Harnessing Radiant Energy - A Modern Day Paradox

[habanabasa]

I hope that you find this interesting. It is a long read but it is very real and I think it will be worth it.

 

I believe that I have found the key principle required to tap the vast supply of free energy that is all around us. If I am correct (I am pretty sure that I am) then there will be a shake up in the science community of some magnitude.

 

I am putting this document in the public domain so that others can use and expand on my ideas.

 

Your comments for or against, would be most welcome.

 

Thanks, John

 

 

"When a scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong"

Arthur C. Clarke

 

 

Abstract.

Non solar Radiant Energy is a clean, non polluting energy source of unlimited supply. It is shown how non solar Radiant Energy can be harnessed as an energy source without violating the second law of thermodynamics. A basic principle that enables Radiant Energy to be harnessed is proposed. A number of geometries that meet the proposed basic principle and which may be used to harness radiant energy are disclosed. The second law of thermodynamics and Carnot’s law are discussed.

 

Introduction.

Radiant Energy has long been seen as a potential source of clean, abundant and free energy. The problem has been that no successful or viable method of collecting this energy has previously been found.

In the article by Dr Sudhir Panse 1992 “Non-spontaneous radiative heat transfer”, Panse suggested “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 some geometries that might achieve this.

In K M Browne’s 1993 article “Focused radiation, the second law of thermodynamics and temperature measurements”, being a study in response to S. Panse’s paper, Browne examined two geometries proposed by Sudhir Panse to focus radiation from a number of objects to heat another to a higher temperature. What Browne showed was 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 and thus did not achieve Panse’s objectives. Browne limited his study to the situation where energy is transmitted between like bodies. He did not examine the possibilities where the bodies were of different sizes.

Importantly, Browne showed that not all of the radiant energy from the emitting body impinged upon the target body of the same size.

The geometries in both cases are such that for all the radiant energy from the now finite sized emitters to fully impinge upon their targets, then the target surface area must be greater than that of the emitter. The larger surface areas of the targets enable them to re-radiate the energy absorbed from the emitters without a discernable change in temperature.

It is clear that in order for the paradox proposed by Panse to work as suggested, the target surface area had to be smaller than that of the emitter whose total energy was 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, would then have an elevated temperature relative to the emitter as it will be receiving emissions from a larger surface area.

 

It is proposed that the basic principle of radiant energy collection should state

“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 area of the target”.

 

 

Harnessing radiant energy while not violating the second law of thermodynamics.

In at least one of the geometries below it is shown how a body can be made to receive less radiant energy than it emits. This would cause the body to drop in temperature and if this occurs within an open system then the second law of thermodynamics would not be violated. This temperature difference can then be exploited. This method can be applied to many geometries that adhere to the proposed basic principle of radiant energy collection. Note that in a closed system, any drop in the temperature of any body would cause an increase in temperature of other bodies contrary to the second law of thermodynamics.

 

In all the geometries below there exists the opportunity for a target to absorb radiant energy from an emitter with a larger surface area than itself. It may well be that the only radiant energy absorbed by the target will be those photons that are at a higher frequency than the frequency for the temperature of the body as found in the black body emission curve. Thus the second law of thermodynamics would hold in this case in that the temperature rise in the target would be that induced by only the higher temperature photons.

 

Panse and Browne did not question the ability of the target to absorb the increased influx of photons as their papers were solely concerned with the geometries involved. I suggest that the focussed photons will be absorbed by a properly constructed target thereby raising its temperature. This would be in direct conflict with the second law of thermodynamics in its present incarnation.

 

This conflict is an anathema to the Science of today but it is of fundamental importance to the advancement of Science that this paradox between the second law of thermodynamics and the logical outcome of these proposed new geometries be resolved. In so doing there is the opportunity of further learning and the advancement of Science regardless of whether the second law of thermodynamics is upheld or needs modification. Either result will add to the store of scientific knowledge. This impasse is easily resolved by theoretical or practical experimentation.

 

Proposed geometries.

A small number of geometries have been studied and a number of them were found to satisfy the proposed basic principle of radiant energy collection. Based on this there is a strong probability that more geometries will be discovered that will satisfy the proposed principle. Some of the studied geometries that satisfy the proposed principle are briefly described below.

