habanabasa

I can`t agree more. My post was a jibe that I just could not resist. It is however based on the following that I would like you to consider :- In 1850 Rudolf Clausius, some 14 years before James Clerk Maxwell proposed that light was an electromagnetic wave, stated “Heat generally cannot spontaneously flow from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature”. His statement was based on knowledge available at the time and has since been taken to be the simplest form of the Law. Since 1864 we have had the knowledge of the form of light and understanding of it has grown since. Of particular relevance are: - A surface emits photons when it is at a temperature above absolute zero. - These same photons are often absorbed by a body which is at a higher temperature than the body that emitted the photons. Thus energy (heat) in the form of radiant energy, contrary to the Clausius statement, can spontaneously flow from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature. It is clear then that given the current level of understanding and knowledge, the statement in its present form is not valid. I suggest that it should be modified to suit our present understanding of light and its propagation. Clausius’ statement is unfortunate in that it is not challenged despite the knowledge of emission and absorption of electromagnetic waves being widely available. I would suggest that in all the testing of the Law that this aspect has not been tested or even considered. If it had been tested then the Law will surely have been found wanting. It is my view that this has caused the important area of radiant energy harnessing to be closed to Science because the obvious outcome has incorrectly been thought to be contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. A case in point is my proposal which has had resistance in some quarters because it has been perceived as being contrary to the second law of thermodynamics (even though I have since discovered it is not). It is clearly beyond my capabilities and stature to challenge this very foundation of science. I will simply build this and/or other devices and let nature take its course. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIt has taken me a while to realize that I have been viewing the apparent conflict of my proposed system with regard to the 2nd law of thermodynamics (the Law) from the wrong angle. When viewed correctly, it is clear that there is no conflict with the Law. “Thermodynamics is a theory of macroscopic systems and therefore the second law applies only to macroscopic systems with well-defined temperatures.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics What has led to the misunderstanding is that I have described the operation of the device only to the point that was of interest to me, namely the point where the temperature differences are apparent and not the macroscopic view. This is both incomplete and misleading. What I should have done was to describe the full cycle including emission, transportation, concentration and the return to ambient. What is clear, but not described within my Paper, is that the energy ultimately returns to the environment of the system. The storage of the energy in a smaller hotter body is merely an intermediate step between the emission and the depositing of the energy in another body at ambient. A similar well known and understood system is the Water System. One of the functions of this system is the transportation of energy obtained primarily from the ocean in the form of enthalpy of transformation as water is converted to vapour. In the weather system this energy takes various forms including kinetic and potential energy. The energy is transported by the weather system and is then concentrated in dams, rivers and lakes before being returned to the ocean. Man extracts energy where it is concentrated in the Water System and does work with it. Man can also extract energy when it is concentrated in the Radiant Energy System. In this system the energy is spontaneously emitted from a surface, transported, concentrated and returned to the ambient environment. Both of the complete macroscopic systems comply with the Law.

