[Vo]: 2nd law of thermodynamics is incorrect
Here's another experiment that is extremely straightforward and simple. We know that thermo noise has no theoretical upper crest limit. Normally we refer to noise in terms of root mean square. When studying real thermo noise we see that given enough time the noise will eventually drift to a higher crest. The experiment is simple. Connect one resistor in series with an LED. That is it. To save yourself a lot of time you should pick a high frequency LED as used in GHz optics. This will provide a lot of bandwidth, which is what you want given voltage thermo noise is (4 K T R B)^0.5, where B = Bandwidth. Also you want to pick a resistor that matches the LED for an optimum effect. Also it doesn't hurt if the resistor is a noisy one such as carbon composite and as small as possible. Smaller carbon composite resistors generate more noise. Of course the *extra* noise is 1/f. This results in a resistor with real noise. When then voltage noise crest overcomes the LED's forward voltage then the LED will emit photon(s). Also note the LED emits photons far below the forward voltage. So in that sense, it is possible the LED will emit an occasional photon even when the noise voltage is far below the LED's forward voltage. Now the question is, Where do we aim the photons? Note the above experiment is in an isolated system. We have two experiments. Experiment #1, the resistor absorbs the photons. Experiment #2, the LED absorbs its own photons (we coat the LED with opaque material). The main difference between the two experiments is the resistor in experiment #2 is colder than the resistor in experiment #1. Note, the above experiments could require vast amounts of time, depending on the exact parts used in such experiments. Given enough time, the noise crest will reach the LED's forward voltage. For those who are less patient, it is possible you will see some photons emitted even below the LED's forward voltage. Regards, Paul Lowrance Sponsored Link Online degrees - find the right program to advance your career. Www.nextag.com
Re: [Vo]: 2nd law of thermodynamics is incorrect
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: A diode is not of course a very good switch and has a gently changing V/I slope (ie impedance) near zero bias. Which is precisely why you put the transformer in between. That shifts the voltage up the curve of the diode away from the zero bias point. Bear in mind that we are talking of AC (noise) voltages so one cannot expect to work with any DC bias. Also a diode has an exponential V/I relationship (Shockley equation) and so with appropriate scaling I believe it can be considered to work just as well in a high impedance circuit with zero bias as it does in a low impedance circuit when biased to the 0.65 volt so-called knee (which value is entirely dependent on the scale on which you choose to plot the exponential - scale the axes in microamps and millivolts instead of volts and milliamps and the knee moves down to zero). However you would need an incredible transformer ratio, and the resulting minute current on the diode side may be lost in the noise of the diode. This depends somewhat on whether or not these purported signals ... There is no purported-ness about these signals. It is a standard experiment performed by 3rd year physics students to measure this noise voltage and from it determine absolute temperatures (to ~4 digits with ~hours of integration), or knowing a single temperature, to determine Boltzmann's constant from the noise voltage. ... from the resistor can be ganged together. Since they would have random phase relative to one another, they would likely at least on occasion enhance one another leading to a spike that might be transformed and rectified. My point was that a transformer provides nothing that simply choosing a different valued resistor would provide. A high value resistor gives high voltage with low current but still only 4kT watts per Hz of bandwidth. Similarly ganging resistors together provides nothing different from what a single resistor would with the same value as the ganged set. (There is a small difference - and that is how well the resistor is heat sunk or connected to the heat bath - but for the power flows under discussion better connection to the heat source/sink is hardly an issue!) Thus it must also generate Johnson noise by the same mechanism (whenever there is a path for electrical power to be dissipated as heat, then there is the reverse path in which the heat bath can generate electrical power - this is called the fluctuation dissipation theorem in physics). Presumably this noise power source/sink will vary slightly in impedance with the voltage/current fluctuations The transformer transforms the impedances, so that there is a deliberate mismatch between resistor and diode. I think you missed my meaning - the exponential V/I relationship (Shockley equation) of the diode means that it will behave just like a resistor who's resistance (or impedance) varies (only minutely with thermal level IV) as the voltage or current in it varies. This is after all what provides the rectification effect - current in the forward direction sees the diode as a much lower valued resistor than current in the reverse direction. It is just possible that this effect could produce some net cohering of the statistical fluctuations. But like I said, I doubt if nature would make it that easy to beat its second law! - but I am sure nature will have organised it such that no configuration you can dream up will allow net power to be generated from thermal energy! A solar cell already does this, it just operates at a higher ambient temperature. A steam engine also works well when you have a significant temperature difference - such as that between the surface of the sun and the ambient on earth. But beating the 2nd law requires that it work without a temperature difference - ie turn random thermal energy into ordered electrical energy which can then be used to say heat an isolated resistor above ambient while slightly cooling the ambient heat bath in the process. Its built in diode, acts like a 0 K heat sink. More like a 300 K heat sink!