 

Exacting details of construction have purposefully not been provided. The intent is to provide a framework and ideas so that readers can determine their own optimum ratios and sizes for building or calculating or indeed to extrapolating on the geometries presented to formulate their own geometries that satisfy the proposed principle.

 

 

Scaled ellipsoids in series with larger radiant energy sources and smaller targets.

In this geometry an ellipsoid is created as shown in fig 1 below. Located at the first focal point is an emitting disk that is oriented to the y axis. This disk completely fills the ellipse at the focal point so only one side of the disk faces into the ellipse. At the other end of the ellipse there is a round aperture that is also oriented to the y axis. This aperture is set further out than the focal point from the centre of the ellipse. In so doing the aperture is smaller in diameter than the emitting disk. The exit aperture of the first ellipsoid becomes the entrance / emitter to the next scaled smaller ellipsoid. Each ellipsoid increases the efficiency of the device.

 

By varying the location and hence diameters of the emitter and aperture, the proportion of radiant energy that will pass through the aperture from the emitter will vary. Configurations can be computed that would allow more radiant energy than what would be emitted from an emitter had one been placed in the aperture to pass through the aperture. Measurements given in the diagram below are provided as a guide only.

 

In an open system, this incarnation of this geometry does not violate the second law of thermodynamics as no target body is being heated. However, the energy of the emitter would be reduced as its radiated energy would be greater then its received energy. Consequently its temperature would be reduce and there will be a difference between its temperature and the ambient temperature. This could be exploited.

 

It is also possible to replace the first aperture with a target so sealing the ellipsoid. The other scaled ellipsoids would then not be necessary. In a properly configured device, more radiated energy would be absorbed by the target than it emitted and consequently its temperature would rise.

 

 

Smaller half ellipsoid attached to a half of a larger ellipsoid with emitting disk and target vane.

This geometry as shown in fig 2 below has a strong mono directional flow tendency. Little of the radiant energy emitted by the emitter or the target is returned to the emitter.

 

In the configuration below, the target is a thin vane or wing projecting into the ellipse as shown. The join between the two ellipses is a straight mirror surface. The diagram is exaggerated for illustration purposes.

 

Within the ellipsoid and the trumpet shapes used below, the direction of the beams is not immediately apparent or intuitive. The ray direction within the device can be explained as follows: The emitted radiant energy emanates in every direction causing a vast preponderance of the rays that strike the wall of the ellipse or trumpet to do so with some angular direction. This angular direction is modified every time the ray again strikes the wall. The result is that most of the rays travel in a corkscrew like manner around the inside surface of the ellipse or trumpet. This device exploits that feature.

 

The emitter emits the radiant energy which corkscrews its way down the inner edge of the narrower ellipse and then onto the larger ellipse where it continues to corkscrew its way towards the thin end of the larger ellipse. It then strikes and is absorbed by either side of the vane. Note that there is clockwise and anticlockwise corkscrew direction of the rays.

 

Those photons that do not strike the vane or are not absorbed are reflected back towards the emitter. Most of them will strike the vertical central mirror and be reflected once more towards the target vane.

 

The vane emits radiant energy and because it is thin, most of the rays travel towards the near wall of the ellipse. The rays strike the wall of the ellipse and then most will corkscrew outwards, always near the inner surface of the large ellipse, towards the vertical mirror. The mirror reflects them causing them to corkscrew back towards the vane where they are once more absorbed.

 

 

A trumpet mirror discharging into half of an ellipsoid.

The trumpet mirror has an advantage in that random radiant energy from 180 degrees is ingested at its small end and discharged as a narrower beam at its large end. Rays that do not approach the big end from the correct angles are reflected and prevented from passing back through the trumpet. The trumpet has therefore a limited one way effect. The output beam from the trumpet, though it might appear to be conical, is a series of numerous cones one inside the other, all with different implied focal points.

 

 

A trumpet mirror discharging into an elliptical mirror which has a very long distance between the focal points.

The configuration shown in fig 3 below is currently in the process of being built.

The discharge from the trumpet was found to be very complex and no means have yet been found to focus it directly. The approach used has been to beam the output from the trumpet towards an elliptical mirror which has a very long focal point separation. The intended result is that the reflection from the mirror will be nearly parallel over this large distance. The nearly parallel beam is to be intercepted by a parabolic mirror so giving a very small image at the parabolic mirror’s focal point.