I think that it should be clear to you by now (it has been very very carefully explained to you) that this hypothesis creates a paradox with the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. So it is artful and insincere on your part to use the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as proof of itself. This is the second time you have done this on this thread. I will say again because you obviously didn’t understand what I was saying before. I do know that my hypothesis has a conflict with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. What is needed, and is partly my reason for posting on the forums, is some physical or logical reason why the hypothesis may be wrong. The logic of the hypothesis is inescapable and is brutally simple. The paradox needs to be resolved before we can move on. You clearly do not have an answer to this paradox and the concept appears to offend your sensibilities. I have gone to great lengths to try and answer your statements and complaints in a polite and courteous manner. I have tried to gloss over you lack of knowledge where it became glaringly apparent. It was not my intent to become the center of a controversy, but I have. I cannot let this go until it has been resolved with logical thought and hard physical reasons why it should not or perhaps should work. I am not a perpetual motion enthusiast and have never professed to be one so don’t imply that I am one. Furthermore, I want you to stop making assumptions as to my ‘deep-seated intuitions’ or other personal traits. I have already written to you privately on this matter of innuendo and assumptions that you post about my personal self. My understanding of perpetual motion is that it is the supposed act of creating energy where none existed. It should be clear to all, including you by now, that this hypothesis is about harnessing the existing energy that is around us and which is a force that is central to the operation of the universe. Random radiant energy has never been harnessed before and this hypothesis indicates that this may now be a possibility. If you had your way, the project would be scrapped now and random radiant energy would never be harnessed whether it could be or not. What if the hypothesis is proved to be correct? What will you say then? This hypothesis presents an exciting and invigorating prospect and to simply sweep it aside without proper study would not be scientific and would not serve the interests of science. We would not have come as far as we have, had those that came before us simply discarded things they didn’t like the look of. If they saw an anomaly or a paradox they pursued it to find the answers. That is science. You may be right! The 2nd Law of thermodynamics may have to change. Science was built on logic - don’t discount it. It trumps all. Sigh! It seems that now we have a premise and somehow it is flawed. There you go with attributing assumptions to me again. Please do not do that. It is neither accurate nor conducive to good (logical) argument. You must be referring to my first post, wait - wait, that can’t be, because you say "check on the web" which implies that it isn’t my first post on this site. Lets see now, I posted at one site that has 53 views and no replies - so that can’t be where these exact same objections mentioned here have been raised. I posted at another site that deleted my post because I did a no-no (referred to that thread from another thread - inexperience!), no replies there either. That leaves one more site which has 152 views with 1 reply, which is one that I put in. So you must be referring, after all, to this site and my first posting of which this is a modified continuation. So really we are talking about this post (see how logic works?). So it seems that the “exact same objections mentioned here” really are the “exact same objections mentioned here”. Because they are one and the same. So what is your point? What are you trying to prove with crafty disingenuous statements? Actually I tire of you and your ever increasingly irrational statements that you can only back up with falsehoods. Clearly I have offended you somewhere and somehow that I do not know of. I no longer care to participate in this thread - your attitude and conduct has shown an immaturity that I no longer wish to deal with. Write what you will in this thread. I will not be visiting it to see what it is. Delete, freeze, do whatever you want with the thread, I don’t care. I will not be back here. So I am sorry for anybody that has a genuine question - I will not be returning to answer it.

It is clearly a major definitive work and he appears to have done a lot of work in other disciplines as well. It would be very helpful if we could get someone with his level of knowledge to look at this conundrum / paradox. His book is out of my league. I would be out of my depth in it from page 1. From the subject matter "analysis of stellar atmospheres, planetary illumination, sky radiation, physical interest for problems analogous to diffusion of neutrons" it looks like it might not cover the situation that I have presented here. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I revere the laws of physics as they guide us through this physical world and as they have been created by men with far greater intellect and vision than myself. It is because of this that I now find myself in difficulty. The logic of my hypothesis is inescapable and it creates an untenable position with regard to the second law of thermodynamics and Carnot's law. I am sure that there will be other laws that are at odds with it as well. I am looking for a way out of this paradox and conundrum but none has been forthcoming. You might now understand why quoting the second law of thermodynamics doesn't help. Believe me when I tell you that I am well aware of it. It has caused me great anguish and lost me some good friends. I have not been able to elicit even one rational argument against the hypothesis despite it being posted on 4 forums and emailed to numerous scientists of my acquaintance. I cannot simply walk away from this without knowing the answer. If there is some physical reason why it won’t work then we need to know that. It may be that when I test my device, it won’t work due to some as yet undiscovered physics. It may also be that it will in fact work. What then? What if I had walked away from it and it works? The implications of the hypothesis are such that it cannot be left to just disappear, at least until we have an answer. I am in fact building the device as depicted in the writeup. I have run into a problem in that I am having difficulty manufacturing the elliptical mirror, however this problem will be solved eventually and I will then be able to test.

