, T=temperature in Kelvins and B= 1 THz, the upper frequency limit of thermal noise, was measured from a chip consisting of ~5,600 Au dot anodes surrounded by SiO2 on a n GaAs substrate. The chip produced ~50 nanowatts as ~50 millivolts across 50 K ohms under professional test conditions, showing feasibility.

This experiment should be corroborated. I would be pleased to advise at a distance. I should be financially disinterested in the corroborating experiments.

Practical diode arrays require nanofabrication of arrays containing a great number of nanometer scale diodes. A test array can be assembled with carbon nanotubes selected to be semiconducting placed between Au and Al rails.

If this works, future appliances would get all the energy they were designed for from ordinary air or water. This energy would be clean, cheap, widely available, safe, quiet, reliable, and not emit greenhouse gas. Furthermore, air conditioning would release electricity instead of consuming it, which is basically more sensible. Small appliances would work cordlessly anywhere in the world out of the box. Many kinds of electric vehicles would become practical. Diode arrays in computers with minor inputs and outputs would recycle the heat from the operating chips so the system would not release heat or need external power while using lots of high power high speed logic.
I want this to be commercialized without fussy licensing restrictions on the diode array or its applications involving all humanity in synergistic development.

Randi did not consider this issue eligible for a million dollars as of a ~2000 telephone conversation.

Aloha,
Charles M. Brown
Kilauea, Kauai, Hawaii

[marting]

Sounds like a devil of an idea, specifically Maxwell's demon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon

Many others have sought similar demons, but the second law has proven formidable. Good luck. I won't be investing but I hope you make zillions.

[casebro]

So, Charles, what have you done lately?

[marting]

An intereresting question is whether defeating the Second Law would meet the Challenge requirements. Would such a thing be sufficiently beyond, and in conflict with, known science to qualify? Personally, I think it would qualify as the implications would be world shattering. However, most Challenges involve some sort of claimed personal "talent" that is outside known science.

[Solitaire]

The concept was tested in 1993 where more power than ~2 nanowatts, the power a single diode can yield, 1 /2 kTB where 1 / 2 accounts for rectification, k=Boltzmann's constant, T=temperature in Kelvins and B= 1 THz, the upper frequency limit of thermal noise, was measured from a chip consisting of ~5,600 Au dot anodes surrounded by SiO2 on a n GaAs substrate. The chip produced ~50 nanowatts as ~50 millivolts across 50 K ohms under professional test conditions, showing feasibility.

Not tested in 1993, made up in 1993 as a joke. See: Resistor Power (http://johnlockard.tripod.com/Works/ResistorPower.html)

Oh, you do have a patent. (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F3890161) :D

My, My, you've been one busy little bee. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=US+Patent+3890161&btnG=Google+Search)

[Soapy Sam]

Gosh. This takes me back. Once in the early 80's, I met an electronic engineer in a pub in the Lake District and asked him if he knew any way to generate power from random background noise. (I had been reading about the discovery of the 5 deg K background radiation from the Big Bang).
He proceeded to expound a bizarre theory which sounded a lot like the one mentioned here. It certainly involved large diode arrays- but in those days that was a more heroic scale of engineering.
Next morning , crawling out of our tents and heading up a hill, neither of us could recall any of the details, though it had all seemed sensible at the time.
Such are the powers of Theakston's Old Peculier.

[Cuddles]

Wouldn't it seem a little more sensible to tell this to electronics researchers rather than a discussion forum for the paranormal?

[MortFurd]

I can think of a several potential problems:

1. The amount of energy available in a given area is limited. If you scale the device up to a larger area, losses in the interconnections will eat up whatever gain you make with the larger area.

2. If you don't use an external antenna, then you are limited to the frequencies that can be picked up by the "wiring" of your diodes. Since the connections are neccessarily short, this greatly limits the range of frequencies that your diodes will have to wokr with and hence the amount of power you can get.

3. If you do use an external antenna, then you are faced with the task of matching the impedance of the antenna to the impedance of your diodes. Without proper matching, you will lose power.

4. Putting diodes in series increases the series resistance for the output current. This will limit how much power you can pull from the array.

5. The series current flow will heat the diodes, making them less efficient and limiting how much power you can get.

6. The diodes must be larger than the wave length of the frequencies you are trying to pick up, else you have no potential difference between the two ends. The leads must be resonant at the frequencies that you are trying to receive, which simplest at multiples of 1/4 of the wavelength. Your diodes will have to be laid out so that the leads are on a grid of multiples of 1/4 wave length - and this includes the interconnections between banks. If you don't do this, then you will have tremendous losses. If you do this, then you will be restricted to a very narrow band of frequencies - again limiting how much power you can receive.


As a power receiver, you could actually do something useful with this kind of thing - provided you transmit the power to the receiver. With the frequencies you are discussimg, however, your transmitter would have to be aimed quite accurately at the receiver.

Prove me wrong. I'd be perfectly thrilled if some one really came up with free energy. I just don't really think it is going to happen.

[bjb]

If someone can turn electrical noise into electrical energy, fine. But since noise is a consequence of heat, it is equivalent to turning heat into electricity and there are no physical laws that need to be broken for the device to work. Another example is the thermocouple, which can turn heat directly into electricity. The electricity is amplified and used to measure temperature, but I've never seen anyone try and use a thermocouple array to create usable energy. I suppose a thermocouple array might work but I don't know of anyone who's given it a try.

[Mr. Scott]

If someone can turn electrical noise into electrical energy, fine. But since noise is a consequence of heat, it is equivalent to turning heat into electricity and there are no physical laws that need to be broken for the device to work. Another example is the thermocouple, which can turn heat directly into electricity. The electricity is amplified and used to measure temperature, but I've never seen anyone try and use a thermocouple array to create usable energy. I suppose a thermocouple array might work but I don't know of anyone who's given it a try.

Electricity in some deep space probes comes from the heat created by thermonuclear reactions near thermocouples: Voyager Wikipedia Reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_program).

Radioisotope thermoelectric generator article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator).

[marting]

If someone can turn electrical noise into electrical energy, fine. But since noise is a consequence of heat, it is equivalent to turning heat into electricity and there are no physical laws that need to be broken for the device to work. Another example is the thermocouple, which can turn heat directly into electricity. The electricity is amplified and used to measure temperature, but I've never seen anyone try and use a thermocouple array to create usable energy. I suppose a thermocouple array might work but I don't know of anyone who's given it a try.

One breaks physical laws when one doesn't have different temperatures to work with. Once a closed system is at the same temp it is in maximum entropy. Since closed system entropy can only increase, no mechanism such as that proposed can work as it would not only create electricity but that in turn could be used to create more power through conventional means. Free energy in a closed system. Nope, I don't think so.

[Almo]

Such are the powers of Theakston's Old Peculier.

Wow! Watch out of that stuff. Very stong.

[Zombified]

Thermocouples can be used to generate power as is done on a few space probes, but thermocouples only work on temperature differences, not absolute temperatures. The temperature difference in the probe case is between a radiation source and the 3K background of space.

Note that there's nothing in the description of the "invention" that explains why you need more than one diode in parallel. If the theory were correct you'd see a voltage across any diode proportional to its maximum switching frequency, especially if this simplistic use P=V2/R to calculate voltage across a load applies as Mr. Brown claims it does. Connect a 1N4148 to a 1MOhm volt-meter and conservatively guess its switching frequency at 100MHz, and apply Mr. Brown's math. That would yield around 200mV. But that doesn't happen as anyone with access to a Radio Shack can easily verify.

[MortFurd]

Thermocouples can be used to generate power as is done on a few space probes, but thermocouples only work on temperature differences, not absolute temperatures. The temperature difference in the probe case is between a radiation source and the 3K background of space.

Note that there's nothing in the description of the "invention" that explains why you need more than one diode in parallel. If the theory were correct you'd see a voltage across any diode proportional to its maximum switching frequency, especially if this simplistic use P=V2/R to calculate voltage across a load applies as Mr. Brown claims it does. Connect a 1N4148 to a 1MOhm volt-meter and conservatively guess its switching frequency at 100MHz, and apply Mr. Brown's math. That would yield around 200mV. But that doesn't happen as anyone with access to a Radio Shack can easily verify.
Right.

Now take your diode and add a piece of wire about 2.5 feet long to each end and try again. You'll probably need an RF probe for your voltmeter to do this. You will measure something. Remember, though, that an RF probe makes a nice clean DC signal out of the RF. Measuring the signal directly with a voltmeter won't get you any kind of reliable measurement at all. Most voltmeters that measure AC work this way: Rectify and convert AC to DC then measure the DC and apply a correction that accounts for the losses in the conversion.

Clipping an AC signal with a diode does NOT give you clean DC. It gives you a pulsating signal with loads of harmonics. This is what this fellow is going to be summing up with his diode array.

Now remember that you are measuring an RF signal. When you add two RF signals of the same frequency together, what you get depends on the phase relationship of the two. If they are pefectly in phase (angle zero) you will get double the amplitude. If they are perfectly out of phase (angle 180 degrees) you will get amplitude zero. In between you will get values ranging from zero to double amplitude.

Since the signals hitting the diodes are not guaranteed to be in any particular phase with one another, you will get the sum of the random phases. Care to guess what that is?

Right. Pretty much zero.

Reason number seven why I don't expect this to work.


If he tries to convert to clean DC first, then he's got an even bigger problem. Adding in all of the passive components to filter the pulsating RF to clean DC will again eat up all of the power gains. Back to square one.

[uruk]

I don't understand how you can over come the diode's barrier potnetial without applying some sort of forward biasing voltage. And if there is any alternating current such as in RF the reverse bias voltage would increase the size of the barrier potential. Diodes only make good voltage multipliers when they are used in conjunction with some sort of capacitance.

[Psiload]

I don't blame Charlie Brown for opting not to directly involve himself in the testing of his "theory". These things never turn out well for him.

http://media.phillyburbs.com/bankard/football.gif

[MortFurd]

I don't understand how you can over come the diode's barrier potnetial without applying some sort of forward biasing voltage.
If you couldn't do this, then crystal radios wouldn't work.

Crystal radios DO work, though. And its because the RF amplitude is higher than the diode's needed forward bias voltage. The catch is that you've got to have a diode with a forward voltage lower than what you can get with your antenna.

[Zombified]

And when you get a such a signal off an antenna that implies that there's a source for that signal that's not in thermal equilibrium with the crystal's surroundings. Radios are "hot".

Solar panels are also diodes that convert external energy into current, but the sun is not in thermal equilibrium with the rest of space, either.

[phildonnia]

..Another example is the thermocouple, which can turn heat directly into electricity...

Just to clarify, a thermocouple requires a temperature difference to generate a voltage; it can't generate electricity from the presence of heat alone. We're back to the 2nd law.

ETA: Sorry, Zombified already said it all.

[Tanstaafl]

I'll leave the thermodynamics to others.

But I'm wondering what sort of forward voltage drop do these diodes have?

It's hard to imagine getting .2 volt or more under load from thermal noise.

[uruk]

I'll leave the thermodynamics to others.

But I'm wondering what sort of forward voltage drop do these diodes have?

It's hard to imagine getting .2 volt or more under load from thermal noise.

.7 volts if the diode is silicon
.3 volts if the diode is germanium

[uruk]

If you couldn't do this, then crystal radios wouldn't work.

Crystal radios DO work, though. And its because the RF amplitude is higher than the diode's needed forward bias voltage. The catch is that you've got to have a diode with a forward voltage lower than what you can get with your antenna.

Thanks! I forgot about crystal radios. But even so, your still not going to extract a whole alot of energy from the RF that is floating around.

[Zombified]

My, My, you've been one busy little bee. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=US+Patent+3890161&btnG=Google+Search)
Given this, I'm guessing this is a drive-by and we won't be hearing from Mr. Brown again. But I could be wrong.

[Tanstaafl]

.7 volts if the diode is silicon
.3 volts if the diode is germanium

That was my point. Put an extremely high impedance low-level RF source (heat noise) into that, and you're unlikely to get much.

Thanks! I forgot about crystal radios. But even so, your still not going to extract a whole alot of energy from the RF that is floating around.

Actually, I have a crytal radio with a speaker hooked up to it that you can hear anywhere in the room, clearly. And I have heard of others successfully charging a low-voltage battery from one. But that's because I'm a couple of miles away from a multi-kilowatt station. There's vastly more energy available than from thermal noise. The noise is probably 100dB or more lower than that.

[MortFurd]

Spot on. If there's no load, then the voltage can be pretty high. As soon as you put a load on the diode, the voltage drops.

If we knew that the interconnects would have at the frequencies Mr. Brown is contemplating, we could then figure how much voltage and current to expect as a maximum.

Note that this impedance will be dependant on the length of the connections as well as their shape and material. Lots of difficult questions to answer for Mr. Brown.

[charlesmbrown]

Thanks for the many posts. This is a pleasant surprise. There are many comments to answer.

Building a diode array is beyond my ability; commercializing the diode array is beyond my ability; estimating the social effects of the diode array is beyond my ability. The Internet is a fair way to find people who will bring the diode array to civilization. A team is gradually coalescing around the project.

The resistor fed diode bridge array at johnlockard's tripod site is a similar idea. It is more complicated and less powerful than the diode array, It captures the full wave which is twice the half wave but it uses four diodes instead of one. It is also not important to have a fixed source resistance. It has some theoretical features which make it plausible. The junction capacitance of diodes larger than nanometer scale limlts the bandwidth and thus te power.

The diode array uses one pattern of one constituent, the anode points, which is between two uniform planes so no registration of constituents to other constituents is needed. This is a great advantage.

Diodes will work at very small voltage. The Voltage / current characteristic is exponential at small forward current.

The electrons moving at random in electronic components produce radio frequencies without an antenna. The Johnson noise source is the depletion region of the diode. This power is quickly rectified because the depletion region of a Schottky anode diode becomes thinner and more open to tunneling for forward electron flow from the cathode to the anode inside the diode and thicker and less open to tunneling for reverse electron flow from the anode to the cathode. once the electrons leave the source, they become part of a random phase polyphase rectifying network. The constituent phases join together with insignificant ripple. The output reverse biases the group of diodes. This reverse bias also reduces the energy of electrons heading into it cooling them.

When two signals of different frequency are combined , the power is additive. I'll have to find the name of the theorem again.