 

The angle at which selected evenly spaced beams emanated from the trumpet were determined. CAD drawings were made with the trumpet, elliptical mirror and parabolic mirror in place. The locations where the beams from the trumpet struck the elliptical mirror were plotted. Ray diagrams were drawn for the rays that would be reflected from those locations to their corresponding positions on the image at the other focal point. The size of the image at the other focal point was determined from elliptical mirrors that had short focal lengths. The rays were plotted from the top and bottom of each location on the elliptical mirror to the top and bottom of the corresponding location at the other focal point - two beams for each location. The reflection of the rays incident on the parabolic mirror were drawn. A small circular image resulted at the focal point of the parabolic mirror.

 

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 entrance to the small end of the trumpet has a diameter of 14 mm. Assume the diameter achieved for the final focus is 3.0 mm.

Assume 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

The Stephan-Boltzmann formula used to compute the energy radiated in joules per sq m.

 

P = eσT4

 

Where e is the emissivity of the emitter

σ is the Stephan-Boltzmann constant

= 5.6703 x 10-8 watts / m2 K4

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 energy normally radiated from and absorbed by the target.

= 0.95 * (5.6703 x 10-8) * 300^4 *7.0686 / 1000000

= 0.0030842 watts / sec

 

If the total energy from the emitter is absorbed by the target then the target temperature will rise until equilibrium is reached between the amount of energy it absorbs and the amount that it radiates.

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/eσ)*area / sq m

 

= 4√ {0.0702519 / (0.95 * (5.6703 x 10-8)) / 706.86} * 100K

 

= 655.4K

 

Notice also that much of the re-radiated emissions from the target will be radiated into the environment of the target and only part of its emissions will be radiated back towards the parabolic mirror from whence it will make its way back to the emitter. The result of this will be that the environment of the emitter will get colder and the environment of the target will get hotter.

 

The future and the second law of thermodynamics.

It is well known that the second law of thermodynamics has been promulgated because of a long period of empirical observation. Over this period of observation the law has been seen to be correct on every occasion. There have been no exceptions.

 

I do not disagree with these observations, however the new proposed geometries that have been put forward and many others that may yet be devised based on the proposed basic principle of radiant energy collection, have never before been observed or examined. The geometries and what they imply give rise to a serious conundrum and pose a question as to the inviolate status of the second law of thermodynamics in its current incarnation. Also in question is Carnot’s law which may also need revision.

 

We may be at the cusp of a dramatic point in history that may require the laws of energy to be adjusted in order to keep up with the discoveries of our times.

 

In summary.

Because of this disclosure, these findings will be examined and tested by others, not all, not many, but some. I may not be the first to produce a working model. Others may have that honour, confirming or debunking thereby my observations and determinations.

 

I make no apologies for my position on the second law of thermodynamics. I believe that laws derived purely from observation will inevitably be challenged as new and possibly conflicting observations are made. It is the nature of Science that new discoveries are made and changes made to suit the new knowledge.

 

Critiques and criticisms of this paper are welcome.

 

I welcome those that wish to collaborate with me on this.

 

I hope that these small beginnings are the energy equivalent of the first paper dart that through time eventually led to the building of the Jumbo 747. They herald a brighter and cleaner future for mankind.

 

Contact details

John Jeffery

johndjeffery@gmail.com

References

K M Browne J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 26 (1993) 16 - 19, Focused radiation, the second law of thermodynamics and temperature measurements.

 

S Panse 1992 J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 25 28-31 Non-spontaneous radiative heat transfer.

RadiationFocus.pdf

[gre]

I believe that I have found the key principle required to tap the vast supply of free energy that is all around us.

 

Just curious..

 

What makes you think there is a vast supply of free energy all around us (in a nutshell)?

 

Abstract.

Non solar Radiant Energy is a clean, non polluting energy source of unlimited supply.

 

By definition radiant energy is solar or heat energy, I believe. Are you referring to cosmic rays (i.e. particles from sun, etc.).

[swansont]

By definition radiant energy is solar or heat energy, I believe. Are you referring to cosmic rays (i.e. particles from sun, etc.).

 

Everything is radiant, emitting something like a blackbody spectrum (depending on its emissivity). The human body, for instance, radiates somewhere between 500-1000 Watts (but absorbs a lot too; the difference is around 100 Watts, assuming an average-ish adult)

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

As to the OP, just from a quick scan:

 

units of power are Watts, not Watts/sec

 

You have use the area of the horn, but that is not representative of the area that's actually emitting thermal radiation. I suspect there are other geometry mistakes, too, in your scenario.