RE: [Vo]: 2nd law of thermodynamics is incorrect
2nd attempt to email: --- John Winterflood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: R Stiffler wrote: I guess his mail is getting messed up, the comments you make reference to were by Paul Lowrance and not myself. My mistake - sorry about that. Your formatting (without caretted indenting) together with my sloppy editing caused that. Paul wrote: ... Radiation resistance generates no thermal noise. That may be true but the argument would be entirely semantic. The exact same process of fluctuation-dissipation occurs and once some thermal power has been dissipated by an antenna, then noise with thermal characteristics comes back in via your antenna and looks identical to a warm resistor generating Johnson noise. It sounds like you are saying the antenna receives the same amount of radiation as it radiates. That is not true. I provided two examples. One with carbon resistor and another with metal film resistor. The antenna will receive the same amount of radiation in both experiments, but the antenna with carbon resistor will radiate more energy than the metal film resistor at room temperature. In a nutshell, we have to antennas at room temperature, both receive the same amount of radiation energy, but the antenna connected to carbon resistor radiates more energy. The experiment with carbon resistor will get colder than the experiment with metal film resistor. One might likewise argue that a resistor itself generates no thermal noise (since in a zero degree K thermal bath it certainly doesn't) and blame the effect on something going on in the resistor with another name - eg brownian motion of the electrons or something, but again that would just be semantics. I really don't see it that way. The carbon resistor is made of atoms containing charged particles. The noise is relative to the temperature of the charged particles. The fact remains that whatever mechanism is available to _dissipate_ electrical power into the radiation resistance of the aether, must also act in reverse to produce electrical _fluctuations_ from the energy previously or similarly dissipated (hence the dissipation-fluctuation theorem). That's possible, but if Aether generates noise given the frequency range as compared to carbon resistors then it is so infinitesimal that no scientist has measured such noise, that I am aware of. Once equilibrium with the surroundings is reached, the power flowing from a warm resistor to a warm environment via an antenna will be exactly equal to the power flowing back from the warm environment to the warm resistor. That's true; i.e., the carbon resistor will reach equilibrium at a colder temperature. Regardless, that is a source of energy. [snip] ... the antenna connected to a carbon resistor does indeed radiate more power than an antenna connected to a metal film resistor. Only if you provide power in the form of a current through the carbon resistor to get the flicker mechanism oscillating (see the wikipedia flicker noise reference I offered previously). Why are you interject flicker noise with this example? It's thermal noise. But then a powered integrated RF oscillator connected to an antenna will radiate even more power than a powered carbon resistor! I'm uncertain why, but it seems you are interjecting irrelevant information, which merely draws attention away from the fact that -- A carbon resistor at room temperature connected to an antenna will radiate more energy than a similar setup using metal film resistor. Regards, Paul Lowrance Sponsored Link Don't quit your job - take classes online www.Classesusa.com
Re: [Vo]: 2nd law of thermodynamics is incorrect
--- John Winterflood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: R Stiffler wrote: I guess his mail is getting messed up, the comments you make reference to were by Paul Lowrance and not myself. My mistake - sorry about that. Your formatting (without caretted indenting) together with my sloppy editing caused that. Paul wrote: ... Radiation resistance generates no thermal noise. That may be true but the argument would be entirely semantic. The exact same process of fluctuation-dissipation occurs and once some thermal power has been dissipated by an antenna, then noise with thermal characteristics comes back in via your antenna and looks identical to a warm resistor generating Johnson noise. It sounds like you are saying the antenna receives the same amount of radiation as it radiates. That is not true. I provided two examples. One with carbon resistor and another with metal film resistor. The antenna will receive the same amount of radiation in both experiments, but the antenna with carbon resistor will radiate more energy than the metal film resistor at room temperature. In a nutshell, we have to antennas at room temperature, both receive the same amount of radiation energy, but the antenna connected to