MIT enters the game? Overunity after all? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: atferrari
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2015, 12:30:42 pm
content: Is the MIT people riding the verge after all?http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-03/09/230-percent-efficient-ledsRecalling loosely what Don Lancaster amongst others used to say, if true, it could be that we will need to:Redefine what overunity is.Find a way to measure this more accurately (or should I say in a proper way?).The Chambers to pass an ammendement to the Laws of Thermodynamics.Otherwise... Bedini, Kinato or one of the so many out there.

author: rollatorwieltje
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 03, 2015, 01:11:50 pm
content: It doesn't draw more energy than it's putting out, it's even mentioned in the article. It has a COP of 1+, which is perfectly possible, just like heatpumps for example. It outputs more light than the amount of electrical energy is put in, but it also draws energy from the surroundings. It converts heat to light. Without heat it wouldn't work. The nice thing is that heat is everywhere, so you could consider it free, but it needs to exist before this can work.

author: AndyC_772
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2015, 01:35:50 pm
content: Electronic devices are pretty universally warm things, though. If this thing can be scaled up to macroscopic power levels, it's potentially either a fantastic light source, or a fantastic way to cool things down, or both.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2015, 02:04:15 pm
content: The LED is heated to 135 degrees Celsius, but it's connected to unheated circuits ... so the energy comes from that temperature gradient.

author: HackedFridgeMagnet
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2015, 02:05:50 pm
content: Article was dated 2012?Also doesn't that violate some law about entropy must increase?

author: Blofeld
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2015, 02:14:44 pm
content: Quote from: HackedFridgeMagnet on April 03, 2015, 02:05:50 pmI would think so. Drawing energy from the sorroundings certainly rings some alarm bells for me. Also note the end of the article:"A previous version of this article suggeted that MIT built the LED. It was actually built by the Ioffe Physico-Technical Institute in St. Petersburg."So the reputation of MIT remains intact...

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2015, 02:18:15 pm
content: Thepaperis online.QuoteThe temperature gradient at the device leads is the most likely source for the energy ... they needed to use a modulated signal and a lock in amplifier to even detect the light above the blackbody radiation by the way, the optical power is tiny. With a 100 degree temperature difference you could have visibly lit a LED with a normal peltier element ...

author: Artlav
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2015, 04:17:13 pm
content: Quote from: Blofeld on April 03, 2015, 02:14:44 pmI know these guys. They are serious, and know their stuff well.However, their stuff is MWIR photodiodes and LEDs - an IR band somewhat above thermal IR.I got one of their LEDs and a couple of photodiodes of 3.4um wavelength, for a camera project.Here is an english datasheet -http://www.ioffeled.com/Specifications/LED34.pdf(3.4um, theirs was said to be 2.4um, but i can't find such one).The interesting thing about that LED is that it runs at very low forward voltage - under 0.2V, and less that 0.1V at the temperature specified.Also, at 135*C the device itself will be emitting some radiation in it's own wavelength by blackbody heat.So, it can run on raw output of a termocouple, or there can be some peltier-style effects of the heat gradient being re-absorbed in the LED material itself.Would be nice to read the full MIT paper.EDIT: Noticed the link to the paper.They did have the problem i mentioned:Quote

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2015, 04:50:01 pm
content: Quote from: Blofeld on April 03, 2015, 02:14:44 pmDrawing energy from the surroundings is mundane. Heat pumps and Peltier coolers do it all the time. A process cannot be said to violate physical laws unless you do the correct thermodynamic analysis using the appropriate equations with the right data and reach an educated conclusion.

author: Blofeld
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2015, 05:56:37 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on April 03, 2015, 04:50:01 pmYou are right, I should not have substituted a proper analysis by gut feeling, shame on me. At the moment the first sentence in the paper makes me think it might be possible:"The presence of entropy in incoherent electromagnetic radiation permits semiconductor light-emitting diodes (LEDs) to emit more optical power than they consume in electrical power, with the remainder drawn from latticeheat."I'm a bit confused, only thing I can tell for sure is that it's over my head.

author: corrado33
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2015, 06:20:30 pm
content: Quote from: HackedFridgeMagnet on April 03, 2015, 02:05:50 pmThis law is often misstated. It actually says (simply) that the the entropy of the UNIVERSE must increase. That's the entropy of the system AND surroundings.There are plenty of chemical processes where the entropy of the SYSTEM decreases.You make ice cubes in your freezer... right? If you consider the water/ice the system, then the entropy is decreasing.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2015, 06:44:38 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on April 03, 2015, 04:50:01 pmNot to mention plants and photocells.Quote from: corrado33 on April 03, 2015, 06:20:30 pmTrue for pretty much any biological organism or system..