[habanabasa]

Just curious..

 

What makes you think there is a vast supply of free energy all around us (in a nutshell)?

 

 

 

By definition radiant energy is solar or heat energy, I believe. Are you referring to cosmic rays (i.e. particles from sun, etc.).

 

Thanks for reading this very long post.

 

As to the vast supply of free energy:

Every surface in the universe radiates and absorbs energy in the form of EM waves - often referred to as photons, provided the body's temperature is above absolute zero. This is a constantly occurring phenomena.

The amount of energy emitted is dependent on the temperature of the emitting body and the ratio by which it can emit or absorb is known as its emissivity.

At room temperature (300K), 1 sq m of a perfect emitter / absorber (emissivity=1 - also known as a black body) will generate approximately 2,000 KWH. This occurs 24/7.

Contrast this with sunlight (solar radiant energy) which on a good day (no clouds etc) will generate approximately 3,700 KWH. This occurs 5/7.

So, yes there is a massive store of a never ending supply of energy. The trick is to harness it.

 

This is not perpetual motion - No energy is created, it is already there and by my methodology can be harnessed.

 

The above describes what I mean by radiant energy. The radiant energy that comes from the sun is known as solar radiant energy.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Everything is radiant, emitting something like a blackbody spectrum (depending on its emissivity). The human body, for instance, radiates somewhere between 500-1000 Watts (but absorbs a lot too; the difference is around 100 Watts, assuming an average-ish adult)

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

As to the OP, just from a quick scan:

 

units of power are Watts, not Watts/sec

 

You have use the area of the horn, but that is not representative of the area that's actually emitting thermal radiation. I suspect there are other geometry mistakes, too, in your scenario.

 

Thank you as well for reading this long post and your thoughts on the subject.

 

In this instance I am talking about the amount of energy that is emitted which is given by the Stephan-Boltzmann formula. This formula returns energy per unit time per unit area or in this case watts per second per sq m (or joules per sq m if you prefer).

 

I have assumed in the calculations that the experimenter has placed a suitable emitter (one with emissivity of 0.95) at the small end of the trumpet / horn. In practice this could simply be in the form of a cup over the collection area of the trumpet or an insulated insert into its throat.

 

I was remiss in not making it clear that the inside of the trumpet is mirrored. The radiant energy that is processed is that that enters through the small end of the trumpet. As the sides of the trumpet diverge the angle of incidence increases and when rays strike the wall of the trumpet they are are redirected to an angle closer to the norm of the center of the trumpet.

[cameron marical]

it could be a great method for future civilizations where total recyclment is not only a good thing, but a necessitie. like when the stars burn out.

[swansont]

In this instance I am talking about the amount of energy that is emitted which is given by the Stephan-Boltzmann formula. This formula returns energy per unit time per unit area or in this case watts per second per sq m (or joules per sq m if you prefer).

 

I have assumed in the calculations that the experimenter has placed a suitable emitter (one with emissivity of 0.95) at the small end of the trumpet / horn. In practice this could simply be in the form of a cup over the collection area of the trumpet or an insulated insert into its throat.

 

I was remiss in not making it clear that the inside of the trumpet is mirrored. The radiant energy that is processed is that that enters through the small end of the trumpet. As the sides of the trumpet diverge the angle of incidence increases and when rays strike the wall of the trumpet they are are redirected to an angle closer to the norm of the center of the trumpet.

 

But I think you have made some assumptions about the geometry that are unphysical, which lead you to overestimate the amount of power you can actually deliver.

[tvp45]

I think I understand your proposal. If so, there is nothing in principal that prevents your doing this, though I think you must do a lot of engineering yet. I don't see this as a lot different from the old parabolic reflector demo, and that is not very efficient and requires, I think, some sort of external energy in order to facilitate the flow of heat in a practical device.

 

Were you to overcome the practical issues, I can readily imagine a legal quagmire over radiant rights, i.e., do you have the right to take radiant energy from the outside of my auto at an accelerated rate?

[swansont]

OK, I have a moment to expand on my earlier statements.

 

I think the relevant concept here is the brightness theorem — it is not possible to increase the spectral radiance of light by passive optical devices. i.e. things don't get brighter (by he physics definition) without amplification, which requires energy input. This means, for example, that you will never be able to get an image of the sun to be at a temperature above ~6000 degrees. No matter what optics you use, and how much light you gather.