Please reconsider your argument as it is not an assumption, it is fact. I am not about to enter into the very difficult debate concerning the second law of thermodynamics. I will leave it to others to sort out the conundrum and paradox that my proposed devices and principle create. What I would like to find on this forum is a debate as to how and why this principle and the geometries that adhere to it may or may not work. You have brought up the second law of thermodynamics as a reason why the devices won’t work. Ok lets put that on the list and now see if we can find any other reasons. Please reconsider your argument in light of the quote below.

I have looked at this and apart from the simple calculations already in the OP, I don't see a major opportunity for mathematics. It would be nice to be able to calculate the losses however that could entail knowing exactly what the emissivity of the mirrors is and how many reflections there are within the trumpet. Counting the average number of reflections within the trumpet is achievable and it could be a possibility as it is the major source of loss. One other area that has not been mentioned is the re-radiation from the mirrored surfaces. Re-radiation that occurs at the parabolic and elliptical mirrors will have very little effect on the system however re-radiation within the trumpet is a different animal altogether. Re-radiated radiation within the trumpet will be reflected off the walls and because of the diverging nature of those walls, will tend to direct more of it towards the large end of the trumpet and back into the circuit. There will still be a significant quantity that will exit the small end of the trumpet because of the angle at which it is emitted. I am content at this stage to present a logical as opposed to a mathematical model.

An interesting but I think a previously employed idea for a heat exchanger. The principle of passing a fluid with or without additives between two glass panes to collect energy has been done before. One circumstance that comes to mind is the passing of jet fuel through the windshield of very high speed aircraft to keep the windshield cool and to preheat the fuel. Your idea of additives may have some merit though and give your product an edge. Lots of luck with your idea.

What you originally said was - “What I expect a careful analysis will show is that a large fraction of the energy will reflect and eventually hit the emitter, even if one were to assume perfect reflection of the walls, and that the emitted energy will not be parallel, which confounds the ability to focus it down to a smaller area. It's a geometry issue, which has been completely glossed over. The devil's in the details.” In a nutshell you claim that radiant energy can be reflected back when it enters into a diverging mirror system. That is plainly fatuous nonsense Consider two flat or outwardly curving mirrors that are at one edge nearly joined (the ‘neck’) and at the other they are far apart. Any ray entering the mirrors at the narrow ‘neck’ can only travel away from that point. It is impossible for it to return to the ‘neck’ by reflection off only the two diverging mirrors. I replied and after some explanation said - “No energy can be reflected back to the emitter once it has entered the small end. It is a one way street.” This is patently obvious and bears no further explanation other than what is described above. However your recent post needs explanation as there are some basic misconceptions in it. So let us think carefully about it and go all the way through. What is being discussed here is the energy emitted into the trumpet at the small end. This energy is controlled and passed through the mirror system until it impinges on the target. So the target then has ‘seen’ the energy from the emitter. The target emits only some of its energy back towards the parabolic mirror and back through the mirror system to the emitter. The emitter ‘sees’ the lower level of energy from the target. It is true that if you can see me in the mirror then I can see you in the same mirror. What you have not understood is that the rays reflected from your face that travel to my retina are not the same rays that you receive in your retina. What you see, with or without a mirror, are the rays reflected off my face not a return of the rays reflected off your face. There are a number of points in these statements that need comment. Please provide the underlying physics to support your statement “The underlying physics says you will have problems with any geometry”. I would most certainly be VERY interested in any such underlying physics. To date nobody has even hinted at such a situation. I agree with you - this is not about engineering of any particular geometry but about the basic principle proposed. “(i.e. the basic objection is not about engineering)”. I don’t know where you got the impression that I claim to have demonstrated ‘this’ (The underlying physics says that I will have problems with any geometry!). It would appear from your statement that I also made this claim when I said that I had focussed the light to a disk. I really don’t understand what you are saying. Perhaps you have left something out. As to focussing “the light to a disk”, This has been done previously and I thought it was well explained to you that the image is large. In fact it is larger than the size of the emitter and therefore doesn’t conform to the basic principle of radiant energy collection. Therefore its temperature will not rise no matter how many times I measure it. The whole purpose of this geometry is to create an image that is smaller in surface area than the area of the entrance to the trumpet. In this situation, the temperature of the target will be measured and it is anticipated then to be greater than that of the emitter. This is simply not true. All emissions from the trumpet are seen to impinge on the elliptical mirrors used in the current and prior experiments. (Easy to tell, simply place a piece of paper over the mirror and examine what rays strike the paper, remove the paper to get the reflection). There are none now nor have there ever been spurious rays of light floating around not being collected when I am testing my mirrors. All rays end up at the focus. Therefore your suspicions and suppositions are baseless. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedSorry no maths, just logic. What sort of maths would that be anyway?