The diode array may be a low voltage device. It may be limited to a open circuit value of a tenth of a volt. Any voltage can be produced by stacking many diode arrays in series.

I commissioned the preparation and testing of the 1993 prototype. I did not witness it though. It could be a joke on me but I believe that test labs are overwhelmingly honest. Upgraded dies are available for further testing.

Randi's prize is for people with provable psychic talent which may be different than inventiveness. The contest is probably written to exclude inventiveness.

Aloha

[MortFurd]

...SNIP

Diodes will work at very small voltage. The Voltage / current characteristic is exponential at small forward current.

The electrons moving at random in electronic components produce radio frequencies without an antenna. The Johnson noise source is the depletion region of the diode. This power is quickly rectified because the depletion region of a Schottky anode diode becomes thinner and more open to tunneling for forward electron flow from the cathode to the anode inside the diode and thicker and less open to tunneling for reverse electron flow from the anode to the cathode. once the electrons leave the source, they become part of a random phase polyphase rectifying network. The constituent phases join together with insignificant ripple. The output reverse biases the group of diodes. This reverse bias also reduces the energy of electrons heading into it cooling them.

When two signals of different frequency are combined , the power is additive. I'll have to find the name of the theorem again.

The diode array may be a low voltage device. It may be limited to a open circuit value of a tenth of a volt. Any voltage can be produced by stacking many diode arrays in series.

I commissioned the preparation and testing of the 1993 prototype. I did not witness it though. It could be a joke on me but I believe that test labs are overwhelmingly honest. Upgraded dies are available for further testing.

Randi's prize is for people with provable psychic talent which may be different than inventiveness. The contest is probably written to exclude inventiveness.

Aloha
What material are you using for the diodes? What is the forward voltage of this material? What type of diodes are you using?

How did you account for and overcome the capacitive loading caused by putting all of the diodes in parallel?

What is the equivalent capacitance for each of your diodes?

What was the impedance of the interconnects at your selected frequency?

Under what conditions was the prototype tested? The presence of artificially (or naturally occureing) radiation at your selected frequency would generate power in your circuitry. See the references to beamed power and crystal radios above.

What steps were taken to eliminate the possibility that yoru cicuitry was receiving an external signal?


Loads of questions to which answers are needed before anyone could say with any amount of confidence that your gadget could work. There's not much point in arguing the "social effects" when there's not even a working prototype.

How many chip designers and quantum physicists have you got in your project team?

[charlesmbrown]

I selected n type InSb for its exceptional electron mobility. It has a small band gap which is tolerable.

I think the capacitance beyond the junction is unimportant. The chip is expected to release D.C. power.

The junction capacitance may be of the order of 10^-19 farad.

I want to rectify all the electronic white noise to ~1 THz, the upper quantum limit.

The test lab told me that they put the chip in stirred purified vegetable oil to assure temperature uniformity; they enclosed the chip in its bath in a shielded box in a remote part of east California to assure low interference.

Not enough people are attracted.

Uniform ambient heat is close to zero cost. Any absorption of it as it is converted into electrical power even with losses, which are recoverable, would be useful.

Aloha

[uruk]

When two signals of different frequency are combined , the power is additive. I'll have to find the name of the theorem again.

Fourier analysis?

The the power of the frequencies only add if they are in phase with each other. They cancel if they are 180 degrees out of phase.
How do you insure that the frequencies will be in phase?

[MortFurd]

Fourier analysis?

The the power of the frequencies only add if they are in phase with each other. They cancel if they are 180 degrees out of phase.
How do you insure that the frequencies will be in phase?
You can be pretty darn sure that they won't be in phase. If they were in phase then your diode array would be sitting smack in the middle of a beam of coherent radiation - much like a laser, just at the terahertz frequencies Mr. Brown is targetting.

[marting]

Fourier analysis?

The the power of the frequencies only add if they are in phase with each other. They cancel if they are 180 degrees out of phase.
How do you insure that the frequencies will be in phase?

Nonsense. If they are in phase and frequency, the power is quadrupled since power is proportional to the square of voltage. Average "power" is in fact doubled when superimposing uncorrelated signals.

Charles basic problem is that he has created a device that violates the Second Law as supposidly verified by an independent lab. He is correct in that it needs to be verified. Along those lines a detailed report from the lab with all the particulars would be the way to start. So Charles, how about posting the full lab report? Otherwise we are just critiquing a phantom.

[uruk]

Nonsense. If they are in phase and frequency, the power is quadrupled since power is proportional to the square of voltage. Average "power" is in fact doubled when superimposing uncorrelated signals.
Sorry, I was thinking of amplitude

[charlesmbrown]

I don't have the seniority to upload a TIF image of the report and don;t know how without browse attaching.Psiload could help. Its on my computer as a 247 KB IrfanView file C:\My Documents\forrest labs report docu image 030502.tif

Fourier analysis is powerful beyond the theorem. We are on the right track about adding different frequencies. Each Hz of bandwidth is considered to be a separate degree of freedom in thermodynamics.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is so general that there should be many ways to escape it if it can be be escaped. This reminds me of Murphy's law antidote: Anything that is possible can be done well.

A mechanical way to escape the Second Law may be:

Kinetic energy imbalance within the pores decreases the pressure on this side.
_/ \_/ \_/ \_ (gas return turbine)-
Kinetic energy inbalance within the pores increases the pressure on this side.

where an array of nanometer scale nozzles preferentially ejects gas molecules out of the wide end. The gas density should be high enough so there will be many molecular collisions in the nozzle interior volume to break the path forward / path backward symmetry. A color TV shadow mask may be suitable for prototyping.

A deep infrared photocell that can withstand the temperature corresponding to the IR that it converts would also absorb heat and release electrical power. I believe that the power density by area is small at ambient temperatures of interest on earth. Thin cells could be stacked in series if the IR is everywhere. The polarity of an IR photocell and diode array are opposite.
n type (-) terminal
===========
p type (+) terminal


Aloha

[marting]

I always liked the Brownian Motor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_ratchet
I can host whatever report/data you have. Can you email it?

[Solitaire]

Yes, but the thermoelectric conversion of heat requires that the photocells be at a temperature lower than the source of the heat. If it's at the same temperature the heat of the cell will boot electrons back across the junction at an equal rate resulting in two equal but opposing currents. Heat engines, lasers, photocells all require a lower temperatures in order to operate.

[Ducky]

I don't have the seniority to upload a TIF image of the report and don;t know how without browse attaching.Psiload could help. Its on my computer as a 247 KB IrfanView file C:\My Documents\forrest labs report docu image 030502.tif



are you exepcting us to hack your computer to get it?

Tell you what, email the image of the report to me, and I will upload it here for you. My email is skepticwiki@gmail.com

[charlesmbrown]

I thought about Feynman's ratchet wheel and pawl thought experiment and am not convinced. It may be possible to have a ratchet wheel and pawl system that rotates intermittently in the lift-pawl-over-slope direction in an all encompassing heat bath: One way is to use a plurality of unsprung pawls. This would increase the reliability of the pawls as an exponent of the number of pawls. The pawls then don't need the bias of springs and can act as large indistinguishable gas molecules. Without springs, there is no possibility of extra pounding of the ratchet slope to drive the wheel backwards. The wheel will usually be blocked by an extended pawl from rotating in the blocked-by-face direction. The wheel, however, is available for intermittent Brownian motion drive in the lift-pawl-over-slope direction. The device is overly complex. It is impractical to aggregate power from many of these wheels. Simpler devices may also work. I'm not sure springs produce extra pounding and perhaps a sprung pawl would pin the ratchet wheel to the slope bottom / face blocked corner position as well. The pawls may cling to the slope while allowing sliding so gas molecules can't enter to push the pawl away - in this case the wheel would not be overly drawn down the slope.


It may be a wish fulfilling circular argument that an IR photocell needs to be colder than ambient to release electrical power. There should be experimental evidence here.


I would like to be instructed on how to upload images myself later for here and upon need elsewhere. I won't hold out about it though so I'll send my TIF to the closest email.


Aloha

[balrog666]

Oh, goody! Another perpetual motion machine patent!

We don't we bring back the old "working model" requirement?

[Ducky]

are you exepcting us to hack your computer to get it?

Tell you what, email the image of the report to me, and I will upload it here for you. My email is skepticwiki@gmail.com

as promised:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/51754511f8d49cad8.jpg

Thanks for forwarding that to us. now we can examine this. I had to scale it down to 800 pixels long. If anyone wants to original, pm me I will email it.

Now, sir, if you could be so kind as to explain exactly what this report is showing, and what protocols were taken, I would be greatly appreciated.

[charlesmbrown]

The die is very small and in a uniform temperature bath.
Providing a device with a uniform temperature bath is very simple.
A future more powerful chip could be expected to run a mechanical meter in the bath.

50 mV across 50 K ohms implies a power of 50 nanowatts.

The instruments and shielding are expensive. The radio background brightness has increased a lot since then.

[Ducky]

The die is very small and in a uniform temperature bath.
Providing a device with a uniform temperature bath is very simple.
A future more powerful chip could be expected to run a mechanical meter in the bath.

50 mV across 50 K ohms implies a power of 50 nanowatts.

The instruments and shielding are expensive. The radio background brightness has increased a lot since then.

well, expensive isn't always better. I can quote a host of sites that think thousand dollar 0-guage speaker cables are better than 14guage zip line. What insturuments and what shielding were used? What other instrumentation or equipment was in the building that may have slipped through the shielding?

I'm not sure I agree that radio background brightness has increased, I would have to have you quantify that statement a bit more to agree. Are you saying there are more frequencies used, or more useage of frequencies?

Would it be possible to contact the folks at that lab to ask these questions?

[kevin]

Just thought I would point out that patents are only good for 20 years after the date of filing so this patent is in the public domain now.

Personally I doubt you'll ever get much power out of one of these, but I've been wrong before.

[charlesmbrown]

Can people here tell me if nanometer scale particles on a flat surface of materials chosen for minimum cling in a hard vacuum show Brownian motion? Will the particles simply rest in place because solids are rigid? There are lots of hard vacuum systems around so the answer should be widely known.


Aloha

[marting]

The die is very small and in a uniform temperature bath.
Providing a device with a uniform temperature bath is very simple.
A future more powerful chip could be expected to run a mechanical meter in the bath.

50 mV across 50 K ohms implies a power of 50 nanowatts.

The instruments and shielding are expensive. The radio background brightness has increased a lot since then.

Back around the summer of 1970, on summer break from Caltech, I was working as a tech in boston on very specialized instrumentation. In one case I found a local FM transmitter was interfering with a module that could resolve 50uV with an offset current of .01 pA, yep, .00000000000001 amps. While common today, this was pretty cutting edge back then.

The (much larger) values you are measuring would require fairly simple instrumentation and shielding to verify. Also, while background rf has certainly increased, so has the need for even cleaner, quality Faraday testing cages as damned near everything has to pass tight rf tests. Having had great instructors (Martel, Middlebrook), I was very good at tracking down anomolous error which came from many places, not just rf.

From your description of the test setup, I can think of a couple sources of readings of this sort and, of course, ways to eliminate them. However, I think we all need more detail such as setup photos, identification of equipment and protocols. When you are going up against accepted laws of physics you have to have your ducks in a row and transparency in everything. And then you have to keep asking yourself what you are doing wrong as the odds strongly favor that.

[Ducky]

Can people here tell me if nanometer scale particles on a flat surface of materials chosen for minimum cling in a hard vacuum show Brownian motion? Will the particles simply rest in place because solids are rigid? There are lots of hard vacuum systems around so the answer should be widely known.


Aloha

When you answer my and marting's questions, we will consider answering your "test" questions. You may be asking this question in earnest, however it seems you are attempting to disqualify our very straightforward questions about your testing protocol and equipment by implying we don't have the expertise to understand.

Therefore, to put it succinctly: We asked first.

You made the claims, you provided evidence lacking sufficiently in detail, now answer our questions about it.

[charlesmbrown]

The instruments were listed on the lab Report.

A more powerful chip that ran a LED and clock would be past the lab curiosity stage.

I lost contact with them long ago.

The patent lasted 17 years after 1975. I am satisfied with it being in the public domain because everyone can use it without risk of being stopped.

I would rather error on the side of junk patents for nanotech, space, cryogenic, or other exotic inventions-under-development than require a model.

We have more cell phones and satellites on one hand and some exurban areas depopulating on the other. I won't press the point beyond requiring that low power experiments need good shielding.

Aloha

[Ducky]

The instruments were listed on the lab Report.

A more powerful chip that ran a LED and clock would be past the lab curiosity stage.

I lost contact with them long ago.

The patent lasted 17 years after 1975. I am satisfied with it being in the public domain because everyone can use it without risk of being stopped.

I would rather error on the side of junk patents for nanotech, space, cryogenic, or other exotic inventions-under-development than require a model.

We have more cell phones and satellites on one hand and some exurban areas depopulating on the other. I won't press the point beyond requiring that low power experiments need good shielding.

Aloha


Considering your holding a patent I am disappointed at your non-specific response. In order to show you have created something that does violate the second law of thermodynamics we are going to want to know very specific things. For example:

1) What shielding in the room was used against errant RF?
2) OTHER than the equipment listed on the test, what equipment was present in the room, and how was that equipment compensatted for in the shielding?
3) Specifically explain the device as built, and as tested, and please quantify that for us against the data you have provided. For example: Walk us through the test as though we were there please. I want to know each recording of data as it happened. If you cannot provide this, I would be amazed that someone with your level of intelligence and expertise did not know such details of the testing for your published paper on this device, and I would be shocked to hear that you weren't at the testing yourself. You have published a paper on this, correct? If it does what you say, I would imagine a nobel prize is in your future. What publications have you written your paper for?
4) If you cannot provide these details for us to examine (as has been stated many times, there are many reasons that those readings could have for the data provided, we would like to exclude erroneous data to ensure replicability and data integrity) who can we contact to provide those details for us, and why have they not submitted more to you than one sheet of numbers on the testing?

Please stop treating me as though I wouldn't understand and get specific. If you are as learned as you say you are, these questions should be no problem for you to answer. If your device does what is claimed, these questions are going to come from many more learned people than myself.



ETA: I have done an extensive google search and cannot find Dr Emmitt Ingram or Forrest Labratories. Please provide the last known contact for these if you wish us to follow up.