 

Your system appears to violate this, but that's because you haven't accurately modeled it. A careful reconstruction will show that the amount of energy passing in each direction has to balance. The weakness of thought experiments is that you have to think of everything, correctly, in order for them to work. Not doing that is the hobgoblin that haunts all perpetual motion seekers (and many relativity bashers, among others). If you have a self-consistent set of rules, you cannot use them to demonstrate that there is an inconsistency. If you find one, it means you have made a mistake in applying them.

 

The fight may not always go to the strong, nor the race to the swift, but that's the smart way to bet. The physics version is of that is that the laws of thermodynamics win, every time.

 

 

Edit to add: Another take on this: phase space is conserved. This ties in with the "accurate modeling" in which you appear to have assumed you can concentrate the radiation in a way that isn't possible. http://www.av8n.com/physics/phase-space-thin-lens.htm

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I think I understand your proposal. If so, there is nothing in principal that prevents your doing this, though I think you must do a lot of engineering yet.

 

 

Yes, there is, as I've discussed. It's not a matter of engineering. In principle it violates physical law in a few ways.

Edited March 18, 2009 by swansont
Consecutive posts merged.

[tvp45]

OK, I have a moment to expand on my earlier statements.

 

I think the relevant concept here is the brightness theorem — it is not possible to increase the spectral radiance of light by passive optical devices. i.e. things don't get brighter (by he physics definition) without amplification, which requires energy input. This means, for example, that you will never be able to get an image of the sun to be at a temperature above ~6000 degrees. No matter what optics you use, and how much light you gather.

 

Your system appears to violate this, but that's because you haven't accurately modeled it. A careful reconstruction will show that the amount of energy passing in each direction has to balance. The weakness of thought experiments is that you have to think of everything, correctly, in order for them to work. Not doing that is the hobgoblin that haunts all perpetual motion seekers (and many relativity bashers, among others). If you have a self-consistent set of rules, you cannot use them to demonstrate that there is an inconsistency. If you find one, it means you have made a mistake in applying them.

 

The fight may not always go to the strong, nor the race to the swift, but that's the smart way to bet. The physics version is of that is that the laws of thermodynamics win, every time.

 

 

Edit to add: Another take on this: phase space is conserved. This ties in with the "accurate modeling" in which you appear to have assumed you can concentrate the radiation in a way that isn't possible. http://www.av8n.com/physics/phase-space-thin-lens.htm

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

 

 

Yes, there is, as I've discussed. It's not a matter of engineering. In principle it violates physical law in a few ways.

 

Sorry. I missed the brightness violation. I suspect I don't understand his proposal after all.

[habanabasa]

swansont,

 

Thanks for these views.

 

As you can probably tell from my discussion, I anticipate and see many problems that my idea creates with established Physics. To date, it has been very difficult to get informed comment such as yours that might give reasoned arguments for or against the proposal.

 

I followed your link to the discussion on Liouville’s theorem. I don’t fully understand it yet but will do more reading on the subject.

 

A careful reconstruction will show that the amount of energy passing in each direction has to balance.

 

I don’t agree that the amount of energy passing in each direction balances. The geometries were carefully designed to create an imbalance. The simplest example is the last of the geometries which I will use to illustrate my point. The radiant energy that enters the trumpet at the small end will arrive at the target in a conical form as it is reflected off the last mirror. The energy will then be absorbed by the target which will radiate it once more. Only some of this new emission will be travelling in the same direction as the original incoming rays (the conical beam) and be directed back through the mirror system, the rest will be radiated into the environment of the target thus creating an imbalance.

 

In these devices, I am attempting to collect large amounts of low energy (300k) photons and have them absorbed by a target body. I believe that the photons will be amassed as planned and directed at the targets. What is in question here is what happens to these photons - will they increase the energy levels of the targets? This is the crux of the matter. In the extensive reading that I have done on the net it would appear that nobody knows for sure. Some say that the photons would pass through the object and not be absorbed. If this were true then no system could be a closed system (as the photons would pass through all bodies at the same temperature and out of the system) and nothing could be insulated. The corollary is that the photons are absorbed and their energy imparted to the body.