You got me - I missed it and will change the text - thank you. The calculations and results are still correct despite the wrong units being displayed in the process. The movement of radiant energy from the small end to the large end through the trumpet is not assumed. 32 years ago I tried to stuff light down the fat end - that didn't work because the angle of incidence increased with every reflection. Eventually the angle exceeded 90 degrees at which point it started coming back out of the fat end. The converse is true when entering from the small end, the angle of incidence gets smaller with every reflection off the diverging walls.No energy can be reflected back to the emitter once it has entered the small end. It is a one way street. As I have said a number of times, the output from the trumpet is very complex however it does focus to a disk off an ellipse. I really didn’t want to explain this here as it has nothing to do with the primary thrust of the article but you are pressing me to do it. It seems that we are getting lost in minutia about this particular geometry when the real issue which can apply to many geometries, namely the proposed basic principle, hasn’t even had a murmur of a question from anyone on any forum. I suggest that this is what should be tackled as it is this that is going to create the furore that I anticipate will come. This is where I really want the questions. The particular geometry used to demonstrate the principle will not be material to the issue as any conforming geometry could be used. In fact this exercise could be done mathematically by completing Browne’s study of Panse’s proposed geometries as it should have been done in 1993 (or by picking your own geometry). I would have preferred to do it mathematically but am prevented by my limited mathematical knowledge. In my view Panse had the answer then, but Browne by doing an incomplete and superficial study ensured that it never got accepted. The focus disk from the ellipse is composed of multiple rings, each of which comes from a different angle of entry to the trumpet. Let me explain - If a parallel beam (the only beam) is aimed at the small end of the trumpet at say 45 degrees from the horizontal relative to the mouth of the trumpet then a focussed image as shown attached will appear. I did this fully expecting to focus to a point. After seeing the image, I was in a funk for about 3 weeks until I worked it out. What happens is this - The parallel beams approach the trumpet and impinge on the inside of the trumpet at varying points. Each ray strikes the trumpet at a different point around the circle causing it to have a different angular deflection. The angular deflection causes the rays to contact the wall of the trumpet again where it will again be deflected in the same manner and by so doing will travel in a corkscrew manner down and around the inside of the trumpet. Because the circle drawn where the ray strikes the wall is increasing in size as the ray progresses down through the trumpet, the angle of incidence is decreasing and the ray is deflected each time closer to the wall. The picture shown is a photo of the focussed image of the inside of the trumpet. At some point the rays that entered at this particular angle do not meet the wall of the trumpet and they are beamed out of the trumpet. Now a description of the output of the trumpet. Consider the ring ‘of fire’ as it exits the trumpet. Its rays are still progressing from the last reflection forming an expanding cone. Consider a ring drawn at a distance from the trumpet exit where these exiting rays pass through. This second ring is larger than the exit ring. Now we draw the rays between the rings. Pick a point on the smaller ring and connect it with every point on the larger ring. Pick the next point on the smaller ring and likewise connect it to every point on the larger ring. Do this for every point on the smaller ring producing a fairly complex ray pattern. We are only just starting! Now create a series of rings one inside the other at the exit of the trumpet forming a disk. These are the rings formed by rays approaching the trumpet from all the angles between 0 and 180 degrees. Draw their matching second rings. Repeat the above process of joining the small and large ring for each of the rings in the disk. Now you have it. You have the mental picture of the output beam from the trumpet. The trumpet has managed to ingest all radiant energy that lands in its entrance and discharge it in a narrower but complex beam that cannot be focussed to a point. However fortunately an elliptical mirror can create an image of all the rings at its second focal point. As you can probably tell, I know my subject and I can assure you, it has been thoroughly researched. Phew! I am glad that that is done.