[marting]

Charles,
I am increasingly concerned that you seem to be dismissing out of hand that your invention might not actually work. Were I in your position I would have been there at the testing, photographing everything and trying to get whatever expertise could be rounded up to find possible sources of error.

Let's get a little more basic. Do you still have the diode array that was tested? Scaling it up is nice but a rather big waste of money if the original idea and testing was flawed. The former is science, the latter, "just" engineering.

Also, be careful when you start talking about large scale products as you start running the risk of being seen to be part of a rather large group of dubious promoters.

[charlesmbrown]

Are you referring to my question about vacuum Brownian movement as either ernest or intended to distract - or is it another question? If it was another question, I would like to know what it was. I am sorry that I dropped my question about Brownian motion in abruptly in a slipped post. I want to move on to other projects and am asking for specialized knowlege to be more grounded on what is better known by others on vacuum Brownian motion. I am nowhere implying that anyone dosen't have the expertise to understand things that they ask about. I am in no way attempting to disqualify your very straightforward questions about the testing protocol and equipment for the diode array. The experiment is old and I was casual about it so I am eager to have it corroborated.

I think that Johnson noise is a solidly established basis for further research which centers on the question of the practicality of rectifying and aggregating Johnson noise by nanometer scale diodes in uniform alignment parallel.

Aloha

[Ducky]

So in other words, you have no answers for direct and simple questions about the protocol?

Were you even there for the testing?

[marting]

It's also odd that this lab test ocurred just after the patent expired. Were there any lab tests around the time the patent application was made?

Oh well. BTW, Fowlsound, did you hear the latest on speaker cables? Amorphous metal cables, lol. Fools and money, soon shall be parted.

[Ducky]

It's also odd that this lab test ocurred just after the patent expired. Were there any lab tests around the time the patent application was made?

Oh well. BTW, Fowlsound, did you hear the latest on speaker cables? Amorphous metal cables, lol. Fools and money, soon shall be parted.

:dl:

hahah!


If you want a real laugh I should dig up the link on the guys wanting to use mercury filled tubes as speaker cables....very very funny

[charlesmbrown]

We are writing posts at the same time to each other so I'll be more careful about referring comments. The last post I have seen now is #49.

Re #48 p2: No, I don't have the chip. I bought it from the University of Virginia, Charlottesville. Virginia Diodes Inc, virginiadiodescom is the present spin off. They specialize in high frequency diodes. A similar updated die, the 1T7, containing ~10,000 0.9 um Au spot anodes abutting GaAs inside is $500. Steven H. Jones can answer technical questions and process purchases. The die is unmounted and they won't mount it. I recommend soldering the die upside down on a small flat Au solder clad Au surface. That will connect all the Au spots exposed on the die's face to the Au surface without shorting to the substrate. The Austin TX chamber of commerce indirectly recommended Criteria labs, criterialabscom , president Douglas Myron. They seem competent but ask a minimum of $10,000 because all kinds of experts are involved. My answer here is to fabricate 10 -20 prototypes for $25,000. VDI offered a steep quantity discount. Some money is allowed to inspect deeply if it fails. The quantity will spread the risk. I'm stalled here. I live with little reserve.

The experiment can be independently corroborated with some advice from me.

Re #47 2: The chip was tested in its own enclosure. I don't know how it was separated from the test instruments. They said that in the future it would be better to have two similar chips in a four wire hook up. They applied conductive paste to the surface to connect the anode spots. The paste had a ferromagnetic ingredient so it could be handled cleanly. That chip had a bare edge. The new one doesn't have a bare edge.

Re #48 last: I am transparent about the diode array. I hope it is beyond question that there are no products yet even to people who do not hear about it directly.

[charlesmbrown]

Re #50: I was not present at the testing. I never met the testers personally. I never saw their equipment. I've covered these points without spelling it out by saying the preparation and testing were commissioned.

Re #51: I found the university fabricators in a ~1990 brochure on the National NanoFabrication Facility near Cornell U N.Y. The integrated patch of many diodes was developed there. The patch was developed because as diodes became smaller to work at higher frequencies, they became hard to find for hand hook up using microscopes. Someone had a prize winning idea of making the diodes in easy to find patches. This method is not needed any more except for critical users like radio astronomers so the chips are obscure.

Aloha

[Zombified]

Charles, your explanation of the effect in your original post doesn't make it clear (at least to me) why you need such a large array of diodes. Can you demonstrate an effect with individual diodes? How much power would you expect to get from say a typical switching diode? Why the specialized die?

[Ducky]

Re #50: I was not present at the testing. I never met the testers personally. I never saw their equipment. I've covered these points without spelling it out by saying the preparation and testing were commissioned.

Re #51: I found the university fabricators in a ~1990 brochure on the National NanoFabrication Facility near Cornell U N.Y. The integrated patch of many diodes was developed there. The patch was developed because as diodes became smaller to work at higher frequencies, they became hard to find for hand hook up using microscopes. Someone had a prize winning idea of making the diodes in easy to find patches. This method is not needed any more except for critical users like radio astronomers so the chips are obscure.

Aloha

For someone who has invented something so revolutionary to casually have it tested without bein present is suspicious. In fact, at the very least it is such careless science as to question why such a test would have been left without supervision or even contact as to the basic controls of the testing. You did NOT cover those points by saying it was comissioned. In fact, saying something is commissioned has no bearing on whether you were present at the testing, or an integral part of the testing procedure.

Once again, why can I not find any information on the lab that originally did the testing? What original contact information do you have for them?

Again, what papers have you had published based on this data? With all the google hits on your posts everywhere else on the internet about this, why is there no publication in a peer reviewed scientific journal? Why does someone who has created a revolutionary device defying the second law of thermodynamics post only on internet forums?


ETA: As far as I can see by the post times, we are not posting at the same time, and you have posted your posts at least an hour after we posted ours. Careful Charles, you appear to be less than forthright in your responses thus far.

[Ducky]

We are writing posts at the same time to each other so I'll be more careful about referring comments. The last post I have seen now is #49.

Re #48 p2: No, I don't have the chip. I bought it from the University of Virginia, Charlottesville. Virginia Diodes Inc, virginiadiodescom is the present spin off. They specialize in high frequency diodes. A similar updated die, the 1T7, containing ~10,000 0.9 um Au spot anodes abutting GaAs inside is $500. Steven H. Jones can answer technical questions and process purchases. The die is unmounted and they won't mount it. I recommend soldering the die upside down on a small flat Au solder clad Au surface. That will connect all the Au spots exposed on the die's face to the Au surface without shorting to the substrate. The Austin TX chamber of commerce indirectly recommended Criteria labs, criterialabscom , president Douglas Myron. They seem competent but ask a minimum of $10,000 because all kinds of experts are involved. My answer here is to fabricate 10 -20 prototypes for $25,000. VDI offered a steep quantity discount. Some money is allowed to inspect deeply if it fails. The quantity will spread the risk. I'm stalled here. I live with little reserve.

The experiment can be independently corroborated with some advice from me.

Re #47 2: The chip was tested in its own enclosure. I don't know how it was separated from the test instruments. They said that in the future it would be better to have two similar chips in a four wire hook up. They applied conductive paste to the surface to connect the anode spots. The paste had a ferromagnetic ingredient so it could be handled cleanly. That chip had a bare edge. The new one doesn't have a bare edge.

Re #48 last: I am transparent about the diode array. I hope it is beyond question that there are no products yet even to people who do not hear about it directly.


No, you are not transparent about the array. You cannot provide even the slightest bit of direct knowledge of the testing of said array. This is not transparent.

Your statements about the testing make no sense. If the lab is specifically intended to test the array as is, why are they telling you to change the configuration? Why did they not provide you with the test protocols? Why did they not specify anything bbut the barest of data?

Where are the other pages? The page you provided clearly states "Page 1" at the top. Are there more pages to the report? If so, please provide them.

[charlesmbrown]

Re #55:

First I learned that the electrical power expressed as Johnson noise is consistent for any resistance value of resistance. A high ohm resistor will express Johnson noise as SQ ROOT high volts; a low ohm resistor will express Johnson noise as SQ ROOT low volts. At about the same time, I learned that each Hz of bandwidth carrying Johnson noise is an independent contributer of energy. This set the pattern for me that each diode is an independent contributor of energy. A group of resistors will revert to the energy of one resistor. The value of the resistor group will be the sum of the resistors if the resistors are in series and the inverse value of the resistor group will be the sum of the inverse values of the resistors if the resistors are in parallel. Diodes behave differently. Half the time the current inside them the is in the forward direction and they conduct with low resistance. The other half the time the current inside them the is in the reverse direction and they conduct with high resistance. For diodes in consistent alignment parallel The forward currents will aggregate instead of reverting and match impedance to a lower resistance where the inverse value of the group forward resistance is equal to the sum of the inverse forward resistance of the diodes (assuming a high forward to reverse resistance ratio).Power in watts equals current squared times resistance. The diodes should be as small as possible to pack as many as possible on the chip. Small diodes have low junction capacitance allowing the rectification of higher frequencies. Small diodes also have proportionally lower reverse current leakage. In 2000 I read that carbon buckyballs could carry enormous currents so I began to recommend their use as diode array anodes. I later changed the recommendation from buckyballs to carbon nanotubes to reduce the capacitance between the depletion region and the anode far end buss plane.


Aloha

[Ducky]

Re #48 p2: No, I don't have the chip. I bought it from the University of Virginia, Charlottesville. Virginia Diodes Inc, virginiadiodescom is the present spin off. They specialize in high frequency diodes. A similar updated die, the 1T7, containing ~10,000 0.9 um Au spot anodes abutting GaAs inside is $500. Steven H. Jones can answer technical questions and process purchases. The die is unmounted and they won't mount it. I recommend soldering the die upside down on a small flat Au solder clad Au surface. That will connect all the Au spots exposed on the die's face to the Au surface without shorting to the substrate. The Austin TX chamber of commerce indirectly recommended Criteria labs, criterialabscom , president Douglas Myron. They seem competent but ask a minimum of $10,000 because all kinds of experts are involved. My answer here is to fabricate 10 -20 prototypes for $25,000. VDI offered a steep quantity discount. Some money is allowed to inspect deeply if it fails. The quantity will spread the risk. I'm stalled here. I live with little reserve.

The experiment can be independently corroborated with some advice from me.




1) You don't even have the chip anymore? How exactly do you plan on replicating this expiriment? Are we expected to pay for this?
2) How can this expiriment be replicated with some advice from you when you clearly have demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge of how the original expiriment was done?

Why can I not find any information on the lab this was tested at, and why have you not provided any?

[charlesmbrown]

Re #56 last: Sometimes I had two windows open on randi's site so I could read and write at the same time. I may have gone to the posts from the site tree on the quick reply page. I scan other sites and have a quick dropping dial up connection. This is my first experience with quick repartee. I've come to see weird effects in my Internet navigation so I'll be more careful. There is no bad motive here.
Re 57 p1: I am transparent in the sense of wanting to operate openly without nondisclosure agreements and tell many people about this invention.

I am an inventor not an engineer or scientist. I do not know how to write a science paper. I do not believe that peer review journals are the best way to disseminate new findings or thinking.

My father was an engineer. I had access to his bought-for-college textbooks and periodicals. My mother is an artist.

Re #57 last: I see on the document page 1 of 1 near the bottom. There is no more data.

Re #57 p2: The advice about four wire testing was a review telephone conversation. It was meant for a future where there are two chips.

I don't understand why the Second Law of Thermodynamics is held to be forever unbreakable. I strongly believe in the first law where the mass and energy total is unchangeable.

Re #11 There is no way to bootstrap a first law violating machine on a second law violating machine.

Aloha

[Ducky]

Re #56 last: Sometimes I had two windows open on randi's site so I could read and write at the same time. I may have gone to the posts from the site tree on the quick reply page. I scan other sites and have a quick dropping dial up connection. This is my first experience with quick repartee. I've come to see weird effects in my Internet navigation so I'll be more careful. There is no bad motive here.
Re 57 p1: I am transparent in the sense of wanting to operate openly without nondisclosure agreements and tell many people about this invention.

If you say so. however this appears to be a backpedalling.

I am an inventor not an engineer or scientist. I do not know how to write a science paper. I do not believe that peer review journals are the best way to disseminate new findings or thinking.

I think this statement shows a marked lack of understanding about the scientific process, and peer review in general. It also shows more about your motive here than you think.

My father was an engineer. I had access to his bought-for-college textbooks and periodicals. My mother is an artist.

Irrelevant.

Re #57 last: I see on the document page 1 of 1 near the bottom. There is no more data.

There is no more to talk about then. You not only don't have the chip tested, you have no idea how it was tested. Do you see the problem here?

So just to keep the score straight, you have a chip that was manufactured by someone else that you do not have anymore that you had tested by a lab thart shows it violates the second law of thermodynamics. You have no idea how they tested it, and you have no idea who to contact to review the testing but you ask us to take your word on a scanned image of a one page report giving only enough information to appear to support your theory.

Why do I not believe anything you say?

Re #57 p2: The advice about four wire testing was a review telephone conversation. It was meant for a future where there are two chips.

So what you're saying is the testers had the foresight to anticipate your next test, but gave you no information about the first test? I'm sorry that doesn't track.

I don't understand why the Second Law of Thermodynamics is held to be forever unbreakable. I strongly believe in the first law where the mass and energy total is unchangeable.

Since you have access to your father's textbooks, I suggest you reread them and try to comprehend why your above statement is willed ignorance.

[charlesmbrown]

Re #59:

Successive experiments are supposed to overcome flaws in previous experiments and be independent to avoid bad collective assumptions. Observing the performance is simple because there is only one temperature and one electrical output to monitor. Experimenters don't need much help from me.

Aloha

[Ducky]

Re #59:

Successive experiments are supposed to overcome flaws in previous experiments and be independent to avoid bad collective assumptions. Observing the performance is simple because there is only one temperature and one electrical output to monitor. Experimenters don't need much help from me.

Aloha

What flaws? You can't even tell us what they did!

Observing the performance is NOT that simple, as has been explained several times in this thread.

Expirimenters don't need your help? Are you not the patent holder (or were?) Did you not think this up? Name one inventor that did not expiriment themselves or were not an intregal part of the testing process.

After your posts here I am convinved you are not here for honest discourse, and are not willing to even consider you may be very wrong.

