Radiant Energy collection

[habanabasa]

No, what I'm saying (in part) is that you can't couple 100% of the light into the diverging mirror system. You are assuming you can — you are only looking at the rays that "enter the neck." A blackbody radiates in all directions — you seem to be assuming that the radiation is already directed into the horn. That's a bad assumption to make.

 

Please reconsider your argument as it is not an assumption, it is fact.

 

 

Oh yes we/they have. The underlying principle is the second law of thermodynamics. That's why I know it's not something that is a problem with a specific geometry, or can be solved with a better one.

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.

 

 

So the image you get is bigger than the emitter? Which means the light's diverging, something that's been predicted by myself and other posters, and my suspicions are baseless?

Please reconsider your argument in light of the quote below.

 

... 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. ...

[swansont]

If the physics arguments mean nothing to you, then just build it. You say you have already done part of it. You don't need any special source, because the trumpet is already at room temperature. Put the mirrors in place (or use lenses) and watch a thermometer not notice at all that you have done so.

[Bignose]

As a start on the more advanced mathematics, I'd suggest you take look at Radiative Transfer by the brilliant Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar. The book is absolutely a classic in the field of radiation.

[iNow]

As a start on the more advanced mathematics, I'd suggest you take look at Radiative Transfer by the brilliant Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar. The book is absolutely a classic in the field of radiation.

 

Is he the same guy who came up with math explaining the radius of an event horizon... the Chandrasekhar Limit?

[Bignose]

Is he the same guy who came up with math explaining the radius of an event horizon... the Chandrasekhar Limit?

 

Yes. I firmly believe Chandrasekhar was an intellect on par with Einstein and Feynman and the other great minds of physics and math. His work is not as well known as it probably should be, but he authored many great works. He is probably best known for his work on stellar dynamics, but he also wrote a very good book on stability in hydrodynamics and magnetohydrodynamics.

[habanabasa]

As a start on the more advanced mathematics, I'd suggest you take look at Radiative Transfer by the brilliant Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar. The book is absolutely a classic in the field of radiation.

 

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

If the physics arguments mean nothing to you, then just build it. You say you have already done part of it. You don't need any special source, because the trumpet is already at room temperature. Put the mirrors in place (or use lenses) and watch a thermometer not notice at all that you have done so.

 

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.

[swansont]

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.

 

You appear to suffer from the same problem that afflicts many perpetual motion enthusiasts — you have a deep-seated intuition about how the world works, and it's wrong. This is the scenario of a beautiful theory being slain by an ugly fact. There is no getting around the second law of thermodynamics, regardless of the attractiveness of your logic. As you are no doubt aware, the logic can be perfect, but if the premise is flawed, the conclusion will be invalid. You have assumed that nature behaves in a certain way, but it doesn't. It doesn't matter how perfect the logic is after that point.

 

 

You claim that you haven't gotten any objections in other places you've posted this, but a quick check on the web shows that not to be true. Some of the exact same objections mentioned here have been raised elsewhere. The problem of the second law has been pointed out, and one response directed you to a discussion of the brightness theorem (though I don't think it was mentioned by name). You have, in fact, had a number of people explain to you that your proposal violates the laws of physics. You should stop claiming otherwise.

[habanabasa]

You appear to suffer from the same problem that afflicts many perpetual motion enthusiasts — you have a deep-seated intuition about how the world works, and it's wrong. This is the scenario of a beautiful theory being slain by an ugly fact. There is no getting around the second law of thermodynamics, regardless of the attractiveness of your logic. As you are no doubt aware, the logic can be perfect, but if the premise is flawed, the conclusion will be invalid. You have assumed that nature behaves in a certain way, but it doesn't. It doesn't matter how perfect the logic is after that point.

 

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.

 

This is the scenario of a beautiful theory being slain by an ugly fact.

You may be right! The 2nd Law of thermodynamics may have to change.

 

... regardless of the attractiveness of your logic.

Science was built on logic - don’t discount it. It trumps all.

 

... the logic can be perfect, but if the premise is flawed, the conclusion will be invalid.

Sigh! It seems that now we have a premise and somehow it is flawed.

 

You have assumed that nature behaves in a certain way, but it doesn't. It doesn't matter how perfect the logic is after that point.

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 claim that you haven't gotten any objections in other places you've posted this, but a quick check on the web shows that not to be true. Some of the exact same objections mentioned here have been raised elsewhere. The problem of the second law has been pointed out, and one response directed you to a discussion of the brightness theorem (though I don't think it was mentioned by name). You have, in fact, had a number of people explain to you that your proposal violates the laws of physics. You should stop claiming otherwise.

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.

[swansont]

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.

 

 

You've gotten responses at sciforums.com, abc.net.au, physicsforums.com. At each, you've been told that you are violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics. At the second one, you were pointed to a thread that discusses the brightness theorem.

 

 

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.

 

Do as you will. You ask for science, and you got it. Unfortunately, the action you chose is all too common — you don't get a credulous audience telling you you're on to something big, so you take your ball and go home, and complain of being insulted — the audacity of anyone pointing out the laws of physics!

 

There will be another to take your place soon enough.

[Bignose]

The 2nd Law of thermodynamics may have to change.

 

I don't know (or really care) if you will come back and comment, but I still think that it is important to say:

 

This is a beyond extraordinary claim. As I wrote above, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has been found to hold in every single experiment to date. From every single lab experiment, to the dynamics of suns, to the movement of single atoms and even smaller pieces like quarks, to biological entities, to every single natural occurrence ever observed to every single non-natural set of circumstances that mankind has set up.