I explained that the energy is collected at the small end of the trumpet. I give the diameter of the trumpet at the entrance as 14 mm. I assumed that the ambient temperature is 300K and that emissivity of the emitter is 0.95. This is easily achievable and in practice can be obtained by placing a marble cup (emissivity of marble .96 to .98) over the small end of the trumpet. Thus using the Stephan-Boltzmann formula I calculated the energy radiated into the small end of the trumpet as joules or watts per second per unit area. I used the second form of the formula because the emitter is not an ideal emitter and therefore I had to include the emissivity of the emitting body in my calculations. These calculations can be seen in my OP. Because the radiant energy reflects off the diverging walls of the trumpet, it is forced to travel towards the large end from where it will be discharged towards the elliptical mirror. Stefan-Boltzmann Law The energy radiated by a blackbody radiator per second per unit area is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature and is given by For hot objects other than ideal radiators, the law is expressed in the form: where e is the emissivity of the object (e = 1 for ideal radiator). Please see the above formula which I obtained from the following site http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/thermo/stefan.html#c3

Very well said. I will leave this thorny issue to others who are more knowledgeable than myself. They will be able to determine how this new type of geometry will or will not fit with the second law of thermodynamics. I am merely presenting my findings and hypothesis with the primary intent that it becomes public. My secondary agenda is to have it scrutinized by many so that should there be a fundamental problem with the principle, it will come to light quickly. Should a problem be identified that would prevent any of the geometries working then at that time I would have to assess whether to abandon the project or find a workaround. Science has a way of coming up with some results that are not intuitive - a kind of gotcha, so any thing can happen because we are in uncharted territory. So far nothing has been pointed out to me that gives me any concern. The principal argument that I had anticipated was - the target won’t absorb the energy. I do not know for sure what will happen here but for various reasons I expect the energy to be fully absorbed. Other than that I cannot think of anything that worries me.