I also believe you to be a liar. Prove me wrong. Provide the information requested, and address at length the concerns raised by me and others in this thread. No vague answers, no backpedalling.

Tell you what, I'll do one better. There is a phone number at the top of that scanned image. In a couple of hours when that relevant time zone is within normal business hours I will call it. What am I going to find?

[MRC_Hans]

This reverse bias also reduces the energy of electrons heading into it cooling them.*snip*

What? This is nonsense. And the way I understand your explanation, this is crucial, because this is the aexact point where a reversal of entropy was supposed to happen.

Randi's prize is for people with provable psychic talent which may be different than inventiveness. The contest is probably written to exclude inventiveness.

No, but it doesn't seek inventiveness, it seeks supernatural effects. There is nothing in your claim that hints at sueprnatural effects, "all" you claim is to have found a loophole in thermodynamics. Such a thing would be sensational, but it would not be within the scope of the JREF challenge.

Tell me, Charlie Brown, apart from your thesis of how this works (including cooling electrons), what else have you got to build your idea on? The on-page report from 1993 where somebody detected a tempearture-dependent voltage from a set-up that included your diode array?

Hans

[charlesmbrown]

Re #61, I think this statement shows a marked lack of understanding about the scientific process, and peer review in general. It also shows more about your motive here than you think:

I'm making a rough guess that procedural perfection (and there can be sophisticated abuses riding on the procedures) chokes the process so that civilization falls short in benefiting from thinking and cooperating people.

Re, So just to keep the score straight, you have a chip that was manufactured by someone else that you do not have anymore that you had tested by a lab thart shows it violates the second law of thermodynamics. You have no idea how they tested it, and you have no idea who to contact to review the testing but you ask us to take your word on a scanned image of a one page report giving only enough information to appear to support your theory.:

These are rudimentry steps in the direction of exploiting an opening in 2LoT. I think the lab tabulated their results correctly and there were no other readings.

I recently bought Challenge to the Second Law of Thermodynamics theory and experiment by Vladislav Capek and Daniel P. Sheehan Springer (Netherlands) -2005

I understand very little of it.

Aloha

[MRC_Hans]

as promised:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/51754511f8d49cad8.jpg

Thanks for forwarding that to us. now we can examine this. I had to scale it down to 800 pixels long. If anyone wants to original, pm me I will email it.

Now, sir, if you could be so kind as to explain exactly what this report is showing, and what protocols were taken, I would be greatly appreciated.Now, let's have a look on what little information is here.

We see a rig that outputs a temperature-dependent voltage. The open-circuit voltage/temperature dependency is roughly +0.1mv/degC around room temperature, rising to slightly less than +0.5mv/degC @ 100 deg.

The first thing that catches my eye is that the temperature/voltage correlation does not converge on zero deg K, as you would expect if this voltage was converted thermal energy. Even if we assume that the slope becomes more or less straight @ 0 deg, the device will still output 96.2-27.3=68.9 mv at zero Kelvin!

So, obviously, the main source of potential does not originate from thermal energy. Instead, I would guess at a galvanic potential. Now, how about the (rather measly) 59.1 mv that we see in the range 0-100 deg? Well, that is anybody's guess, but I'd put my money in a thermo-couple effect. The se-up implies measuring small potentials over a chain of several different metals. This literally invites both galvanic potentials and thermo-couple effects, and even assuming a competent lab, it is really hard to avoid offsets from this.

One method of actually avoiding thermocouples and other effects is a four-point measurement, which, properly executed, can eliminate such confounders. And this is exactly what the lab is supposed to have recommended for the next trial (so we may assume they didn't use it this time).

Pending additional details, I'll deem this trial useless. Sorry, CB.

Hans

[charlesmbrown]

Re #63 p2

What is hard about checking a diode array? The more powerful it is expected to be according to the chip specifications, the easier it is to test. Someone said that the 1993 chip was testable. The ~2005 0.9 um Au technology is slightly better. Assuming that the 1993 test was valid but not well documented, can convincing tests be set up?

Aloha

[charlesmbrown]

Re #66 p5:

I discussed Thermocouple effects with them on the phone. They did not feel that these effects invalidated the results. My answer now is that the temperature gradient can be confined to two similar wires carrying current in opposite directions. The stirred liquid bath suppresses thermocouple effects of items within it.

Re #63 p3 The output is proportional to T^2 because the unrestricted bandwidth increases with temperature.

The most important question is if Johnson noise be rectified and aggregated?

Aloha

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*
Assuming that the 1993 test was valid but not well documented, can convincing tests be set up?

AlohaOnly, we can't assume that.

But, yes, it should not be too difficult to test. The big question is, why should anybody want to? As things are standing now, you don't have a coherent theory, and you don't have a useful observation, and your thus unfounded theory is contradicting mainstream science.

Can you mention any particular reason anybody should put their money on it?

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Re #66 p5:

I discussed Thermocouple effects with them on the phone. They did not feel that these effects invalidated the results.

I disagree with them.

My answer now is that the temperature gradient can be confined to two similar wires carrying current in opposite directions.

So do you have a schematic diagram of the setup? Otherwise, how can you know?

The stirred liquid bath suppresses thermocouple effects of items within it.

Agreed, but not all parts of the measuring circuitry is within the bath, obviously.

Anyway, a thermocouple is just one suggestion for the temperature dependent part of the output. You need to start by explaining the ~70mV that are not temperature dependent.


The output is proportional to T^2 because the unrestricted bandwidth increases with temperature.


Ehr?


The most important question is if Johnson noise be rectified and aggregated?


Correct. And the answer is most likely: No.

Hans

[MortFurd]

OLD post by Charles Brown on this same subject. (http://www.keelynet.com/interact/arc_7_98-12_98/00001830.htm)
That link leads to this information: Dr. Crowe as the source of the tested diode array. (http://www.usarmythz.com/THz/Researchers/THz-Researcher-Crowe.shtml)
UVa 2T6 is the designation given in the test protocol. That would be University of Virginia as the manufacturer, and 2T6 (GaAs) as the substrate material.

Note that Dr. Crowe's work has been done in terahertz imaging and the transmission adn reception of terahertz signals. Note also that Mr. Brown claims that his diode array is also to work at terahertz frequencies.

With that as a background, we can drop all the references to josephson noise and rectification and free energy. Mr. Brown's chip is a receiver of naturally occuring radiation. There are numerous companies out there developing and selling imaging equipment (cameras) on the basis of this technology.

Mr. Brown's concept is in and of itself bogus. The chip he used to demonstrate it actually did produce a tiny amount of power but for a reason different than he thinks. The chip he used is in effect a photovoltaic cell for electromagnetic radiation at a wavelength much longer than visible light.

[MortFurd]

To return to the concept proposed by Mr. Brown, in order to prove the effect he claims (power from thermal noise) it would be necessary to shield the chip not only from all known sources of manmade RF and from ordinary light (IR upto UV,) but also from ALL sources of electromagnetic radiation. This includes the terahertz range and the range from UV upto cosmic rays.

Only by eliminating (or accounting for the influence of) all sources of electromagnetic radiation would it be possible to prove that power could be generated from thermal noise.

[marting]

MortFurd,

To add to what you said, the (FIR, THz) power radiated by almost everything, even near room temperature, is far higher than many people realize.

There are also electro-chemical, and rectification of near field electromagnetic effects from sources within the shielded room that need to be ruled out.

[charlesmbrown]

An enclosing box made of shielding material will block the impressive range of electromagnetic waves. The 2T6 was very small 10 mills x 10 mills. There are metals with zero thermocouple potential. The phone call confirmed that there were two wires between the chip and meter. Testing will be difficult for small chips. Nanofabricated chips should make so much electrical power accompanied by cooling that Johnson noise will be accepted as the thermal intermediary. Thank you for the critical attention.

Aloha

[Zombified]

For diodes in consistent alignment parallel The forward currents will aggregate instead of reverting and match impedance to a lower resistance where the inverse value of the group forward resistance is equal to the sum of the inverse forward resistance of the diodes (assuming a high forward to reverse resistance ratio).Power in watts equals current squared times resistance. The diodes should be as small as possible to pack as many as possible on the chip. Small diodes have low junction capacitance allowing the rectification of higher frequencies. Small diodes also have proportionally lower reverse current leakage. In 2000 I read that carbon buckyballs could carry enormous currents so I began to recommend their use as diode array anodes. I later changed the recommendation from buckyballs to carbon nanotubes to reduce the capacitance between the depletion region and the anode far end buss plane.
I don't think you've really answered either of my questions. Your explanation of multiple diodes applies to single diodes with wider junctions as well. And recall that parallel capacitance adds as well, so your diode array won't necessarily have low capacitance, either.

The other and more important question is what is your prediction for the behavior of a single small-signal diode?

The problem here is I don't have $25,000 lying around to spend testing what seems to be a very speculative technology, and I suspect neither does anyone else. The question is whether you can replicate an effect with a simpler off-the-shelf device (or set of devices) even if that wouldn't be of any practical use besides verifying your prediction. How much power do you think I can get out of a couple hundred 1n914s? That'd only cost a few bucks. I'm looking for an actual number here.

[charlesmbrown]

An expert technician assembled on my behalf a diode array square of 32 x 32 1N34As and the instrument amplifier to read it. The results were a small / nonconclusive output.

Capacitance after rectification dosen't matter.

A diode doesn't overwhelm the load resistorif there are one of each.

A modest nanofabricatd prototype would be made of tens to hundreds of single wall unit diameter carbon nanotubes selected to be completely semiconducting between Au and Al rails.


May I have the answer to my question about Brownian motion without fluids?


Again Thank you,


Aloha

[kmortis]

An enclosing box made of shielding material will block the impressive range of electromagnetic waves. The 2T6 was very small 10 mills x 10 mills. There are metals with zero thermocouple potential. The phone call confirmed that there were two wires between the chip and meter. Testing will be difficult for small chips. Nanofabricated chips should make so much electrical power accompanied by cooling that Johnson noise will be accepted as the thermal intermediary. Thank you for the critical attention.

Aloha

This is true. I have three chambers (shield rooms, if you like) that are specifically designed to give me ~80-100 dB of shielding from 30 MHz to 40 GHz. To go much above 60 GHz is difficult to measure, as the receivers are rather expensive. I've yet to see a receiver that can go to the THz range, but I've only been an EMI engineer for about 7 years.

Charles,
To ignore test protcol and peer review because you think it "stifles" invention is poppycock. If I don't maintain my test protocols, then I cannot re-perform the same test next year when I have to troubleshoot the EUT, or compare the new upgrade to the old, etc. Or, in your case, you can't hold as many variables stable as you possibly can.

I seriously wish that your invention worked as you hoped it would, but I'm afraid that Hans's nailed it.

[Ducky]

I have called the number Forrest Laboratories gives on the sheet provided earlier in the thread by charles.

Both the area codes were tried (as you can see they were changed by hand for some reason) and neither are in service. I then tried a 411 search of California and there was no Forrest Labratories.

In fact, I can find no evidence Forrest Laboratories has ever existed. I am still waiting on a return call from the local courthouse to see if an LLC or DBA or any such filing was done for a Forrest Labratories ever.

Once again:

Do you have any verifiable information for us to corroborate your one sheet test with?

ETA:

I dont suppose this is the same Forrest Laboratories (http://www.frx.com/)that manufactures pharmaceutical products?

[Zombified]

An expert technician assembled on my behalf a diode array square of 32 x 32 1N34As and the instrument amplifier to read it. The results were a small / nonconclusive output.
What was your prediction about the power output of this array? I'm still looking for a number here.

Why germanium diodes instead of silicon switching diodes? What would change?

How is the array wired? Parallel? Series? A series of 32 parallel rows?

[MortFurd]

I have called the number Forrest Laboratories gives on the sheet provided earlier in the thread by charles.

Both the area codes were tried (as you can see they were changed by hand for some reason) and neither are in service. I then tried a 411 search of California and there was no Forrest Labratories.

In fact, I can find no evidence Forrest Laboratories has ever existed. I am still waiting on a return call from the local courthouse to see if an LLC or DBA or any such filing was done for a Forrest Labratories ever.

Once again:

Do you have any verifiable information for us to corroborate your one sheet test with?

ETA:

I dont suppose this is the same Forrest Laboratories (http://www.frx.com/)that manufactures pharmaceutical products?
Whatever might have been at the given address 13 years ago, there's a house there now. Strictly a residential area.

Google maps is cool.

[MortFurd]

What was your prediction about the power output of this array? I'm still looking for a number here.

Why germanium diodes instead of silicon switching diodes? What would change?

How is the array wired? Parallel? Series? A series of 32 parallel rows?
If he did it the way he mistreated the imaging array, then they were all in parallel.


Thinking about Mr. Browns's statements, it seems like you actually could get clean DC out of a diode if you blast it with the right frequency. If you hit it with RF just at its maximum switching frequency, then its own intrensic inductance and capacitance would likely smooth the output into a low level DC signal. Still, this would be for a very narrow range of frequencies.

[Ducky]

If he did it the way he mistreated the imaging array, then they were all in parallel.


Thinking about Mr. Browns's statements, it seems like you actually could get clean DC out of a diode if you blast it with the right frequency. If you hit it with RF just at its maximum switching frequency, then its own intrensic inductance and capacitance would likely smooth the output into a low level DC signal. Still, this would be for a very narrow range of frequencies.

It seems to me the generation of this narrow range would negate the power output. 2nd law in tact.

[Ducky]

Whatever might have been at the given address 13 years ago, there's a house there now. Strictly a residential area.

Google maps is cool.

I am going to step out on a limb here and ask our esteemed patent holding inventor if he didn't fabricate that document?

I checked with a friend who still does mortgages and property ownership doesn't show anything but a house there per tax records. Unless it was part of a larger parcel that was split, it's only ever been a house. This isn't an unheard of proposition, though, given the train tracks surrounding it and proximity to the freeway. It *could* have been an industrial park at one time, but I do not find any evidence of it.


ETA:

Care to comment charles?

[Zombified]

If he did it the way he mistreated the imaging array, then they were all in parallel.
That's the impression I had, but I was wondering why he described the discrete test array as 32x32 instead of just 1024 parallel diodes. If you have a lot of small diodes that individually have low internal capacitance, though, the capacitances still add in parallel, though, so if the operation of his array depends on low capacitances I'm not sure what he's gained.