 

It appears to me that there are basically two methods by which a photon imparts its energy to a body, physical momentum and electron absorption. It appears that the physical and momentum method applies more to the lower temperature bodies while the electron absorption applies more to the higher temperature bodies. We are dealing in this instance with lower temperature bodies and therefore I expect that the method of absorption will be mechanical.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

But I think you have made some assumptions about the geometry that are unphysical, which lead you to overestimate the amount of power you can actually deliver.

 

It is not my intention to create the definitive power source in the first instance. I hope to be able to prove the principle and then let those who have more knowledge and resources than myself run with the ball.

[swansont]

The problem that you run into is that you can't gather as much radiation as you think you can, and/or you can focus it down the way you have shown. If you get a net transfer of energy between the two systems, I think you have violated at least one of those restrictions.

 

For example, if you try to use a parabolic dish to transport the radiation, you can't assume you have a point source, which means that the radiation from the extended source isn't going to be parallel, and some of the energy will reflect back onto the emitter, representing a reduction in net power transmitted. Second (and this is mentioned in the phase space argument link), you can't focus the radiation down to an arbitrarily small size — even though you show that in one of your drawings, it isn't possible.

[habanabasa]

The problem that you run into is that you can't gather as much radiation as you think you can, and/or you can focus it down the way you have shown. If you get a net transfer of energy between the two systems, I think you have violated at least one of those restrictions.

 

In Nature, bodies transfer energy out of themselves to the great outside where that energy is absorbed, reflected or refracted or any combination of these. Each transfer from any body is totally independent of the other bodies. There is no connection between the bodies in any way. What I am attempting to do here is interrupt or modify the energy flow that emanates from one of these independent bodies. This in itself shouldn’t create a violation of any restriction. It is only when this is seen in the context of a whole are any questions raised.

 

Please see a previous reply of mine -

“It is not my intention to create the definitive power source in the first instance. I hope to be able to prove the principle and then let those who have more knowledge and resources than myself run with the ball.”

I will be happy after all the losses that will surely occur, to have a positive result that will be measurable and outside the margin of error. Of course if it doesn’t work then its another story.

 

For example, if you try to use a parabolic dish to transport the radiation, you can't assume you have a point source, which means that the radiation from the extended source isn't going to be parallel, and some of the energy will reflect back onto the emitter, representing a reduction in net power transmitted. Second (and this is mentioned in the phase space argument link), you can't focus the radiation down to an arbitrarily small size — even though you show that in one of your drawings, it isn't possible.

 

You may have missed the point I tried to made in my description of the last geometry. The rays emanating from the elliptical mirror are “nearly parallel”.

The nearly parallel beam is to be intercepted by a parabolic mirror so giving a very small image at the parabolic mirror’s focal point.

In my drawings, by using a separation between the focal points of 40 metres, an image of 0.37 mm diameter was obtained. In the calculations I used an image size of 3.0 mm as I know that my mirror building is not so hot. Even this may be presumptive and something like 5 or 6 mm may be obtained in practice. Furthermore, the resulting temperature of 655K is theoretical only as it does not allow for losses and other problems like misalignment. The practical building problems aside, these ideas may still bear fruit.

 

I should point out here that I have had opinion from some very well informed sources that this may not in fact violate the second law.

For example this from an Honorary Fellow of a renowned major research institute -

“You aim to have a mirror system where energy is transferred from a source of moderate temperature to a target which increases to a higher temperature than the source. I am doubtful that this is a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Definitions of the Second Law that I have seen are rather obscure, rather ,mathematical, and involve concepts of entropy, order and disorder. Everyone knows that differences of temperature can result from reflections, white and black clothes etc. I doubt that you system would violate the second law.”

 

So there is hope yet.

[swansont]

In Nature, bodies transfer energy out of themselves to the great outside where that energy is absorbed, reflected or refracted or any combination of these. Each transfer from any body is totally independent of the other bodies. There is no connection between the bodies in any way. What I am attempting to do here is interrupt or modify the energy flow that emanates from one of these independent bodies. This in itself shouldn’t create a violation of any restriction. It is only when this is seen in the context of a whole are any questions raised.

 

There are physical limits on the ways that this energy transfer can be modified. And you are ignoring them, which is why you can get the answer you want, rather than the answer nature will give you — that the receiver will not heat up.

 

 

You may have missed the point I tried to made in my description of the last geometry. The rays emanating from the elliptical mirror are “nearly parallel”.