carbon resistor radiates more energy. The experiment with carbon resistor will get colder than the experiment with metal film resistor. One might likewise argue that a resistor itself generates no thermal noise (since in a zero degree K thermal bath it certainly doesn't) and blame the effect on something going on in the resistor with another name - eg brownian motion of the electrons or something, but again that would just be semantics. I really don't see it that way. The carbon resistor is made of atoms containing charged particles. The noise is relative to the temperature of the charged particles. The fact remains that whatever mechanism is available to _dissipate_ electrical power into the radiation resistance of the aether, must also act in reverse to produce electrical _fluctuations_ from the energy previously or similarly dissipated (hence the dissipation-fluctuation theorem). That's possible, but if Aether generates noise given the frequency range as compared to carbon resistors then it is so infinitesimal that no scientist has measured such noise, that I am aware of. Once equilibrium with the surroundings is reached, the power flowing from a warm resistor to a warm environment via an antenna will be exactly equal to the power flowing back from the warm environment to the warm resistor. That's true; i.e., the carbon resistor will reach equilibrium at a colder temperature. Regardless, that is a source of energy. [snip] ... the antenna connected to a carbon resistor does indeed radiate more power than an antenna connected to a metal film resistor. Only if you provide power in the form of a current through the carbon resistor to get the flicker mechanism oscillating (see the wikipedia flicker noise reference I offered previously). Why are you interject flicker noise with this example? It's thermal noise. But then a powered integrated RF oscillator connected to an antenna will radiate even more power than a powered carbon resistor! I'm uncertain why, but it seems you are interjecting irrelevant information, which merely draws attention away from the fact that -- A carbon resistor at room temperature connected to an antenna will radiate more energy than a similar setup using metal film resistor. Regards, Paul Lowrance Sponsored Link Get a free Motorola Razr! Today Only! Choose Cingular, Sprint, Verizon, Alltel, or T-Mobile. http://www.letstalk.com/inlink.htm?to=592913
Re: [Vo]: 2nd law of thermodynamics is incorrect
Paul wrote: I really don't see it that way. The carbon resistor is made of atoms containing charged particles. The noise is relative to the temperature of the charged particles. Neither do I. I was trying to illustrate that assigning the noise source to the radiation resistance itself or some other thing such as the E-M radiation that is bouncing around in it, is similar to trying to separate the resistance of the conductive paths in a resistor from the electrons that are bouncing along them. We don't know what the aether is made of, but we do know that it supports electromagnetic waves and fluctuations. The spectrum of these fluctuations can be used to assign it a black body temperature. The temperature of deepest darkest space determined by this spectrum comes out around 2.7K. If the same measurement was done in a lab it would indicate an aether black body temperature of ~300K. If you attempt to couple to this aether with an antenna, then this radiation temperature will comes in through your antenna and the radiation resistance seen by the circuit looks identical to a ~300K warm resistor. Why are you interject flicker noise with this example? It's thermal noise. I have tried several times to educate you to the fact that the extra (or excess) noise found in carbon resistors is _not_ true thermal noise but is produced by DC current passing through the resistor. Why don't you read the wiki for yourself? Here is what it says: Flicker noise is found in carbon composition resistors, where it is referred to as excess noise, since it increases the overall noise level above the thermal noise level, which is present in all resistors. In contrast, wire-wound resistors have the least amount of flicker noise. Since flicker noise is related to the level of DC, if the current is kept low, thermal noise will be the predominant effect in the resistor, and the type of resistor used will not affect noise levels. Please note the last phrase: the type of resistor used will not affect the noise levels. Maybe you wish to disagree with common experimental knowledge? If so you should provide some reference for your as yet baseless assertion. If you are right, then it would be true that you could beat the 2nd law! But you wouldn't need an antenna - simply connecting two resistors with different thermal noise generation levels electrically would be sufficient to create a temperature difference between them in an otherwise uniform ambient.