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2015, 10:23:58 pm
content: QuoteWe have discussed about this many times. the key is to have an open mind - at any given point, science is wrong in the sense that sooner or later someone will find a better way to explain the world around us.Is over unity efficiency possible? Sure.Is faster than light possible? Ask a physist about transmission speed of quantum entanglement,...Keep an open mind and don't rule out things just because it is not compatible with today's "scientific understanding".

author: max666
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2015, 10:40:30 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on April 03, 2015, 10:23:58 pm"If you open your mind too much, your brain will fall out..."

author: Artlav
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 03, 2015, 10:59:44 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on April 03, 2015, 10:23:58 pmHe will facepalm and proceed to explain what "quantum entanglement" actually means.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2015, 01:04:39 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on April 03, 2015, 10:23:58 pmCommon misconception by those who don't understand science.New information and understanding that comes from science rarely means previous science was "wrong". Quantum physics does not make Newtonian mechanics "wrong". It just adds a further level of understanding just as Molecular biology does make Mendelian genetics "wrong" but gives us a more complete understanding of genetics. Just two well known examples...Scientifictheoriesare wrong all the time but Science itself is the process of proving or disproving theories and what is learned through that process, if done correctly, is rarely wrong - just often incomplete.

author: donotdespisethesnake
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2015, 10:13:56 am
content: The funny thing about overunity and the laws of physics. The Law of Conservation of Energy was drawn up only after thousands of practical attempts to create perpetual motion machines, or free energy machines. Thousands of experiments showed that energy is conserved. Scientists didn't necessarily know why, but practical experimentation showed that to be the case.The observation of what appears to be a fundamental property of the universe was written as a law. It is an observed law of nature, it is not something physicists decided should be a law simply because it is intellectually appealing. (Unlike the Greek theories of nature). Subsequently the law is used in millions of applications and never found to be wrong.But now, free energy types turn it round and say that the physics is dogma, "yes, physics may say it is a law, but that does not make it true, you have to have an open mind". It is considered true because of practical observation - millions of experiments have shown it to be true. Each time someone tries to create another overunity machine and fails, it adds another data point to the already large pile in favor of the law of conservation of energy.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2015, 10:30:04 am
content: Quote"Earth is the center of the universe" also had gazillion observations that shown it to be true. The same with Newtonian and Einstein physics - they are all observed to be true until they are shown to be untrue.Unlike religion, science is evolving and not absolute.QuoteUntil someone somewhere someday somehow shows it to be untrue.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2015, 10:33:31 am
content: BTW, here is an article on the speed of quantum entanglement.http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.0614

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2015, 04:51:48 pm
content: FWIW, the conservation laws are deeply intertwined...very deeply intertwined....with quantum mechanics, specifically various symmetries.Anyhow, enough about this science crap. Let's go make some LED roadways!

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 04, 2015, 06:02:16 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on April 04, 2015, 10:30:04 amUh oh, someone forgot to tell that to the civil and mechanical engineers, architects, weapons builders, aerospace engineers, nuclear engineers, etc....

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2015, 12:24:08 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on April 04, 2015, 06:02:16 pmAnd that's fine since engineering is all about tolerances and approximations, based on science (maybe since engineering predates science) but not science, just the practical application of science.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2015, 12:35:02 am
content: Quote from: miguelvp on April 06, 2015, 12:24:08 amYes. But the point is that there is nothing "untrue" about classical mechanics or quantum mechanics ( I can only assume that is what he meant by "Newtonian and Einsteins physics") They are both just incomplete.

author: Galenbo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 06, 2015, 07:52:55 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on April 03, 2015, 10:23:58 pmIn science, there is evolution every day, finding new techniques or explanations doesn't make the 'previous' science wrong, even if dilettantes might think so.Quote from: dannyf on April 03, 2015, 10:23:58 pmSo prove how and where and the assumptions and the exceptions, that's the way how science works.With the proper units and methods please.Quote from: dannyf on April 03, 2015, 10:23:58 pmWhat is exactly your level of understanding science?

author: corrado33
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2015, 05:19:33 pm
content: I hate the "well nothing in science is known for sure" argument. Yes, science is evolving. Yes, things change (slightly) over time. Does that mean some nobody is his garage is going to disprove the laws of thermodynamics?NO.Stop fooling yourself people. You're not that smart. If you honestly believe these claims of broken laws of science, or that we will discover another "primary force" of physics, or find a reaction that breaks any of the well known laws and theories, then you obviously have not read about any of the history surrounding any of those laws, or any of the attempts to break them. Or even WHY THEY WORK IN THE FIRST PLACE.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 09, 2015, 05:30:12 pm
content: QuoteI tend to think that if you ever read about any of the history surrounding any of those laws, you would have found out that before those laws were discovered, they were not discovered. The discovery of those laws broke other then-widely believed laws.It would be hard for any rational person to think otherwise.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2015, 02:48:37 am
content: There should be no reluctance in admitting advanced science may be wrong. There were known "facts" found to be wrong by even more advanced understanding.One can argue Quantum Mechanics is a refinement of Newtonian physics, but it was not. Newtonian physics never considered that sub nuclear scale things could be different. Lacking such an exclusion, it implicitly implied the laws applies to scale large and small. It does not. Only present day modification and refinements "patched" Newtonian physics to be consistent with present understanding.Perhaps a clearer case would be atoms. Long considered the smallest indivisible and elementary particle. That was plain wrong.We are now wiser. No one is making declarative statements that Quarks is indivisible. Perhaps knowing someday is would be found to be merely a particular mode of a vibrating string, or whatever.