I'm trying to understand two things: why an array of so many little diodes instead of one big one, and what prediction would Mr. Brown make about a simpler (and less costly) array?

If I were the cynical and suspicious sort, I would worry that the reason we're hearing about a relatively expensive, hard to manufacture array and not getting any solid numbers on a simpler arrangement is that it makes it impractical for anybody to simply test the theory in their personal electronics lab.

[MortFurd]

One last thing.

Even granting that Mr. Brown's gadget would work, he's getting 1 watt out of a square 3.7 feet on a side. Solar cells whoop its ass up one side and down the other at ~10 watts/square foot.

A solar cell only runs when there's light, so call that 1/3 and you still have 3 watts per square foot average over the whole day.

If his supposed source for the power is correct, then you could stack it in layers and have a cube, which would be loads more efficient, but also loads more expensive.

If what he's really got is just a sort of terahertz solarcell, then you couldn't stack them and would need the whole area.

[bjb]

One last thing.

Even granting that Mr. Brown's gadget would work, he's getting 1 watt out of a square 3.7 feet on a side. Solar cells whoop its ass up one side and down the other at ~10 watts/square foot.

A solar cell only runs when there's light, so call that 1/3 and you still have 3 watts per square foot average over the whole day.

If his supposed source for the power is correct, then you could stack it in layers and have a cube, which would be loads more efficient, but also loads more expensive.

If what he's really got is just a sort of terahertz solarcell, then you couldn't stack them and would need the whole area.

That pretty much is the 'last thing'. The device offers 'free' energy but the device itself is not free. What is the cost in dollars per watt? A typical price for a solar system is between $7 and $11 per watt:

Solar system costs and payback (http://www.southface.org/solar/solar-roadmap/commercial%20solar/commercial_pv_paybacks.htm)

Even at this price solar power is more expensive than paying your regular electric bill.

Try and calculate a theroetical best-case $/W number for the diode array. If it doesn't look like you can compete with traditional or even alternative power sources then the idea is not worth pursuing.

Even when a new idea works, it doesn't always succeed. Read this story about bubble memory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_memory). I remember when it was the next big thing but it didn't last long at all.

[Zombified]

Even when a new idea works, it doesn't always succeed. Read this story about bubble memory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_memory). I remember when it was the next big thing but it didn't last long at all.
Heh. The world is full of failed non-volatile memory technologies. Ferromagnetic RAM is my favorite.

The funniest thing is one of them even lived up to the promise: flash memory is just as good as anyone said any solid-state nonvolatile storage would be. But disk technology improved just as quickly....

Sorry for the tangent.

[MortFurd]

If I were the cynical and suspicious sort, I would worry that the reason we're hearing about a relatively expensive, hard to manufacture array and not getting any solid numbers on a simpler arrangement is that it makes it impractical for anybody to simply test the theory in their personal electronics lab.
Actually, Mr. Brown my have accidentally pointed the way to a possible real source of power.

Marting mentioned earlier that terahertz radiation is fairly well present all over the place. Since there are companies producing GaAs substrates, it should be fairly cheap for them to make a pair of p and n doped sheets and bond them together. That's basically all a solar cell is, but with silicon instead of GaAs.

Doing it that way would be cheaper by a good big margin, and probably more efficient to boot. The diode arrays aren't all working area, so you'd get more efficiency just because you are using more of the area. You also won't have resistive losses in the interconnections.

RATS. Scratch that idea. I see GaAs solar cells run to :eek: $10000 (*) per square meter. That's about 10 square feet, so we're talking less than one watt output for $10000 if operated on terahertz radiation only.

Gallium seems to be more expensive than gold, so that sort of blows the idea of cheap power all to he||.

That oughta been question number one: What's it gonna cost?


(*) That number seems to come from around 2000, when there was a market shortage of Gallium. Prices are lower now, but I can't find current data.

[Ducky]

charles: Hello? Are you going to respond to my about the lab you cite on that report that doesn't exist?

[charlesmbrown]

The 32 x 32 1N34A array is 32 rows in series each row with 32 diodes in parallel. The expert tested several diodes individually including 1N34A, 1N5711, SR304, 1N914A, and Schottky diodes using front end test equipment that he built himself that includes a signal generator, various load resistors, forward / reverse switch and low interference and low loss connections to measuring instruments. He was astounded to find that the 1N34A rectified well at 250 uV rms.

I only had time to write this much now.
Aloha

[charlesmbrown]

My time here was extended to respond to a request for a reaction to the failure to find the lab. I lost track of the lab long ago. The business records research may find out where it conducted business in 1993.

Aloha

[Ducky]

I've done that research, I can find no record. No land title ownerships I can find through friends in the mortgage business, no phone records, no records of the name on your form of the man that performed the test...nothing.

So your answer is that you have absolutely no verifiable data or information at all, whatsoever including not even having the original diode?

Yes or no: Do you have any verifiable information for us to research?

[Ducky]

The 32 x 32 1N34A array is 32 rows in series each row with 32 diodes in parallel. The expert tested several diodes individually including 1N34A, 1N5711, SR304, 1N914A, and Schottky diodes using front end test equipment that he built himself that includes a signal generator, various load resistors, forward / reverse switch and low interference and low loss connections to measuring instruments. He was astounded to find that the 1N34A rectified well at 250 uV rms.

I only had time to write this much now.
Aloha

So you didn't even create the parts in question? You're saying that you can create a device that violates the second law of thermodynamics using parts manufactured by someone else? Does the manufacturer agree with your assessment? Was the manufacturer consulted on your "tests"?

[charlesmbrown]

Re #92: My evidence trail is faint. This answer is more accurate than yes or no. The experiment should be repeated with better documentation.


Re #93: I have had in mind a long time that artists sometimes create their works without personal involvement in every step of their creation using materials that the manufacturer is detached from.
There is some separation of roles. Electronic parts manufacturers are primarily concerned with producing their products to specs. The 1N34A is a commodity with little consultation involved. The expert consulted with me closely about the diode array.


Re #84 p2: A depletion region is a state-of-matter object in a diode. It tends to form curved edges like bubbles without breaking up. I do not believe that a large junction will subdivide into rectifying more than one kTB unit of Johnson noise. The diode array requires many diodes to separately rectify separate kTB lumps of energy. Many photons can form many electron / hole pairs in a single extensive photocell junction. Re #35: I don't understand it throughly yet.


Re 85: The Au / GaAs diode array was at hand it wasn't optimized for power. 0.9 um technology has no commercial future here, the watts / M^2 is poor. Using 10^11 diodes / cm^2 and assuming full THz rectification and an efficiency of 50% leads to a much higher estimate.

Aloha

[marting]

For those interested, check out his site:
http://www.diodearray.com

The site has been up for a while but is skeletal. Clearly this is a shoestring operation. This is one of the few operational pages. He needs a few more flush folk finding the "Investors" button.

http://www.diodearray.com/Applications.htm

Diode Arrays will be thousands of times cheaper than other energy sources after some production refinement. Diode arrays will probably proliferate in individual appliances.

As a fellow entrepreneur, I sympathize but I think he has the cart before the horse and the horse is likely a phantom.

[Ducky]

Re #92: My evidence trail is faint. This answer is more accurate than yes or no. The experiment should be repeated with better documentation.

I'll take that as a "no." Why do you not answer straightforward questions straightforwardly? How do you expect ANYONE to replicate a test you ADMITTEDLY know nothing about?


Re #93: I have had in mind a long time that artists sometimes create their works without personal involvement in every step of their creation using materials that the manufacturer is detached from.
There is some separation of roles. Electronic parts manufacturers are primarily concerned with producing their products to specs. The 1N34A is a commodity with little consultation involved. The expert consulted with me closely about the diode array.

While it is true that artists don't always nowadays create their materials to create with, you didn't say artist. You said "inventor." If you decide to invent with someone else's materials, why wouldn't you ask the manufacturer for specs on performance, etc? I find this suspicious. When I use recording interfaces that aren't intended for applications I think up I ALWAYS contact the manufacturer and speak to their lead techs. I spent a month on the phone with Presonus talking to techs and understanding how I can further push their product. The end result is that I can repeatedly and demonstratably achieve a goal, and have the steps to create this goal well documented. I also do rather extensive testing in my own studio first, which I document heavily. You have done none of this behavior, and yet this is the behavior of the inventor/artist.

So what did the manufacturer say? Did you contact them to get technical data on their product? Again, the answer is YES or NO.

[charlesmbrown]

Re 95: The webpage reflects the interests of the weblady that maintains it while I own it. She was head of a public relations company in LA CA. I made my own webpage at http://www.freewebs.com/diodearray/ another interested person made this website for me: http://diode.array.free.fr/wiki/

Re #96: Nanodevice experiments are asked of nature. If people have relevant findings, that is work that needs to be checked perhaps but not discovered new. Experimenters can proceed with the diode array by learning what I have done even though it is minor and then doing anything they want. I would like for diode array developers to share their findings so a community of cooperating developers can have great power. The ultimate consumer should be treated as a collegue and not subjected to exploitive marketing. Students in fields that involve the diode array should have an accurate view of the diode array community.

Re#96: I talked for a little while with VDI. I do not believe that Johnson noise will damage their dies so there is little to talk about. I have decided to avoid talking about people so people can have blank slate meetings when they first meet. I don't know how much I can discuss people as professional agents.

Re #96: I believe that invention is largely using ideas in new synthesis.

Aloha

[Ducky]

That was a complete non-sequitur.

I now officially do not take you seriously, because you have demonstrated a marked lack of understanding not only for the scientific process, but have demonstrated at the very least unbelievable incompetance and at the worst fraud.

When you can actually back up your claims with something other than your word, come find me, I would be happy to discuss any data you have then.

[MortFurd]

Re 85: The Au / GaAs diode array was at hand it wasn't optimized for power. 0.9 um technology has no commercial future here, the watts / M^2 is poor. Using 10^11 diodes / cm^2 and assuming full THz rectification and an efficiency of 50% leads to a much higher estimate.

Aloha
The Indium/Antimoniy (InSb) material you mentioned in another post isn't that much cheaper than Gallium. Current Indium prices are about $1000 per kilogram. (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3MKT/is_10-3_114/ai_n16112281) The prices I could find for Gallium run to about $2000 per kilogram. Half off sounds good, but consider: If gasoline were available at $2000 per gallon and suddenly became available at $1000 per gallon, I still couldn't afford to fill my gas tank with it.

I see that there is research being done that indicates that InSb is a better material than GaAs for terahertz work, and that InSb terahertz photodetectors are better (or have more potential for improvement than) GaAs photodetectors.

As far as I can tell, there is a limit to the efficiency of solar cells. For GaAs, that limit is around 33%. It looks like you'll need to justify your assumed 50% efficiency for InSb detectors.

[charlesmbrown]

Re #99: I chose n type InSb for its high electron mobility which makes it responsive to high frequencies. A diode has different uses with different determinents of efficiency than a photodetector. A properly engineered diode can be highly efficient. I chose 50% as a loose default because I don't know how efficient a nanometer scale diode rectifying Johnson noise will be.

I would like anyone to tell me if Brownian motion occours with solid / solid contact in a hard vacuum. I want a reliable answer.

Aloha

[MortFurd]

Re #99: I chose n type InSb for its high electron mobility which makes it responsive to high frequencies. A diode has different uses with different determinents of efficiency than a photodetector. A properly engineered diode can be highly efficient. I chose 50% as a loose default because I don't know how efficient a nanometer scale diode rectifying Johnson noise will be.

I would like anyone to tell me if Brownian motion occours with solid / solid contact in a hard vacuum. I want a reliable answer.

Aloha
Photodetectors ARE diodes. That's what you used in your 1993 experiment, wasn't it?

[charlesmbrown]

Re #101:
Yes, many photodetectors are diodes. Diodes inside opaque covers are no longer detectors of light. The 1993 experiment used a small flat square tile of GaAs that had 5,600 Au 2.3 um spots covering ~40% of the area (3 um spacing, staggered rows) surrounded by SiO2 on its face. The face was covered with opaque conductive paste. THz waves, which are between microwave and infra red frequencies, can penetrate thin covers, they can be used to read letters within envelopes. The diode array was tested in the dark within a fully enclosing metal box if my impression of the die and experiment is correct.

Aloha

[MRC_Hans]

The suggestion was that your array was detecting frequencies lower than light. Actually, this could be consistent with the alleged observation of an increase in voltage with temperature. In such a case, your device really outputs energy, but of course not against the 2. law of thermodynamics.

I'm bored now. Whenever Charles has some additional evidence, drop me a line.

Hans

[charlesmbrown]

Simple illustration of diode array:
Mostly from top to bottom:
Thin brown line = Metal plane meeting anodes which is the negative terminal
White band = Insulating matrix interspersed with Blue posts = Anode needles
Dark grey line = junction plane between matrix above and n type InSb below
Yellow = n type InSb interspersed with depletion zones extending from anodes
Thick red arc = representation that few electrons tunnel to the left anode
Thin black arc = representation that many electrons tunnel to the right anode
Thin rown line = Metal plane meeting base which is the positive terminal

[charlesmbrown]

This is the post #105 version of my description of the diode array concept. The prime reason for there being many diodes was not stated in the last version (post #55) Let's improve the narrative until it is very informative and acceptable.

First I learned that the electrical power expressed as Johnson noise is consistent for any resistance value of resistance. A high ohm resistor will express Johnson noise as SQ ROOT high volts; a low ohm resistor will express Johnson noise as SQ ROOT low volts. At about the same time, I learned that each Hz of bandwidth carrying Johnson noise is an independent contributer of energy. This set the pattern for me that each diode is an independent contributor of energy. A group of resistors will revert to the energy of one resistor. The value of the resistor group will be the sum of the resistors if the resistors are in series and the inverse value of the resistor group will be the sum of the inverse values of the resistors if the resistors are in parallel. Diodes behave differently. Half the time the current inside them the is in the forward direction and they conduct with low resistance. The other half the time the current inside them the is in the reverse direction and they conduct with high resistance. For diodes in consistent alignment parallel The forward currents will aggregate instead of reverting and match impedance to a lower resistance where the inverse value of the group forward resistance is equal to the sum of the inverse forward resistance of the diodes (assuming a high forward to reverse resistance ratio).Power in watts equals current squared times resistance. The diodes should be as small as possible to pack as many as possible on the chip. The diode array power increases as the number of diodes increases because each diode is a separate thermodynamic element which hosts the degrees of freedom of each Hz of bandwidth. Small diodes have low junction capacitance allowing the rectification of higher frequencies. Small diodes also have proportionally lower reverse current leakage. In 2000 I read that carbon buckyballs could carry enormous currents so I began to recommend their use as diode array anodes. I later changed the recommendation from buckyballs to carbon nanotubes to reduce the capacitance between the depletion region and the anode far end buss plane.