 

Not a single time has the 2nd Law been wrong.

 

And, the mathematics behind many of the derivations -- while complex and as you admit over your head -- are sound. No one who has studied them has found a hole in the theory behind the 2nd Law either.

 

No holes in the theory, no experiment that has violated it ever. EVER!

 

Claiming it needs to be changed is going to require some of the most extraordinary evidence mankind has ever produced.

 

May it need to be changed? Anything is possible, but you are trying to tackle what is single-handedly the most verified physical law that mankind has ever encountered. It may need to be changed, but until such a change is conclusively, objectively, and 100% verified to be genuine, the safe bet for all of science is to stick with the outcome that has happened a billion trillion quadrillion times before. That's why critics can justly cite "Your idea breaks the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics" and that is enough. There is no more needed at the moment, because the law has never, ever, ever been wrong before.

 

If you want to try to prove the law wrong, you go ahead and try. But, the onus is on you, not anyone else. Science is completely justified in ignoring your claims until proven to the contrary. And, that is nothing personal at all -- science ignores every claim that goes against the mainstream until proven wrong. The challengers step up to the challenge and bring back more evidence. And, guess what: when good evidence is brought back, science changes its position. But, no amount of good ideas or logic or wordsmanship is a replacement for evidence. So, bring back some evidence that this Law that has been proven right every single time before is wrong, and we will listen. We will embrace your new ideas. You will be rich beyond your wildest dreams. You will win every single award possible. Heck, there will be several awards names after you if you can do it. But, there has to be evidence. Your wanting the 2nd Law to change is not enough. You have to bring back proof that the 2nd Law is wrong. Period.

[swansont]

There's an additional lesson here, too. Science, as far as we can tell, is self-consistent, as are the models that we construct telling us how it behaves. At their core, they are applications of math, though with the caveat that it's math that reflects the nature of reality. A thought experiment that reaches a contradiction only points out that the thought experiment is flawed — something has been misapplied. The self-consistent model can't contradict itself, so the broken consistency has to be contained in the external data that has been added — something in it is mutually exclusive. In this case, it was a combination of "all of the radiation can be collected, collimated and focused down to the size of the collector," a statement that was not arrived at using physics.

[Lovecraft]

I kinda got the impression he was looking for specific reasons as to why or how his arrangement violates the second law of thermodynamics. Specifics as to why the idea is flawed rather than just generalized "it violates the second law of thermo dynamics".

 

(I am unclear on how it does violate the second law of thermodynamics other than the law says that basically objects in an isolated system will become less orderly [i.e. an implication of this is they will reach the same temperature and if left to their own devices will not have one just remain hotter than the other unless other forces are at work])

 

If I remember history correctly the problem of black body radiation was a big one with theory producing predictions far off the mark of observed data until quantum theories explained how and why black bodies glowed at certain wavelengths when heated up rather than at infinite wavelengths.

 

I think habanabasa was looking for a detailed reason as to why thermodynamics 2nd law comes into play here as a violation and something such as a heat exchanger doesn't violate it and if his idea does indeed violate the law, and if through demonstrated and confirmed experiment it works anyway there is either a problem with the interpretation of application of the 2nd law to this setup or an in consistency (therefore an incomplete theory or description of the law).

 

I don't know enough about physics to pinpoint how or why his idea violates that law and I'd love to know if anyone would care to point it out. My "gut" tells me it wouldn't work just because of how matter absorbs energy of specific wavelengths and emits energy of specific wavelengths rather than all wavelengths depending upon the material -- gut says there would be a sort of trap there that would force equilibrium in the system like a bucket with a hole in it sitting in another bucket filled with water. The bucket with the hole is gonna fill over time because of the hole and the bucket it's sitting in is going to empty into the inner bucket because of the hole until they are both in equilibrium-- just moving the hole isn't going to change that without a pump of some sort unless the hole is moved above the waterline, which itself stops the transfer of water and thus making the thing not a water collector at all anymore.

 

My gut also tells me that the idea would work if energy weren't transfered in finite quanta but was smooth with infinite variation and no discrete "photons" or other energy transmission units.

 

But then, my gut isn't scientific, just curious and hungry

[swansont]

The problem was that the system was not described in enough detail to know exactly where the failure occurred. The light collection and reflection were not modeled, it was just stated that a certain amount of energy could be collected and focused. You can't narrow down the flaw without more information.

 

I can appreciate that someone who is not versed in physics may think that "it violates the second law of thermodynamics" sounds like a brush-off, but there's a certain cognitive dissonance in "I'm not well-versed in science" coupled with "I know my idea is right"

[Lovecraft]

Thanks! While it doesn't clear up my curiosity your response does explain that there are just too many unknowns in the original posters presentation to make a scientific statement on exactly why it won't or can't work other than it smacks of 2nd law of TD violation.

 

I selfishly wish he had modeled things so I could indulge my curiosity about this more fully.

[habanabasa]

... Claiming it needs to be changed is going to require some of the most extraordinary evidence mankind has ever produced.

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 merged

It 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.

[swansont]

 

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.

 

The Clausius statement, applied to radiation, is about net energy flow. The photon path is reversible, and the hotter object emits photons, too. And more photon energy, which traces back to the cooler object. There is a net heat transfer from hot to cold.

[swansont]

Just ran across this pair of posts fro Tierney Lab at NYT, which is very close to this subject. In case anyone desired an explanation from a different source/perspective.

 

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/monday-puzzle-getting-something-from-nothing/

 

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/the-second-law-strikes-back/