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2015, 03:18:55 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on April 09, 2015, 05:30:12 pmIn science, a "law" is a relationship expressed as an equation. Any belief about the world that is not mathematical does not qualify as a law. So statements like the one quoted above hardly pass the smell test. Saying that Newton's thin lens equation was "broken" by the wave equation is just baffling.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2015, 03:19:11 am
content: Quote from: Rick Law on April 10, 2015, 02:48:37 amThis is a case where using precise language is important. What do you mean by "science" ?To use your example, thetheorythat atoms were the smallest particle was wrong as theories often are. It was science that proved this.Yes, sometimes theories, become, after many, many unsuccessfull attempts to disprove them (aka science), established dogma. Occassionally dogma is overturned by new information (often because of advancements in technology). But that is a relatively rare occurrence and certainly not as common as some here assert.QuoteI agree. But that does not mean classical mechanics is wrong.

author: nitro2k01
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 10, 2015, 03:25:42 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on April 04, 2015, 10:30:04 amI think the word you're looking for isunless, or else you are presupposing that there's actually a violation to the laws of thermodynamics waiting to be discovered.There's this saying that geniuses like Galileo and Einstein were laughed at, but not everyone that is laughed at is a genius. You could make an analogous saying that just because we can discover things that seemed impossible, doesn't mean that everything that seems impossible will work.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2015, 05:19:35 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on April 10, 2015, 03:19:11 amYes it was plain wrong. The lack of limiting factors implies there is none.For example:r2=r*r,Whateverryou choose, that is going to work.On the other hand, Newton's Laws of Gravity:F=G(M1*M2) /r2Sayr=2h(wherehof course is Planck length), you are sure to get rediculous answers. Why would I not expect the right answer? Did Newton specify it can't go down to Planck length? (Difficult for Newton to do as Planck was born many years after Newton was dead.)If I say I will pay you double time if you work holidays. You did that for 10 consecutive holidays 8 hours each day and expected a big pay check... then I tell you, oh, you get double pay only for up to 20 hours, would you consider that $ for 20 hours the wrong amount or the right amount? But I was telling you the right formula: double pay for every hours you work on holidays. I just didn't tell you the limiting factor...Newtonian Mechanics (prior to present day reinterpretation/patch) was wrong because it implicitly assumed that it applies in all known conditions. That assumption was wrong. Newtonian solutions were solutions that only works under some unknown conditions. You don't know if you are under that certain condition that works, or not. So your answer could be right, or not.Quote from: mtdoc on April 10, 2015, 03:19:11 amIt is true that precise language is important. In this context, I use the word "science" as in studying of how nature works.Precision can only apply to present day and present context.(Present Context) What an astronomer calledmetalI would not. What a dietary scientist calledCalarieI would not. Neither of them use that two terms the same way Physicist would.(Present day) What is asecondas defined today is rather different than how asecondwas defined when Newton was around.All our laws, theory, and measurements are based on what we can perceive, what we can measure, and what we know at the time. The same Science that shown atom being indivisible was wrong is the same Science that shown Newton was wrong.Scientist themselves in general are not reluctant to admit science is wrong. Often individual scientist may found it difficult for them to abandon certain views/theories that they invested so much of their live in. I think the general public found it more difficult to accept certain long-lasting "trues" are actually not so true.Soon enough, we may found General Theory of Relativity wrong - as we know more about dark matter, perhaps General Relativity applies only if dark matter is "fill in the blank" and when "fill in the blank" and when photon decade is "fill in the blank".New stuff pops up often enough that even best of scientist may not be able to keep on top of every new development. I often wonder, had Einstein been better with quantum mechanics, would he had been more successful in developing his unified field theory. He certainly did not know anything about dark energy. So his theory could be found wrong some day and that would not take anything away from his achievements.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2015, 06:03:52 am
content: RL - I think we'll have to agree to disagree on what it means to state that classical mechanics is "wrong". I certainly disagree with that statement and so do the physicist friends I have asked. Incomplete yes, limited in the conditions under which it holds true, yes. Wrong, no. It's akin to saying Ohm's law is wrong because it breaks down under certain conditions.Your repetitive statement that "science is wrong" in this or that instance indicates to me that you don't understand what science is. Perhaps my previous attempts to clarify were not clear enough or maybe ignored but I'll try again.Science - at least the current meaning of the word and as that word is used among scientists refers to theprocessby which one tests the validity of a theory or hypothesis. It isnotthe theory itself or any particular set of scientific observations or " facts". Those things are the product of science not science itself.I say this as someone who has been a practicing scientist for most of the past 30 years.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2015, 06:11:04 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on April 11, 2015, 06:03:52 amYou and I have very different views. I have not work in science since I got my master degree in Physics over 30 years ago. About 10 years ago, I terminated my last monthly "Physics Review".Goes to show, there can be many differing views even within those who studied science. That is what makes science interesting.Rick