Aloha

[charlesmbrown]

I'll be out for ~36 hours.

Aloha

[nelsondogg]

Whatever might have been at the given address 13 years ago, there's a house there now. Strictly a residential area.

Google maps is cool.

Zillow (http://www.zillow.com/HomeDetails.htm?city=Carson&state=CA&zprop=21245499) is cool too. Looks like it's been just a house since 1942.

[Ducky]

Zillow (http://www.zillow.com/HomeDetails.htm?city=Carson&state=CA&zprop=21245499) is cool too. Looks like it's been just a house since 1942.

In which case I now posit that the entire evidence provided for this test is fraudulent.

Care to comment charles?

[BrianSI]

Re #96: Nanodevice experiments are asked of nature. If people have relevant findings, that is work that needs to be checked perhaps but not discovered new. Experimenters can proceed with the diode array by learning what I have done even though it is minor and then doing anything they want. I would like for diode array developers to share their findings so a community of cooperating developers can have great power. The ultimate consumer should be treated as a collegue and not subjected to exploitive marketing. Students in fields that involve the diode array should have an accurate view of the diode array community.

Aloha

How delightfully Disney of you.

[Rocky]

In which case I now posit that the entire evidence provided for this test is fraudulent.

Care to comment charles?

No comment on that location, but I run a small electronics business from a home lab only a few miles away from there. Fishy, perhaps, but not proof of a fraud.

-R

[CaveDave]

... but I've never seen anyone try and use a thermocouple array to create usable energy. I suppose a thermocouple array might work but I don't know of anyone who's given it a try.
Depends what you mean by "useable".:D

Besides the isotope/nuclear-thermoelectric systems used in space probes and remote systems (and mentioned by others here), a far more mundane use has been around from early in the last century.

Many gas-fired appliances using a standing pilot flame to ignite the main burner, and to shut down the pilot gas flow and prevent opening the main valve, a thermocouple was used to hold a safety-magnet valve open as long as there was a pilot flame. Flame failure let the valve snap shut.

Many older floor and wall furnaces used a thermopile (many T/Cs in series) not only for the pilot safety, but to also (through a remote thermostat) supply power to operate the main gas valve when heat was demanded. No external power was needed. Good for areas where power lines could fall during blizzards.:D

Cheers,
Dave

ETA Also, self-powered pyrometers for foundry and other work, where meter would read temperature without any batteries or electronics needed.

[Ducky]

No comment on that location, but I run a small electronics business from a home lab only a few miles away from there. Fishy, perhaps, but not proof of a fraud.

-R

OK, fair point, but would you trust any testing done by someone running alab in the basement to be completely professional and isolated from interfering RF?

I dunno, I still think the lab never existed. I can't find evidence of it's ever having filed taxes...

[charlesmbrown]

Re #108, In future narratives, if I mention the data, I will mention that a person posting on The Randi Educational Foundation did not find Forrest Labs or tax records of it in the past including 1993. I think the address on the report was a home office and the test station was in the east California desert.


I'll see if my brother and the expert will build and test another prototype. My brother is an electrical engineer and a good craftsman. He will fill out a circuit board with 64 x 64 1N914A diodes. I will send money to the expert to pay for the diodes. The expert will buy 4,300 diodes and keep the order's records from the point of purchase submission on. The expert will build the enclosing box and internal parts for the prototype with a start on the stuffing for my brother to fill out and send the partial prototype and enough diodes to my brother. This way my brother will see the standard for mounting the diodes and the expert will know that the circuit board will fill out properly. My brother will send the completed prototype back to the expert for testing.


Re # 109, What is delightfully Disney? I don't know how you feel about Disney and you don't know how I feel about Disney.


Re # 102, I posted a careless error about how much of die's surface is covered by the Au dot anodes. If the dots are 2.3 um diameter and they are spaced 3um in a staggered row pattern than the dots cover ~18% of the area.


Aloha

[charlesmbrown]

Editing privileges are available for only 120 minutes unless an administrator overrides the time limit. That time has expired on post #113. I had further thoughts on post #113 and accept leaving it as it is and presenting my revisions in a new post:
In future narratives, if I mention the data in longer form, I will mention that a person claiming to research the data posting on The Randi Educational Foundation did not find Forrest Labs or tax records of it since 1942. I think the address on the report was a home office and the test station was in the east California desert. In the short form, I will write that ~50 nanowatts was reported from an undocumented source.



Aloha

[charlesmbrown]

Re #77, Charles,
To ignore test protocol and peer review because you think it "stifles" invention is poppycock. If I don't maintain my test protocols, then I cannot re-perform the same test next year when I have to troubleshoot the EUT, or compare the new upgrade to the old, etc. Or, in your case, you can't hold as many variables stable as you possibly can.


We both can be right. Developing better test and procedural protocols is important for evolutionary progress. Reconciling continuity and improvement is a difficult task that has to be done carefully to obtain the benefits of both.


This is extremely valuable.


However, Re #60: I do not believe that peer review journals are the best way to disseminate new findings or thinking. My meaning did not come through well because minutia are microscopically new and they do involve thinking. The Journals are ponderous because of their high overhead of context. I meant to contrast the Journals with buzz.


Buzz is fast and sloppy. It is can also be important. Buzz can convey many simple new variations of something exciting simultaneously.


Well running civilization needs many types of thinking done by many kinds of people.


Aloha

[marting]

There is probably no journal out there that would not like to be known as the publisher of a seminal paper fundamentally altering a previously accepted "law."

There is no journal out there not even more fearful of publishing such a claim only to have it thoroughly trashed later.

Which is why extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

[Zombified]

I'll see if my brother and the expert will build and test another prototype. My brother is an electrical engineer and a good craftsman. He will fill out a circuit board with 64 x 64 1N914A diodes. I will send money to the expert to pay for the diodes. The expert will buy 4,300 diodes and keep the order's records from the point of purchase submission on. The expert will build the enclosing box and internal parts for the prototype with a start on the stuffing for my brother to fill out and send the partial prototype and enough diodes to my brother. This way my brother will see the standard for mounting the diodes and the expert will know that the circuit board will fill out properly. My brother will send the completed prototype back to the expert for testing.

Charles, what do you expect to be the result of this test? How much voltage will be measured, and across what sort of test load? How much power? I'm looking for numbers here, not descriptions.

What is your brother supposed to look for? If there is some sort of difficulty with how to mount the diodes, please explain what it is. Is there some reason you'd expect a problem mounting diodes on a plated 0.062" thick FR-4 board and soldered with conventional 60/40 organic core like Kester 331? What will and won't make a difference to this test?

Don't you think it would be useful to have this test independently replicated?

[charlesmbrown]

The expert, who is a person other than my brother, said that he wanted fairly long leads to reduce the mechanical stress on the diodes. Long leads also protect the diodes from the heat of soldering. Excessively long leads take up too much room and have too much mechanical leverage, another source of weakness. The expert will show how long he wants the leads when he mounts some of he diodes. He will also then be assured that the boards full of diodes will fit in the box properly. When the boards are filled with diodes, the unit will be shipped to the expert. Someone will check the diodes before they are mounted. Shorted ones are damaging; open ones are useless.


I would be happy with any independent testing. Different discrete diodes can be tried. The expert did not want to work with the 1T7 chip. It should be tested to see if it shows more than 50 mV across 25 K ohms anode dot side negative.


Aloha

[Ducky]

Re #108, In future narratives, if I mention the data, I will mention that a person posting on The Randi Educational Foundation did not find Forrest Labs or tax records of it in the past including 1993. I think the address on the report was a home office and the test station was in the east California desert.


How do you know it was in the Desert? Why isn't that address on the paper you provided? Can you provide evidence of this mysterious desert lab's existence?


I'm sorry but I simply do not believe this lab exists period. I can find no evidence ANYWHERE of its existence. If you have further information to prove this lab existed then please post it here, otherwise I will have to conclude that you are a fraud.

[charlesmbrown]

They told me over the phone that they tested it in the desert.

I think calling me a fraud is too severe but I will not waste time with the accusation except to try to make future experiments difficult to challenge. The best way to do that is to build, or encourage others to build, advanced versions of the diode array that work at high power density.

If people are too cautious to try to produce a high power density diode array prototype directly in a nanofabrication lab, smaller steps can be taken.

I have heard the saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I don't believe that claims that the Second Law of Thermodynamics can be violated by diode arrays are extraordinary because the logic is clear and simple. Instead, I believe that the Second Law has an extraordinary but overextended grip on civilization. I would like the Second Law to be refuted by experimental evidence from devices which work because of a better fit to reality.

Aloha

[Ducky]

They told me over the phone that they tested it in the desert.

I think calling me a fraud is too severe but I will not waste time with the accusation except to try to make future experiments difficult to challenge. The best way to do that is to build or encourage others to build advanced versions of the diode array that work at high power density.

If people are too cautious to try to produce a high power density diode array prototype directly in a nanofabrication lab, smaller steps can be taken.

I have heard the saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I don't believe that claims that the Second Law of Thermodynamics can be violated by diode arrays are extraordinary because the logic is clear and simple. Instead, I believe that the Second Law has an extraordinary but overextended grip on civilization. I would like the Second Law to be refuted by experimental evidence from devices which work because of a better fit to reality.

Aloha


Too severe?

My good man, you have proposed to have created a device which violates the second law of thermodynamics. This alone is an achievement worthy of a Nobel Prize. When asked about the particulars we learn that not only do you not have the original device, but that you didn't fabricate the parts to it - you simply wired up someone else's manufactured parts in series. The only evidence of testing is a scanned document you provided that shows sparse data at the best, and is from a laboratory that seems to have been a house since 1942. When confronted on this you add more points to the story such as they told you things on the phone like how to wire up the next test, and where they did the testing. This information is only offered by you AFTER being cornered about the testing. On that note, you not only have no ability to discuss the tersting protocols, you admit to not have been at the tests at all.

So in short, you have created a device which is worthy of global recognition and unbelievable fame as a scientist, yet you have absolutely nothing but your word to support it, and a story with more holes in it than swiss cheese. And you think me calling you a fraud is harsh?

Get real.

As for your "logic" regarding why you think it is perfectly normal for this array to violate the second law, let me ask you why no one else in relevant fields of science has come up with the same idea since your 1975 patent?

[Zombified]

The best way to do that is to build, or encourage others to build, advanced versions of the diode array that work at high power density.

If people are too cautious to try to produce a high power density diode array prototype directly in a nanofabrication lab, smaller steps can be taken.
This is why I keep coming back to you making a prediction and describing as precisely as possible how to test this with standard off-the-shelf parts; it's a lot easier and less costly than paying to fabricate a high density diode array chip. Your best strategy is to describe as completely as possible the simplest and lowest cost array that will demonstrate the effect you claim.

To clarify the lead length matter you described in your previous post, is this a matter of reliability rather than performance? Are you board-mounting the diodes?

I'm slightly concerned about the lead length thing because that's a good way to pick up stray RF. I would have expected surface mount packages tightly packed on a PCB with a good ground plane.

I don't believe that claims that the Second Law of Thermodynamics can be violated by diode arrays are extraordinary because the logic is clear and simple.
Unfortunately, few other people are finding your logic compelling, and therefore your best recourse is to compelling evidence. The requirement for extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims isn't a "rule" that was promulgated by some saintly founders of science... it's practical, pragmatic advice on how to convince people of something they aren't inclined to accept easily.

[charlesmbrown]

Re #122: I like the idea of surface mount diodes and will email it to the expert. It may be simple enough for him to do without my brother, tightening the project.

Re #121: In the late 60's or early 70's our family psycologist said that if I was right than I would win the Nobel prize. He was a very cool person and a master of wise and succint observation. I think that I accepted this comment with the feeling that the most important thing was that I be right and to keep developing the concept. It is bad taste for people to promote themselves as probable Nobel prize winners. This is a bind and Dr. Bodin, who was born a long time ago, was an expert in resolving binds. Often recognizing a bind leads to its resolution. Developing the concept was a long term project in which it eventually became clear that the changes in technology and society are the most important part of the issue.

Another thing that I often hear is that I should be or become a zillionare. I don't see that as inevitable and instead feel that the more important development of a lot of exciting applications is more important. If my income remains the same, I won't have to worry about money because the diode array will increase everyone's quality of life. I also don't see any reason for money to circulate through me.

I don't know why people haven't discovered the diode array independently. That is a more complex issue than the logic of the diode array. Perhaps people are afraid of perpetual motion of the kind where energy is not gained or lost. I recently saw an example of this where a very complicated Brownian motor, a decedent of Feynman's ratchet wheel, had a temperature difference imposed on different parts of the ratchet teeth by nano plumbing to create a nanoscale Carnot cycle refrigerator / motor supported with elaborate math.

I am looking for people who are favorably inclined towards the diode array so I am trying to improve my writing about it which means that I have to learn more.

Aloha

[charlesmbrown]

Another device is described in Realization of Maxwell's Hypothesis an experiment against the Second Law of Thermodynamics http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0311104 In it two similar electrodes that readily emit electrons are influenced by a magnetic field directed into or out of the page so electrons will follow a circular path from one electrode to the other but not back because the path is one way. This device is easy to change to show that the output follows the experimental conditions. Without the permanent magnet in place creating the field, no power is released; the polarity of the output is reversed if the magnetic field is reversed.

Aloha

[marting]

Charles,

In the late 60's or early 70's our family psycologist said that if I was right than I would win the Nobel prize. He was a very cool person and a master of wise and succint observation. I think that I accepted this comment with the feeling that the most important thing was that I be right and to keep developing the concept.

Another interpretation is that, while the guy was pointing out that the idea, if true, would be so revolutionary as to essentially lock in a Nobel, an idea I tend to agree with, he wished to point out that the idea had also escaped numerous, very smart people. That you should, instead of taking it as "I accepted this comment with the feeling that the most important thing was that I be right," take it to mean that while the doctor no doubt considered you very bright, perhaps in this instance you were wrong.