An interesting thought - thank you. I hadn't thought of that approach - I am just bumbling along with what I have (an old bent and beaten up trumpet body that I have cut down and polished / silvered the inside). This approach might be very useful when obtaining a larger collector as the amount of energy that I anticipate getting out of my current setup will be minuscule. I am only looking to get a temperature difference to prove the principle. This is where we have differing views. My understanding of the second law of thermodynamics is that it is a general law based on empirical observation. It is not a law based on calculation or definitive experimentation that covers all eventualities. It is based solely on observation of what has passed to date and hence I have difficulty with your statement that it is in some way physical. Part of what I am attempting to achieve with these posts is to elicit physical, not theoretical, reasons as to why the reader believes the device will not work. Once I have a reason and it is a valid reason, I will be able to determine an appropriate course of action. That course of action might be to abandon the project altogether or to find a way around the problem. To date, after posting on many forums, I have not had even one physical or practical reason why the devices should not work. The principle raises very interesting possibilities with regard to the sourcing and supply of energy in general. In my view, this is of such fundamental importance and has such far reaching consequences that the principle should be examined very carefully and in great detail. My example of a geometry described in the post is just one of many. A flaw in any geometry will not necessarily invalidate the principle. It is the principle itself that must be shown to be invalid in order to debunk the theory. Throughout history scientific laws have been promulgated and changed as new evidence became available. I think that this is one of those times. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Hi again. I am sorry that I didn’t make it clear that the calculated resulting temperature and all that pass in front of it are theoretical values only. I realise that there will be huge losses caused by absorption at the mirrors especially within the trumpet. There will be other losses due to my rickety construction and alignments. It is my hope that I obtain a temperature difference that is greater than the margin of error. In my case that might mean as little as two degrees C. Should I be successful in obtaining a temperature increase at the target then the principle may have been proven in part. I have taken the emissions at the emitter to be from a body with an emissivity of 0.95. This is easily achievable and can be done by placing a cup of material with that emissivity over the trumpet small end (I intend to use marble which has an emissivity of 0.96 to 0.98). I only use the radiant energy emitted from the emitter in the calculation (which is what we are collecting) as the returned radiant energy to the emitter is of no consequence at this time. The emanations from the trumpet are very complex and it is not possible to make standard 2D ray tracing diagrams for them (remember that they are a compression of the random energy that is all about us). However, I have through experimentation with other elliptical mirrors determined how the rays emanate from the trumpet and how they are reflected from the elliptical mirror. Because of this I have been able to come up with a simple 2D representation of the ray paths that occur in 3D. I used this methodology and results from other experiments to determine the path of the rays from the elliptical mirror to the far focal point. The description of the emanations from the trumpet would occupy considerable space on this post and would divert attention from the main focus being the questioning of the ‘principle’ and not how one individual geometry may or may not be presented. That being said, I would be happy to prepare a description and send it to you via PM. The treatment within the trumpet is complex and its output is likewise complex because it comes initially from the random and very complex radiant energy environment around us. The focus size is not arbitrarily. It is obtained by CAD drawing in 2D based on previous knowledge gained. The size obtained from the drawings at 0.37 mm is impossibly small to utilize effectively. Consequently, I determined that I would make a target of 3 mm diameter and adjust the position of the target such that it intercepted the beam from the parabolic mirror before the focal point and at a point where the beam was 3 mm in diameter. A ‘unit’ mistake ? The only thing that I can think of that this might be is the KWH in the preamble which is now changed to watts per second (joules). If I have an error I need to know about it. Thanks. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Ooops. I didn't pay attention and didn't realize that the URL points to another thread on this site. That thread was the original which has been updated and changed considerably - for the better I believe. So as not to confuse the questions and answers, that thread was closed and I initiated another with the latest rendition of the post - same post just amended.

Its my post. I want this to be known as far and wide as possible and have put it onto a number of forums to try and spread the knowledge. I was modifying the text to make it more readable and to make corrections as I went along so each post is slightly different. This was the very first site that I posted on and the original post has the most warts. I think that this is the final product and that there won't be further changes. I had intended to make a device and patent it but soon realized that if I could think of a number of geometries that could do the job then others would as well. So it would be a futile and expensive exercise to patent something that could be bypassed very easily. Remember, you can not patent an idea (the concept), you can only patent the expression of that idea (the devices). There may be a deep problem within what I think I have discovered which will prevent all geometries from working. However, nobody on any of the forums has found it yet. Simply to cite the second law of thermodynamics doesn't cut it with me - I need physical and practical reasons why the principle should not work. I have studied this problem for a very long time and I am unable to find any reason why a properly constructed device will not work as planned. I am hoping that others, who may have more resources than me, will look at this, and realizing the possibilities, proceed with building a working model. I am always open to suggestion and collaboration. There will always be a 'first' to do something. Perhaps some others will make a working device before I finish mine. If I am right and devices can be built to harness radiant energy from this very simple concept then this is a hugely important advance providing the nearest thing to perpetual motion. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I realize that. I do get a focussed image at the focal point of another ellipse with a relatively short focal separation and a shorter y axis. The image in this instance is not small but is focussed - about the size of the large end of the trumpet. Providing the resulting focused image from the parabolic mirror is small enough then I can have it impinging on a small target. It doesn't have to be a point - just small.