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2015, 07:12:22 am
content: What is wrong with Newton as a disciple of Descartes, as in Cartisian, was the mechanical view of everything. That is no longer true but the general public is stuck with those models and that mechanical view limits our advancement to the real truth because we lack the metaphor of what that truth really is.We do tend to envision everything as a mechanical object like a clock, but in reality there are more relations than the observed mechanism and that is what the problem is by sticking to just classic science.Imagine you are a two dimensional being, no heigh at all just a plane and time. You could describe what you observe of the three dimensional space in your limited view, you can come up with formulas that follow the observations, but you'll never figure out there is another dimension because you are limited by your senses and perceived reality.I'm not stating that science is limited to our three dimensional space or that mathematicians don't understand the math beyond our realm. But there are many things we might not truly understand yet.A student fresh out of college thinks they know everything, but they only know what they were exposed to, in reality they don't know that much, and hopefully their education would have taught them how to learn more, but usually that takes them many years to realize that they actually only scraped the surface.But then again, maybe it's true that in just under a millennium we figured it all out, but chances are that we only scraped the surface in such a short time.One example I've heard is explaining what a tree does. But a tree by itself doesn't make a lot of sense it because it does waste a lot of resources providing way too much fruit just for it's needs, but if you look at it as part of the forest then it does make more sense.The mechanical view of things and treating everything as an individual mechanism is just the wrong way to visualize systems. Yet we have been stuck in that perception since Newton.We do understand more now but we can't visualize it so only a few can grasp a glance of what true reality is really about, and those few are the ones that will admit that what they thought it was absolute is just immaturity.In 10,000 years from now, they will equate us to our current perception of alchemists, and that was science and truth at their time. But one can say that religion was an earlier science to explain what couldn't be explained, If I observed that the Gods acted in certain way just because I didn't know what is truly behind those events, like Atlas, or Helios and his chariot or whatever they thought to be the truth back then for the sun rising and setting, it was all plausible and explained so everyone was happy with those metaphors.I'm not a sceptic of science and I do think previous work is valid and still relevant, but my perception is that they do limit us to pursue things further.I'm not claiming overunity is achievable but we might be missing out in the way we do perceive reality. The same laws that prevent overunity indicate that energy can't be created or destroyed just transformed, because otherwise energy would spend itself instantly and there wouldn't be any left. So it's about the relations of things to get what you need, no reason you can't achieve certain equilibrium, after all, the planet we are at does pretty good, of course using energy from the sun as well, but where is the decay? and what happens when everything collapses, does it cycle back?For all we know in our timeframe there is such a thing as perpetual motion provided the right circumstances, are we so unique that we are the only ones consuming the universe's energy?Sure all far fetched but just playing devils advocate that things are not all even close to be explained or discovered.Reality is not as physical as we think it is, we are just fields interacting with other fields, potentials relations between those potentials and really not much more than a mathematical expression that observed by a different creatures might not even exist to them because they can't perceive or interact with it.Back to the two dimensional beings just because they are two dimensional we can't perceive them nor they can perceive us. there might be some interaction between both realms and we will explain them via religion/science or whatever.But we are bound to our physical nature.I guess I'll be more convinced with how far we are on science when we do understand truly how our brain works, and replicate such system.Last I've heard someone talking about that, they claimed that we can reproduce 1% of our brain, but that's an unreasonable claim, for that to be true,we first have to understand how does it work for real, and we are not even close to understand that.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2015, 10:41:35 am
content: QuoteThe really sad thing is that there are lot of nutjobs who worship science as a religion. Those are the same nutjobs who suffocate science to death. Some of them even "work" for science,

author: nitro2k01
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 11, 2015, 10:48:27 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on April 11, 2015, 10:41:35 amBy science, do you mean the findings of science, or the scientific method? If the latter, what do you suggest instead? Interim belief without evidence to keep your hopes up?