RE: [Vo]: 2nd law of thermodynamics is incorrect
Maybe your time is before the old carbon element phones where we turned a crank to ring the phone of whom we were calling and often found that the noise from the 'mouth piece' element was extreme an higher that our voice signal? Since these used an external current (supplied by the hand cranked generator), I don't think this example really makes your point very well. Well the voltage came from batteries, the crank was to ring the other persons bell :-) Yes and No. The device was a variable carbon resistor which did indeed change resistance from the sound pressure, yet conditions existed where the transmitter became impacted and of course transmitted sound dropped, yet under some of these conditions the background noise increased many db, which was a signal to hit the transmitter on the table to free the particles. Sound returned and background noise dropped. Yes there are other answers to this, but I also remember using HV low current supply and amplifier on composite carbon resistors to sort out the quite ones for high gain amps. In this case I guess we must assume the glue did not affix to all particles and they were physically moving at some micro level to generate the noise. If I remember correctly the engineers at GTE were serious about this be 'Thermal Noise'. Granted this again was under the HV potential. Correct me if I'm wrong, but under the current view of heat, is it not thought to be a vibration or oscillation of the electrons set in motion by additional energy? If this is correct, would this not then additionally manifest itself in a time varying EM field? Furthermore, I suspect that the noise you refer to was primarily generated by graphite particles making and breaking contact with one another under influence from the voice itself. IOW no voice - no noise. However I think I have used such a device maybe once in my lifetime, so my memory isn't all that good on that score. -Original Message- From: Robin van Spaandonk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 4:58 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: 2nd law of thermodynamics is incorrect
RE: [Vo]: 2nd law of thermodynamics is incorrect
--- Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yesterday I sent the following to vortex-l@eskimo.com Yet it was populated --- Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yesterday I sent the following to vortex-l@eskimo.com Yet it was populated Excuse me. I meant to say, it did not populate. Paul Lowrance Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index
Re: [Vo]: 2nd law of thermodynamics is incorrect
Hi Robin,
I had a few comments regarding your conversation with
R. Stiffler --
--- Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
In reply to R Stiffler's message of Mon, 13 Nov
2006 15:13:45
-0800:
Hi,
[snip]
Robin! I'm at a loss?
So you are saying that 'Carbon' has 0 {zero}
background radiation? Like it
is at 0 K'
No, what I was trying to say was that I didn't think
you could
measure an electrical signal coming from a carbon
resistor (as
opposed to a thermal signal). If you can, and there
is an
electrical signal, then you should be able to
rectify it if you
first pass it through a transformer to adequately
increase the
voltage.
You can measure an electrical signal from any
electrical resistance caused by thermal noise. It is
_extremely_ easy.
Why can not an object which radiates energy (we
know all thing do) can not
be fed into an antenna, properly tuned and transmit
energy?
No antenna needed. The thing itself is already
transmitting (and
receiving) energy at IR frequencies.
I just didn't think this manifested as an electrical
current in
the resistor (and I still don't).
http://www.google.com/search?hl=enq=%22thermal+noise%22+%22boltzmann+constant%22btnG=Google+Search
Thermal noise is old fact for EE's. Very simple basic
stuff. :-) The white noise voltage signals are there
and extend from as low a frequency as you have time to
extremely high frequencies.
Maybe your time is before the old carbon element
phones where we turned a
crank to ring the phone of whom we were calling and
often found that the
noise from the 'mouth piece' element was extreme an
higher that our voice
signal?
Since these used an external current (supplied by
the hand cranked
generator), I don't think this example really makes
your point
very well. Furthermore, I suspect that the noise you
refer to was
primarily generated by graphite particles making and
breaking
contact with one another under influence from the
voice itself.
IOW no voice - no noise. However I think I have
used such a
device maybe once in my lifetime, so my memory isn't
all that good
on that score.
I just wanted to comment that all electrical
resistance generates thermal noise. Some resistors
such as Carbon generate more noise than others. Metal
film for example is amongst the best as far as quite
resistor is concerned.
Regards,
Paul Lowrance
Sponsored Link
$200,000 mortgage for $660/mo - 30/15 yr fixed, reduce debt, home equity -
Click now for info http://yahoo.ratemarketplace.com
Re: [Vo]: 2nd law of thermodynamics is incorrect
OK, this is a little annoying. I sent the following
email before the other emails, which went through but
the following did not. Has anyone experienced this
problem? I am using Yahoo email. Maybe Yahoo doesn't
want me anymore. :-( I noticed the yahoo email Search
is also failing last few weeks. Maybe a good time to
switch over to googles GMail. http://mail.google.com
Here's my email --
Hi Robin,
I had a few comments regarding your conversation with
R. Stiffler --
--- Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
In reply to R Stiffler's message of Mon, 13 Nov
2006 15:13:45
-0800:
Hi,
[snip]
Robin! I'm at a loss?