 

 

 

On the contrary, I did get it. What I am telling you is that it is not enough to merely state that you will have parallel rays at some point. It needs to be physically possible to get parallel rays with the system you have described, and you haven't shown that. This is the difference between science and science fiction (or art).

[tvp45]

The problem that you run into is that you can't gather as much radiation as you think you can, and/or you can focus it down the way you have shown. If you get a net transfer of energy between the two systems, I think you have violated at least one of those restrictions.

 

For example, if you try to use a parabolic dish to transport the radiation, you can't assume you have a point source, which means that the radiation from the extended source isn't going to be parallel, and some of the energy will reflect back onto the emitter, representing a reduction in net power transmitted. Second (and this is mentioned in the phase space argument link), you can't focus the radiation down to an arbitrarily small size — even though you show that in one of your drawings, it isn't possible.

 

Geez. I did a little research and then reread the OP more carefully. You're right - I was had! Oh, well...

[habanabasa]

Swansont,

 

Thanks for coming back on it again.

 

This post was my very first attempt at this type of post and I see now that it has many shortcomings.

 

I emailed copies to some very knowledgeable friends and acquaintances and have since received replies from some indicating that in their opinion this does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. They also gave much advice on the presentation, voice etc.

 

I would like to be able to edit the original post removing this contentious topic as it merely masks the real subject matter and also apply the advice given making a more professional, succinct and easier readable post.

 

Is this possible? I would present a copy for review before it replaced the original.

 

Your help would be appreciated.

 

Thanks.

 

John

[swansont]

Swansont,

 

Thanks for coming back on it again.

 

This post was my very first attempt at this type of post and I see now that it has many shortcomings.

 

I emailed copies to some very knowledgeable friends and acquaintances and have since received replies from some indicating that in their opinion this does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. They also gave much advice on the presentation, voice etc.

 

As you are proposing spontaneously moving energy from a cold object to a hot one (which is the case the instant after this begins operating), I fail to see how they come to that conclusion.

 

I would like to be able to edit the original post removing this contentious topic as it merely masks the real subject matter and also apply the advice given making a more professional, succinct and easier readable post.

 

Is this possible? I would present a copy for review before it replaced the original.

 

Your help would be appreciated.

 

Thanks.

 

John

 

Removing posts after comments have been made is not normally done, and runs counter to the spirit of a discussion board. An alternate option would be to post the revised system in a new thread. (This thread could be locked, if necessary, if there is no new discussion to be made regarding it.)

[habanabasa]

As you are proposing spontaneously moving energy from a cold object to a hot one (which is the case the instant after this begins operating), I fail to see how they come to that conclusion.

 

As you can see from the existing post, I really really struggle with this problem. I think that it is readily apparent to anyone who examines what I am trying to do. Perhaps I am simply acquiescing and listening to only what I want to hear because not to accept their views creates a very difficult road for me to travel. Perhaps they state that there is no conflict because the logic of the device is inescapable and they don't like the alternative. In the end it doesn't matter what they say or the approach I take because others or test results will eventually decide. All I can do now is state my case and listen for reasoned arguments and perhaps gain some new knowledge. Building the device, which is in progress, will prove or disprove my theories (I am struggling with the elliptical mirror - I haven't been able to get it to focus at distance).

 

 

Removing posts after comments have been made is not normally done, and runs counter to the spirit of a discussion board. An alternate option would be to post the revised system in a new thread. (This thread could be locked, if necessary, if there is no new discussion to be made regarding it.)

An excellent suggestion. I will start on the new post today. I think that putting out a post that does not start off by being contentious has more chance of being read and eliciting thoughtful comment. Perhaps many of the comments will be related to the second law of thermodynamics simply because readers will spot the problem up front.

 

Thanks for the advice. John

[JLanius]

What if you could use gravitational forces to draw all this radiant energy into the small point? If there was some way to create a sufficient gravitational force you would avoid using materials like mirrors (which would absorb some of the energy you are trying to harvest) and get directly to the gathering of this energy.

[habanabasa]

What if you could use gravitational forces to draw all this radiant energy into the small point? If there was some way to create a sufficient gravitational force you would avoid using materials like mirrors (which would absorb some of the energy you are trying to harvest) and get directly to the gathering of this energy.

 

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.

[swansont]

habanabasa has started a second, revised thread on this topic. Changes that have been made in the OP may not merit discussion here, so I am closing this.