How important it is to you to be right (an odd notion) has no bearing on whether you are, in fact, right. Or wrong.

As I said earlier, that you don't seem to believe there is any significant chance you are in error actually decreases my estimate of your success. From my view, I would lay long odds you are in error but I do understand better why you have that view.

[charlesmbrown]

I have worried about being wrong too.
There is only so much ground to cover on the question though.
I feel obliged to read and now web research too so I have perused a lot of material on 2LoT. I think that the diode array and a few other approaches has survived the inquest.
To exaggerate only a little, it seems that there are people who insist that 2LoT is true because they know the concept exists.
I understand that I am supposed to be honestly right instead of right by intimidation or deflection of nonsupporting truths so I see no problem with the ideal.
A widely read book of the 70's, Games People Play, taught that one that types of communication should be answered in kind. A premise in the book is that there is an inner parent, an inner adult, and an inner child inside all of us. The book therefore recommends that a parental mode be answered by a parental mode etc. I feel that I am encountering crossed communication if I talk about mechanical points and am met with social points.
I would like to see a critique of the nanonozzles in post #33.

Aloha

[Ducky]

What social points are you met with? The entire line of questioning on everyone's part has been specifically about what you have posted. If you are referring to my points, They specifically have to do with your lack of any evidence regarding what is possibly fraudulent data on your part.

Why don't you provide some evidence? Why do all direct questions put to you recieve vague answers?

[Zombified]

There's a great deal of experimental support for the 2nd law, as well as theoretical analysis that supports it. It will, in fact, take considerably good evidence to overcome that.

As for communication, well, it's an Internet forum, and you just have to expect it'll be a little chaotic. Different people will look at different things, and this is as organized as a forum discussion is going to get. ;)

I haven't read the article you mention yet, and I probably should, but I'm wondering how the authors accounted for the kinetic energy of the electron and the resulting potential on the electrodes. After all, only moving electrons are affected by magnetic fields, and a moving electron has an associated kinetic energy. When it curves in a magnetic field or when it strikes the electrode it will give off EM waves, and those waves represent degrees of freedom that could account for additional entropy. But I haven't read the article yet.

[kmortis]

Too severe?

My good man, you have proposed to have created a device which violates the second law of thermodynamics. This alone is an achievement worthy of a Nobel Prize. When asked about the particulars we learn that not only do you not have the original device, but that you didn't fabricate the parts to it - you simply wired up someone else's manufactured parts in series. The only evidence of testing is a scanned document you provided that shows sparse data at the best, and is from a laboratory that seems to have been a house since 1942. When confronted on this you add more points to the story such as they told you things on the phone like how to wire up the next test, and where they did the testing. This information is only offered by you AFTER being cornered about the testing. On that note, you not only have no ability to discuss the tersting protocols, you admit to not have been at the tests at all.

So in short, you have created a device which is worthy of global recognition and unbelievable fame as a scientist, yet you have absolutely nothing but your word to support it, and a story with more holes in it than swiss cheese. And you think me calling you a fraud is harsh?

Get real.

As for your "logic" regarding why you think it is perfectly normal for this array to violate the second law, let me ask you why no one else in relevant fields of science has come up with the same idea since your 1975 patent?
Fowlsound,
Speaking as one who's had to contract test labs, it's not totally uncommon to have only the home offices address on the documentation. So, CMB's claim toward that isn't that far outside the realm of possibility.

Also, to the "basement lab" crack, that's really beneath you, FS. I could, quite easily, start up a fully functioning, high-quality lab in my barn (assuming that I had the 100 - 200K to pay for the chamber (and I'd be able to test anything from this diode array to a smallish jet engine). It's not the location, it's hte people. Any jerk with a cardboard box and a roll of aluminum foil could make a halfway decent temporary test cell to test an item of this size. It really doesn't take that much.

Now, does any of this mean that the diodes in question can do what CMB says they can? No. I'm just telling you that, from someone in a profession that relies on outside test houses from time to time, your arguments are specious. Since it's a dead end, leave it at that. Charges of "fraud" are counter-productive. All of his responces concerning the test lab are reasonable.

Of course, the data shows that the diodes only have an output voltage that's (partially) dependant on temperature. That's not new. That's not special. That's not even interesting.

[Ducky]

Fowlsound,
Speaking as one who's had to contract test labs, it's not totally uncommon to have only the home offices address on the documentation. So, CMB's claim toward that isn't that far outside the realm of possibility.

Also, to the "basement lab" crack, that's really beneath you, FS. I could, quite easily, start up a fully functioning, high-quality lab in my barn (assuming that I had the 100 - 200K to pay for the chamber (and I'd be able to test anything from this diode array to a smallish jet engine). It's not the location, it's hte people. Any jerk with a cardboard box and a roll of aluminum foil could make a halfway decent temporary test cell to test an item of this size. It really doesn't take that much.

Now, does any of this mean that the diodes in question can do what CMB says they can? No. I'm just telling you that, from someone in a profession that relies on outside test houses from time to time, your arguments are specious. Since it's a dead end, leave it at that. Charges of "fraud" are counter-productive. All of his responces concerning the test lab are reasonable.

Of course, the data shows that the diodes only have an output voltage that's (partially) dependant on temperature. That's not new. That's not special. That's not even interesting.


The basis for me calling possible fraud isnb't solely on the fact it was a home lab. If you read back I acknowledge it is possible for there to be such a lab. Recording studios are often the same way. But let's translate this to something closer to my field.

If I were to invent a new humbucking pickup made out of meunster cheese and wanted to test it in applications in a dry recording studio in 1993 I may have sent it to, say, Doug McGee at Middle Earth Studios in Farmington Hills, MI. A the time his studio was run out of a basement, an was set up properly.

However you can bet I would not only have been at the testing but I would know what protocols were used, how it was tested, and have been in contact with him much more than our friend here says he was with his lab. I would also know that Doug McGee had a second space (that is now the main studio) on Orchard Lake Road in Farmington Hills that he used for isolated recordings. I coudl tell you that this space has a heavy ground put in, is completely sound deadened and runs with a neve console and a protools HD system as well as a sony 16 track tape machine.

I can give names, and addresses of where my cheese pickup was tested, and I can give protocols on grounding, shielding, etc. I could even have told you what guitars it was mounted in, and what amps it was used through and have recordings of each as comparative testing for DBT listening. I would even know what other pickups were used as a control.

My problem is not just that it is a home lab, but that our friend has absolutely no idea what the testing was that was done, where it was done, or even beyond a name on a paper who he talked to.

It is these descrepencies beyond the basement lab that I put together as possible fraud, and am confused as to why he can't produce anything to corroborate the event.



ETA:

And you can be darn sure I would still have the tested equipment, unlike our friend who can't produce the original tested array.

ETA2:

I am also sure that more than a 1 page document would have been generated for this. For recording alone there apre pages of notes as to setup, mic placement etc. etc.

[marting]

Charles,
Let's get back on track here. First, the power involved is actually pretty large. Especially compared to the thermal electron Maxwell's demon idea you linked to. It's not far from what would be quite valuable. Specifically, your device should be able to power a watch indefinitely and at considerably less size and weight than watch batteries. While surge currents required for alarms/illumination and such would require a super cap or a small li-ion cell, the idea of a such a watch should be compelling and watches are all about marketing.

So perhaps you can hit up some high end watch maker to fund some research? The power voltage and current involved are just not that small as to require elaborate testing conditions, especially as current instruments of the required accuracy are small and batter powered making testing in a small closed and shielded box easy.

[charlesmbrown]

Re #130, #131 seen but not yet responded to:
I agree that a good recording engineer should take extensive notes because each session is valuable and checking the notes before a session will keep the quality high and sometimes allow improvements, with accompanying changes, to be smoothly added.


I didn't give due regard to experiment notes in 1993. I have to overcome the primitive feeling that anybody can make a diode array in any size for any purpose because, while that may be ultimately true, it isn't true in the beginning, when there is less assurance that even the most carefully prepared experiment will work.


Thanks for pressing me so I could realize this and write it down.


Aloha

[Ziggurat]

I'm not sure if this has been expressly mentioned before, but at low voltages, the forward-bias current and the backwards-bias current for a diode in thermal equilibrium are equal. In other words, small thermal fluctuations will actually drive current through the diode in both directions. If you want to generate power from thermal fluctuations using a diode, you need to find a diode where this is no longer true even at small biasing voltages, and I don't think that's true for any diode at thermal equilibrium. You can do it if the diode is NOT at thermal equilibrium (ie, it has a thermal gradient across it), but then, you don't need the diode to extract power under such conditions either.

[marting]

I'm not sure if this has been expressly mentioned before, but at low voltages, the forward-bias current and the backwards-bias current for a diode in thermal equilibrium are equal. In other words, small thermal fluctuations will actually drive current through the diode in both directions. If you want to generate power from thermal fluctuations using a diode, you need to find a diode where this is no longer true even at small biasing voltages, and I don't think that's true for any diode at thermal equilibrium. You can do it if the diode is NOT at thermal equilibrium (ie, it has a thermal gradient across it), but then, you don't need the diode to extract power under such conditions either.

Which brings us to the obvious test, use one diode with a 50Meg load. Should see 50mv, right? You would need a low bias curret (<1nA) op-amp in follower config to buffer the value but they are cheap and easy to cobble up.

[charlesmbrown]

Re #133: This is exactly the the opposing argument that I need to learn more about in as much detail as possible. I can't converse in deep math but I could step through it with help.

I think that I have heard the argument as: The drifting tendency of mobile electrons in n type semiconductor will not lead to current falling out of the diode continuously - the tendency of mobile electrons within the semiconductor to leave the diode and enter the external circuit is balanced by the volume of the depletion region where the charge from positively charged dopant ions held in the solid lattice of the material has a counter tendency to pull back the electrons resulting in zero net current. However, a change in the volume of the depletion region will be met by a corresponding flow of electrons.

External current is different. 10 pA injected forward through the diode will encounter a certain resistance and a certain voltage drop as it passes through. 10 pA injected in the reverse direction will encounter a different resistance and voltage.

Johnson noise is full circuit electrical power. It exists in the simple condions of a resistor. It can exist in the more complicated conditions of a diode. It can be rectified if the diode is small enough to respond significantly to it. It is different than the management of a diode's internal balance.

One large junction will handle one share of Johnson noise with inefficient rectification because the depletion region will not break up within one diode.

Aloha

[charlesmbrown]

Re #134, Do we have the issue of the load's noise here? Will an amplifier input act as a noise free 50 Meg load? The load resistance issue is insignificant in an array because, hypothetically, the rectified and aggregated output will overwhelm the load's noise. The load noise issue discouraged the Battelle Institute from studying the diode array. I will send post #134 to my expert.

Aloha

[marting]

The noise from the from the load resistor and op amp should be several orders of magnitude below the projected 50mv dc. Also, the input should be filtered with a .047uf (low leakage) on the + term of the op-amp follower. Keep it simple. Don't use any instrumentation/power source that can't be put inside a small, shielded box. Aluminum foil shielding will work for discerning these rather large values but it isn't much good at attenuating middle/low freq B fields so you should also connect the components to minimize the area of any plane cross section by twisting parallel runs and keeping the circuit as small as possible. Build it on a ground plane pcb if possible but make sure the substrate/platform is a good insulator.

If you get a high reading, don't assume the second law is null and void. Run experiments to determine sensitivity to external fields and identify sources of error. If the signal remains high, build another platform independently with a different design - for instance a fully differential front end instrumentation amp.

Good luck.

[Zombified]

One note about making a pcb - in addition to a good ground plane, if you lay it out cleverly by reversing the physical (not electrical) orientation of every other diode and corresponding traces it can help cancel some common-mode interference. Like a twisted pair.

[charlesmbrown]

I have one 1T7 die on my shelf. Does anyone want to try it? You have a tighter shipping trail if you buy the chip from VDI though. Dr. Thomas W. Crowe does not believe in the diode array, he is even irritated if the subject is brought up.

Aloha

[charlesmbrown]

I sent posts #134-#136-137-#138 to the expert because of the advise for future experiments. I added a reminder that the output of 1,024 diodes was marginal so I don't expect readable power from one diode. He hasn't answered any of the posts that I sent him since joining this forum.

Aloha

[charlesmbrown]

5,600 100% efficient diodes in terms of 1 / 2 kTB would produce ~11uW. Therefore 50 nW is ~1 / 2 % efficient. Anything more than 0%, if valid, is important because there is zero conventional thermodynamic availability in a stirred uniform temperature bath. 10^11 diodes @ 1 / 2 % efficiency in terms of 1 / 2 kTB should produce ~1 watt.


Aloha

[charlesmbrown]

Can anyone refer me to a DC DC chip to change 50mV / more than 3A say 5A into 3V / 50 mA self powered and self starting.

Aloha

[MRC_Hans]

Can anyone refer me to a DC DC chip to change 50mV / more than 3A say 5A into 3V / 50 mA self powered and self starting.

AlohaNot likely to be available off the shelf. The solar cell guys may have the closest thing to it.

However, allow me to suggest that you produce the 50mV 3A first. Afterwards, somebody will surely think of a way to convert it.

Hans

[Schneibster]

Da Schneib strongly suggests that you folks examine this page (http://www.ephilosopher.com/phpBB_14-action-viewtopic-topic-5095.html) and also this one (http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/valevfaq.htm) with a careful and critical eye. You will almost certainly find something to your advantage unless your handle is that of a Charles Schultz cartoon character. Perhaps I should delicately note that we appear to be goats crossing the bridge, if anyone is with me. I don't know about you, but I don't pay to cross the bridge. I hope that any moderators who feel I might have violated the terms of service by that hint will take a careful look at the pages I have linked and realize that far from being an insult, we appear to be in the actual presence of the real phenomenon at this time. This one goes back a bit. Anyone, BTW, ever heard of Ludwig Plutonium? This phenomenon appears to share several important characteristics with that one.

On the other hand, y'all should be aware that the 2nd law of thermodynamics appears to have certain exceptions, and that these exceptions appear to allow the temporary reversal of entropy, for very short times and over very short areas/volumes; they have actually been demonstrated as experimental verification of the Fluctuation Theorem, which (unless I have missed a vital part of the conversation on this thread) some or all of you may not be entirely familiar with.