So you are saying that 'Carbon' has 0 {zero}
background radiation? Like it
is at 0 K'
No, what I was trying to say was that I didn't think
you could
measure an electrical signal coming from a carbon
resistor (as
opposed to a thermal signal). If you can, and there
is an
electrical signal, then you should be able to
rectify it if you
first pass it through a transformer to adequately
increase the
voltage.
You can measure an electrical signal from any
electrical resistance caused by thermal noise. It is
_extremely_ easy.
Why can not an object which radiates energy (we
know all thing do) can not
be fed into an antenna, properly tuned and transmit
energy?
No antenna needed. The thing itself is already
transmitting (and
receiving) energy at IR frequencies.
I just didn't think this manifested as an electrical
current in
the resistor (and I still don't).
http://www.google.com/search?hl=enq=%22thermal+noise%22+%22boltzmann+constant%22btnG=Google+Search
Thermal noise is old fact for EE's. Very simple basic
stuff. :-) The white noise voltage signals are there
and extend from as low a frequency as you have time to
extremely high frequencies.
Maybe your time is before the old carbon element
phones where we turned a
crank to ring the phone of whom we were calling and
often found that the
noise from the 'mouth piece' element was extreme an
higher that our voice
signal?
Since these used an external current (supplied by
the hand cranked
generator), I don't think this example really makes
your point
very well. Furthermore, I suspect that the noise you
refer to was
primarily generated by graphite particles making and
breaking
contact with one another under influence from the
voice itself.
IOW no voice - no noise. However I think I have
used such a
device maybe once in my lifetime, so my memory isn't
all that good
on that score.
I just wanted to comment that all electrical
resistance generates thermal noise. Some resistors
such as Carbon generate more noise than others. Metal
film for example is amongst the best as far as quite
resistor is concerned.
Regards,
Paul Lowrance
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com
Re: [Vo]: 2nd law of thermodynamics is incorrect
R Stiffler wrote: ... Carbon resistors generate more thermal voltage noise than Metal film resistors This is not really true. We may divide the noise sources in Carbon composition resistors into two types: 1) True Thermal noise (also called Johnson or Nyquist noise) which is the noise generated by the thermal agitation of the charge carriers (the electrons) inside an electrical conductor in equilibrium, which happens regardless of any applied voltage. (From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_noise). This noise source is absolutely fundamental and is completely unvarying regardless of type of resistor, and its power sourcing capability is completely unvarying regardless of value of resistance, number in parallel/series, size, etc. It is simply 4kT watts per Hz of bandwidth. (The bandwidth presumably goes up to some very high limit determined by the mean free path of the electrons being scattered in the resistive conductor). 2) Excess noise (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker_noise) - which is generated by current passing through the resistor and may well be due to thermal (or thermally induced microphonic) effects, but is not rightly referred to as thermal noise (at least amongst physicists). It is readily overcome with better technology. The excess noise present in a carbon composition resistor is produced by random effects driven by the power fed in and will only be a very small fraction of this applied power - ie very far from overunity! With regard to Johnson noise, if you short or open the resistor, then the entire 4kT watts generated is simply dissipated back into the sourcing resistor as heat and there is no net power flow. If you load it with a matched resistance then you can draw off half of this power, but if the resistor you load it with is at the same temperature, then it also generates this same power back in the first resistor and again there is no net power flow. Coupling to it via a transformer is no different to using a different value of resistor as the source - the voltage to current ratio changes but the power available remains constant. Similarly connecting many such resistors in series or parallel simply changes the impedance (or voltage to current ratio) without changing the available power. A diode is not of course a very good switch and has a gently changing V/I slope (ie impedance) near zero bias. Thus it must also generate Johnson noise by the same mechanism (whenever there is a path for electrical power to be dissipated as heat, then there is the reverse path in which the heat bath can generate electrical power - this is called the fluctuation dissipation theorem in physics). Presumably this noise power source/sink will vary slightly in impedance with the voltage/current fluctuations - but I am sure nature will have organised it such that no configuration you can dream up will allow net power to be generated from thermal energy! If a cold resistor and a hot resistor are connected through electrically conducting wires which are perfectly thermally isolating (if such things existed), then thermal energy will flow electrically from the hot resistor to the cold resistor until they become the same temperature. However this is no more exciting (and much slower) than simply providing a thermal conduction path. What is more interesting is that you can synthesize a cold resistor from a low-noise op-amp and room temperature resistors and actually chill a remote warm resistor (or more usefully a mechanical system coupled through a transducer) electrically. This is called cold damping. Of course the power to refrigerate or pump heat from the warm system to the synthesised cold one is coming from the op-amp power supply. With modern op-amps you can synthesise a resistor with a temperature of less than 1 Kelvin! (if I remember rightly). Preface: Radiation resistance generates no thermal noise. I would guess that the best you could do with any antenna pointing into deep space would be to pick up the 2.7 K microwave background - which would probably be indistinguishable from 2.7K thermal noise being generated in the radiation resistance seen via the antenna.