I would appreciate your considered thoughts on the following - Preamble : Every surface in the universe radiates and absorbs energy in the form of Electromagnetic waves, provided that the body's temperature is above absolute zero. This is a constantly occurring phenomenon. The amount of energy emitted is dependent on the temperature of the emitting body, and the rate at which it emits or absorbs is known as its emissivity (measured on a scale of 0 to 1, where 1 would be a perfect absorber / emitter and 0 would be a perfect mirror). At room temperature (300K), 1 sq m of a perfect emitter will emit approximately 459 watts per sec continuously, 24 hours per day. Contrast this with sunlight (solar radiant energy) where 1 sq m on a clear day receives in the range of 1000 watts per sec over only about 5 hours. In other words, there is a significant never ending supply of energy. The difficulty has been in harnessing it. The purpose of this Paper is to discuss a practical method of harnessing usable radiant energy. The device described and others are currently being built. Harnessing Radiant Energy John D Jeffery, 17 Springbrook Pde, Idalia, Queensland, 4811 Australia March 17, 2009 Abstract. A basic principle is proposed that enables non-solar radiant energy to be harnessed as an energy source. A geometry is described to implement this principle, allowing for the practical harnessing of radiant energy. Introduction: The problem. Radiant Energy has long been seen as a potential source of unlimited clean and free energy. No method has been found for collecting this energy. In his 1992 article "NON-SPONTANEOUS RADIATIVE HEAT TRANSFER" * Dr. Sudhir Panse suggested that "small isolated pockets may exist in the Universe, or can be created, in which entropy decreases and heat engines exceed Carnot's efficiency limit". He proposed geometries that might achieve this. K M Browne's 1993 article "FOCUSSED RADIATION, THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS AND TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS” ** was a study in response to S. Panse's paper. He examined two geometries proposed by Panse to focus radiation from objects to heat other objects to a higher temperatures. Browne showed that while the geometries looked functionally correct when the target and emitter were drawn in point form, the situation changed when they were drawn with finite sizes. They did not then achieve Panse's objectives, in that not all of the radiant energy from the emitting body impinged upon a target body of the same size. Browne limited his study to the situation where energy is transmitted between like-sized bodies. He did not examine the possibilities where the bodies were of different sizes. I suggest that the geometries in these cases are such that for all the radiant energy from the now finite-sized emitters to fully impinge upon their targets, the target surface areas must be greater than those of the emitters. The problem is that the larger surface areas of the targets enable them to re-radiate the energy absorbed from the emitters without a discernable change in temperature. The solution. In order for a geometry to cause the target to be raised to a higher temperature, the target surface area must be smaller than that of the emitter, whose total energy is transmitted to the target. Because the temperature of a body increases or decreases until its energy inflow and outflow are equivalent, such a target body, having a smaller surface area than the emitter, would then have an elevated temperature relative to the emitter, as it will be receiving emissions from a larger surface area. I propose that a basic principle of radiant energy collection is: "For bodies with equivalent emissivities, the emitting surface area of the source of the radiant energy, which is radiated to a target, must be larger than the total emitting surface area of the target". An example geometry. I have already discovered a number of geometries that satisfy this basic principle of radiant energy collection. I believe that many more can probably be found. One example of the geometries that I have found uses an internally reflective trumpet mirror, collecting radiant energy from the small end and discharging it from the large end into an elliptical mirror which has a very long distance between the focal points. See figure by clicking this link. The output beam from the trumpet is very complex and I found no convenient way to focus it to a point. My approach to deal with this difficulty, at least in part, is to direct the output from the trumpet toward an elliptical mirror which has a very long focal point separation. The reflection from the mirror near one focal point will be almost parallel as it focusses at the far focal point. The near parallel beam is then intercepted by a parabolic mirror, so giving a small image at the parabolic