It is sometimes my practice to discuss abstruse physics, and it's often to my advantage since I generally learn something new; if anyone is curious, I'll be happy to discuss the FT with you. You should probably take in the Wikipedia article on it first, and there are also several papers and articles of various sorts available to reasonably easy-to-guess Googles. Yes, this is really truly real and has really truly been experimentally verified; no, it is not a source of perpetual motion, but instead a refinement of the principles behind the 2nd law, and a slight correction that must be applied to very small systems, over very short times, or both. To be more accurate, what this specifically is is a mathematical theorem that has been proven that shows why the 2nd law is as it is.

I do not believe as Mr. Brown appears to that there would be any way to force any electrons across the depletion layer at the junction due to effects of the FT. This is because pushing electrons across the depletion layer is not free, as Mr. Brown appears to believe it is.

The depletion layer in fact forms spontaneously at the junction in the quiescent or even disconnected device, due to the recombination of the holes that exist in excess in the P-type region with the electrons that exist in excess in the N-type region. This process continues if forward bias is placed across the diode, with holes being injected (or electrons being ejected, it's all the same thing) from the P-type region, and electrons being injected (or holes ejected, if you prefer conventional current flow models) from the N-type, but without both the ability to supply holes at one end and electrons at the other, the region depletes until the distance from the junction is sufficient to overcome the band-gap between the P-type and N-type materials at which point the device is static.

Now, here is the problem that cannot be overcome: crossing this depletion layer is not free. In fact, to "push" an electron or hole across the layer so that it can recombine, a certain minimum amount of voltage is required; for a silicon diode, this "bias voltage" is about 0.7V, and although specialized Schottkey diode rectifiers exist which can reduce this to about 0.3V or even lower under some circumstances, there is and can be no diode in which this bias voltage is zero; if it's zero, that's because the N-type and P-type regions are identical to one another, that is, not either N-type or P-type, or, heh, JUST A FREAKING PIECE OF WIRE. It is in fact the case that the depletion layer forms from electrons being forced across the junction by heat! Therefore, for Mr. Brown's device to work, EMF would have to appear from nowhere, which although less easily seen as impossible than current appearing from nowhere, is equally impossible.

Sorry Mr. Brown (or Valev, or whatever).

It is almost certain that Mr. Brown's device either worked as a thermocouple, despite the efforts to avoid it, or that it received THz or higher frequency noise from the environment around it despite any shielding, and I should point out that since THz is FIR, relatively low-temperature objects emit it whether they are Faraday cages or not. It would appear that the usual US Patent Office restrictions on perpetual motion machines were relaxed in this case, for two reasons: first, this device does not purport to create energy from nothing, merely to convert heat into electricity, and not very efficiently given the power densities I calculate from that test report (and yes, it looks like a real test report, and may well have been printed from an early personal computer with a GPIB bus connection to the HP test gear that apparently was used). Second, while the patent office is pretty savvy about mechanical devices, the advanced use of silicon junctions was just being born around then (although transistors had been around a long time) and numerous electronic patents were being granted, and it must be admitted that the precise manner in which Mr. Brown believed his device would work was not exactly crystal clear from the content of the application (and this may not have been happenstance, either). So it may well have "slipped through the cracks" without anyone really quite understanding the full implications.

In no way should this post be taken as a verification, endorsement, or other supporting data for Mr. Brown's assertions; in fact, I think (apparently along with most here) that it is extremely unlikely that we will be powering appliances from this anytime soon, or for that matter, ever.

We should keep carefully in mind that even should this device prove out, the conservation of energy guarantees that a joule of heat will have to be consumed per second every second by the device in order to produce a watt; this is a fair bit of energy, and you'll want to keep in mind that one horsepower is 746 watts, and the motors on even small hand tools are 1/4 or 1/2 horsepower, whereas the motors on washing machines and so forth are often 2 to 5 horsepower. At this rate, you could run several commercial deep-freezers off your dishwasher. Or maybe that's "run a dishwasher off several freezers." :rolleyes: Perhaps at this point you are beginning to see what I have been hinting at earlier. You know, if this were to work, we could run the entire world off freezers. Heh.

[marting]

I hadn't realized Archimedes had changed his name. He was quite well known on the usenet fusion ng. Indeed, this thread does seem to parallel many others, some of which I've personally encountered in my career.

[charlesmbrown]

Re post # 144: Thank you for your discussion.

Many of the links failed for me.

I think we are in good agreement about a depletion region forming in an unconnected diode and, when connected to a forward bias, becomming thinner and,when reverse biased, becoming thicker. I don't understand band gap voltage well but I hope that the lapse is minor and not abused.

The equivalent circuit given in the reference text, D. G. Fink, Radar Engineering, P130 - 1 has a noise voltage source En in series with a internal resistor (sic) Rn connected to a measuring circuit of resistance Rm, which abstracts noise power from the source... This looks like voltage from nowhere as an artifact of the thermal motion of electrons in a circuit. Johnson noise occours in resistors which are similar to wires.

A mobile electron, subjected to thermal agitation, in a high resistance resistor can produce 0.3 or 0.7 or 5 volts A.C. A small depletion region has high electrical resistance. If the depletion region is in equlibrium under three conditions [1] with no current at rest thickness [2] a forward shifted equlibrium with high forward current / a thinner depletion region and [3] a backward shifted equilibrium with low current / a thicker depletion region, than the diode will release more current in the forward direction ( using the electrons - as - current convention) and build up a surplus of electrons with an attendant voltage in reverse bias. That is the voltage that subsequent electrons have to climb into, reducing their thermal energy.

A study of grinding out the bores of cannons led to the fall of the caloric theory of heat. I hope in the future we will have small local power networks. A laundromat and a food freezing facility could be in equlibrium with the heated air, water, and clothing balancing the seepage of heat through insulated freezer walls. Its First Law behavior beyond ridicule.

New inventions are new to everybody. The patent office has no business extending old theories that may fail in new circumstances. If nanodiodes can rectify Johnson noise fluctuations, and a plurality of nanodiodes in consistant parallel can aggregate the effect, than the first inventor to conceive of a device embodying these properties, if they are useful, should be granted a patent upon filing.

Aloha

[charlesmbrown]

Re #144: Thanks for the discussion.


Many of the links failed for me.


I think we are in good agreement about the properties of depletion regions within diodes. I don't understand band gap voltage well but I hope this lapse is not abused. I see the attraction of exposed lattice trapped dopant material ions as the opponent of ever expanding depletion regions leading to a standoff.


From Radar Engineering D.G. Fink: The concept of available [Johnson noise] power can be developed [thus:]. The noise source has a series voltage source en [This is a voltage appearing in the circuit] and an internal resistance Rn. It is connected to a noise measuring circuit of Rm, which abstracts noise power from the source. The maximum power flows from source to Rm, according to the familiar theorem of elementary electricity, when Rn = Rm [ which leads to Rn available noise Power = kTB.]. The SQ ROOT voltage is proportional to the resistance. I t can be 0.3V, 0.7V, 5V. A depletion region is a high resistance region.


Resistors develop Johnson noise power. In the simple case of a resistor, Johnson noise is beyond equilibrium. A diode is more complex. In a shifting equilibrium, the depletion region is of normal thickness when no current is applied, it is thin when conducting forward high current at low voltage and it is thick when blocking reverse high voltage at low current. Under these three circumstances, allowing for the time spent in each, there is a net forward current at a low attendant voltage. This is reverse bias to the diode. It is this voltage which slows the approach of subsequent approaching electrons, cooling them.


A photoelectric effect involving Far Infra Red would have the opposite polarity. Forrest Labs verrified on the phone that the anodes were negative.


Inventions are new to everybody. The patent office should not be in the business of extending old theories into new circumstances. If nanodiodes can plausibly rectify Johnson noise and a plurality of them in consistent parallel can aggregate rectified Johnson noise than the first inventor to embody the effect in a useful device should be granted a patent in due course upon filing.


The observation of grinding bores in cannons led to the fall of the caloric fluid theory of heat. There may be small local power networks in the future. Diode arrays may refrigerate food lockers in a food storage warehouse and export electricity to a laundromat. The seepage of heat through the insulated walls at the warehouse may balance the heating of air, water, and clothing at the laundromat. Ice skating rinks in the tropics may balance food dehydrators and roasters. Offsetting an imbalance will be cheap. This is First Law balance. Exercise will lead to proficiency in determining it.


Aloha

[charlesmbrown]

Post #146 failed to appear and it was my only copy so I rewrote it as #147. When I posted #147, #146 appeared in front of it also.

Aloha

[joobz]

unlike many other theories, the laws of thermodynamics are predictive.

They were hotly contested issues. no one wanted to accept that you can convert work into heat and back.

Joule proved this conclusively through many clever experiments proving it. All predicted by the laws. The best being the abiltity to boil water using a series of paddles immersed in water connected to a falling weight. thereby converting potential energy into heat.

I only state this because we ask for the proof. Provide the proof. Thermo had to be proven. It wasn't a give me. So now, all we need is 1 experiment from you. Not the thousands that have justified it's tenants. we just ask for 1 that can conclusively show otherwise.

please provide it. no more words.

[charlesmbrown]

Joule did such good work for the time that the watt second is named for him.

The Second Law gets in the way of turning heat completely into work, reversing the process so that the weights at the bottom of their run rise again while the lifting means cools, restoring the original conditions.

The input and output of a steam engine can be accurately measured by modern instruments. This doesn't prove that it is the best engine using the best process.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics has been predominant for more than the last 100 years. When playing twenty questions, it is best to have each question parse the unknown in half. This means that thousands of student model steam engines are not a serious investigation of the validity of the second Law. They illustrate it rather than investigating it. What experiments parse the possibility of the Second Law being true evenly with the possibility that something better is possible?

Does the quest to transcend the Second Law Interest you? Should the quest be perused?

I would appreciate some help. Thermodynamic experiments don't have to be done by me personally. I see no reason to hold back research while people wait for me to perform adequately describable experiments.

Aloha

[MortFurd]

Joule did such good work for the time that the watt second is named for him.

The Second Law gets in the way of turning heat completely into work, reversing the process so that the weights at the bottom of their run rise again while the lifting means cools, restoring the original conditions.

The input and output of a steam engine can be accurately measured by modern instruments. This doesn't prove that it is the best engine using the best process.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics has been predominant for more than the last 100 years. When playing twenty questions, it is best to have each question parse the unknown in half. This means that thousands of student model steam engines are not a serious investigation of the validity of the second Law. They illustrate it rather than investigating it. What experiments parse the possibility of the Second Law being true evenly with the possibility that something better is possible?

Does the quest to transcend the Second Law Interest you? Should the quest be perused?

I would appreciate some help. Thermodynamic experiments don't have to be done by me personally. I see no reason to hold back research while people wait for me to perform adequately describable experiments.

Aloha
If you're so bleeding hot to disprove the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why don't you put some of your hot air to use and do some actual experiments?

Tossing out ideas and asking someone else to confirm them is either laziness or intellectual cowardice. I'll also be kind and include the possibility of a complete and utter klutz who has ideas but only two left hands full of thumbs to carry them out. If anyone take in mind that this is also a cut down to Stephen Hawking, please consider that he also does the work on the theoretical background needed to understand and either support or disprove his theories.

Mr. Brown:
If you are so convinced of the possibilities presented by your invention, please do at least some of the work (theoretical or physical) to prove your concept. The way you carry on makes it look like you are either running a scam or else afraid if you do the work your idea will be disproved.

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*
The Second Law of Thermodynamics has been predominant for more than the last 100 years. *snip*

Well strictly speaking, it has been "predominant" ever since the Big Bang.


Does the quest to transcend the Second Law Interest you? Should the quest be perused?


Don't be daft. What is one of the most (if not the most) pertinent problems of humanity to-day? Energy. Anybody finding a way round the 2nd law is ensured a place in history above practically anybody else, and virtually endless riches.


I would appreciate some help. Thermodynamic experiments don't have to be done by me personally. I see no reason to hold back research while people wait for me to perform adequately describable experiments.

What you need to do is to make it even remotely plausible that there is something to research. You haven't succeeded so far.

Hans

[Schneibster]

Perhaps he wasn't listening when I told him that there is now a mathematical proof- a Theorem- which accounts precisely how the Second Law works. Before that existed, it was at least conceivable that someone might someday find a way around the Second Law. Now it is not.

[charlesmbrown]

I don't go along with anything derived from the argument that 0 Vf diodes are needed instead of realistic diodes with reasonably asymmetrical conductivity at low voltage. There is a small proportion of high energy electrons poised at the junction ready to cross.

I've seen a lot of poor arguments against the second Law, some of them expressed mathematically.

My colleague found that a 1N34A Ge diode rectified well at 250 uV. I disclose that an array of 32 sections of 32 1N34A diodes in parallel in series made near zero power. 1N34As are not well suited for this application.

Aloha

[charlesmbrown]

My colleague, Tom Schum, granted me permission to allow you to link to his web page which includes a section on the diode array. http://mysite.verizon.net/vzesfls5/files/ (http://mysite.verizon.net/vzesfls5/files/)

He advised me by email that test aparatus needing op amps needed skilful construction. He also mentioned that some had internal chopper noise.

I feel that I am a klutz in doing my own work. I am willing to pay for help.

Aloha

[marting]

I'd stay away from choppers stabilized amps. They inject a fair amount of AC which could be rectified though they are useful for reading uV levels.

Schum looks like a competent ee/tech. I have a few quibles with his test setup but he's obviously put a fair amount of energy (sorry) into various free energy projects and it doesn't seem to impacted his abiity to do decent experiments. At least in this case since he didn't see any DC output at the limits of his test setup. Why not just use his setup with your microwave diode array?

[Schneibster]

I'd stay away from assuming that because you need 0.7V to overcome the band gap across a junction, the junction therefore generates 0.7V, and in fact any argument that takes anything that looks remotely like this as an assumption. But that's just me.

[charlesmbrown]

Re #156: Tom would be pleased to test the microwave diode array but neither he nor VDI is willing to modify the chip as purchased for this application by somehow connecting all the anode dots on the face of the chip to a lead. The chip is barely visible.

Re #157: The 0.3 or 0.7 V band gap is usually invoked to make it sound like diodes are 0.3 or 0.7 V Zener diodes in the forward direction. Diodes do not have that characterstic. The argument where there is an equilibrium between diffusion and depletion region ion exposure is better supported.

Aloha