mirror's focal point (ie the beam is intercepted by the parabolic mirror before it reaches the ellipses far focal point). An elliptical mirror with 40 meters between its focal points was calculated to give a final focussed image of 0.37 mm in diameter. In the calculations below, a focussed image size of 3.0 mm is used. It is assumed that the mirrored surfaces are fully specular, that the ambient temperature is 300K, and that the emissivity of both the emitter and the target is 0.95. The trumpet has a diameter of 14 mm at its entrance. Assume that the diameter achieved for the final focus is 3.0 mm. Assume as well that the target has a collection surface area the same size as the final focus and that the target is perfectly insulated and can only radiate through the collection surface area. Area of trumpet entrance (sq mm) = PI * (14/2)2 = 153.938 Area of final image circle (sq mm) = PI * (3.0/2)2 = 7.0686 We use the Stephan-Boltzmann formula to compute the energy radiated. P = e σ T^4 Where e is the emissivity of the emitter σ is the Stephan-Boltzmann constant = 5.6703 x 10-8 watts / m^2 K^4 T is the Temperature of the emitter in Kelvin Calculate the energy radiated from the emitter into the trumpet. = 0.95 * (5.6703 x 10-8) * 300^4 *153.938 / 1000000 = 0.0671677 watts / sec Calculate the ambient energy normally absorbed and radiated by the target. = 0.95 * (5.6703 x 10-8) * 300^4 *7.0686 / 1000000 = 0.0030842 watts / sec The amount of energy absorbed by the target is = ambient radiant energy + energy from emitter = 0.0030842 + 0.0671677 watts / sec = 0.0702519 watts / sec We rearrange the Stephan-Boltzmann formula to calculate the implied temperature of the target when it reaches equilibrium (at which time it is emitting 0.0702519 watts / sec from an area of 7.0686 sq mm). T = 4√(P/e σ )*area / sq m = 4√{0.0702519 / (0.95 * (5.6703 x 10-8)) / 706.86} * 100K Target Temperature = 655.4K Some of the emissions from the target will be radiated directly back towards the parabolic mirror while a considerable portion will not return to the parabolic mirror as it is radiated into the immediate environment of the target. The re-radiated energy that returns to the parabolic mirror will make its way back to the emitter along the mirror path. The difference between the energy that the target receives from the emitter and that energy that is returned to parabolic mirror is the usable amount of energy at the target end of the device. In conclusion. Provided that the temperature of the emitters are not altered, devices that conform to the basic principle can be used to produce a constant supply of energy that can be extracted forever from a never ending source. Many more radiant energy harnessing devices can probably be found that will satisfy the basic principle and produce elevated temperatures at their targets. The practicality of these devices will depend largely on their ability to harness the radiant energy from large surface areas and the employment of efficient methodologies to convert the heat differentials between the target and the ambient temperature into usable energy. Contact details John Jeffery johndjeffery@gmail.com References * S Panse 1992 J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 25 28-31 Non-spontaneous radiative heat transfer. ** K M Browne J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 26 (1993) 16 - 19, Focused radiation, the second law of thermodynamics and temperature measurements.

I realize that the mirrors will absorb some of the energy and the amount won't be trivial. The best that I can hope for is a mirror (polished pure silver) that has an emissivity of 0.03. Each reflection therefore will cause 3% of the energy to be absorbed. There will be considerable loss in the trumpet plus the reflections at two mirrors. As to using a gravitational force - The force has to be VERY strong and is way beyond anything that we could even contemplate. The massive gravitational force of the sun bends the pathway of light only slightly. Its effect can be seen during an eclipse when stars that are behind the sun can be seen as if to the side of the sun. mod note: first two posts copied from other thread on this topic

I realize that the mirrors will absorb some of the energy and the amount won't be trivial. The best that I can hope for is a mirror (polished pure silver) that has an emissivity of 0.03. Each reflection therefore will cause 3% of the energy to be absorbed. There will be considerable loss in the trumpet plus the reflections at two mirrors. As to using a gravitational force - The force has to be VERY strong and is way beyond anything that we could even contemplate. The massive gravitational force of the sun bends the pathway of light only slightly. Its effect can be seen during an eclipse when stars that are behind the sun can be seen as if to the side of the sun.