RE: [Vo]: 2nd law of thermodynamics is incorrect
I guess his mail is getting messed up, the comments you make reference to were by Paul Lowrance and not myself. Thanks anyway... -Original Message- From: John Winterflood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 9:55 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: 2nd law of thermodynamics is incorrect R Stiffler wrote: ... Carbon resistors generate more thermal voltage noise than Metal film resistors
Re: [Vo]: 2nd law of thermodynamics is incorrect
--- John Winterflood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: R Stiffler wrote: ... Carbon resistors generate more thermal voltage noise than Metal film resistors This is not really true. We may divide the noise sources in Carbon composition resistors into two types: 1) True Thermal noise (also called Johnson or Nyquist noise) which is the noise generated by the thermal agitation of the charge carriers (the electrons) inside an electrical conductor in equilibrium, which happens regardless of any applied voltage. (From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_noise). This noise source is absolutely fundamental and is completely unvarying regardless of type of resistor, Actually that's not true. Radiation resistance generates no thermal noise. and its power sourcing capability is completely unvarying regardless of value of resistance, number in parallel/series, size, etc. It is simply 4kT watts per Hz of bandwidth. (The bandwidth presumably goes up to some very high limit determined by the mean free path of the electrons being scattered in the resistive conductor). 2) Excess noise (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker_noise) - which is generated by current passing through the resistor and may well be due to thermal (or thermally induced microphonic) effects, but is not rightly referred to as thermal noise (at least amongst physicists). It is readily overcome with better technology. The excess noise present in a carbon composition resistor is produced by random effects driven by the power fed in and will only be a very small fraction of this applied power - ie very far from overunity! Personally I do not adhere to the term, overunity. Nonetheless, the antenna connected to a carbon resistor does indeed radiate more power than an antenna connected to a metal film resistor. With regard to Johnson noise, if you short or open the resistor, then the entire 4kT watts generated is simply dissipated back into the sourcing resistor Assuming you disregard black body radiation. as heat and there is no net power flow. If you load it with a matched resistance then you can draw off half of this power, but if the resistor you load it with is at the same temperature, then it also generates this same power back in the first resistor and again there is no net power flow. Coupling to it via a transformer is no different to using a different value of resistor as the source - the voltage to current ratio changes but the power available remains constant. Similarly connecting many such resistors in series or parallel simply changes the impedance (or voltage to current ratio) without changing the available power. The idea is connecting it to an antenna, not a transformer. Also more power is indeed radiated by duplicating such devices. Size is irrelevant with respect to power output. So each device could be a nanometer. You could have a trillion of such nano devices. [snip] Preface: Radiation resistance generates no thermal noise. I would guess that the best you could do with any antenna pointing into deep space would be to pick up the 2.7 K microwave background - which would probably be indistinguishable from 2.7K thermal noise being generated in the radiation resistance seen via the antenna. True, the antenna could pick up anything within its bandwidth. Fact still remains radiation resistance generates no thermal noise. Regards, Paul Lowrance Sponsored Link Try Netflix today! With plans starting at only $5.99 a month what are you waiting for? http://www.netflix.com/Signup?mqso=80010030
RE: [Vo]: 2nd law of thermodynamics is incorrect
Indeed, it seems everything I touch lately is performing highly unusual. People report that my MEMM wiki doesn't fully load. Certain posts at overunity.com don't post. Maybe it's the MIB, G Just trying to lighten up, as I'm really getting frustrating over this whole trip lately. Regards, Paul Lowrance --- R Stiffler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess his mail is getting messed up, the comments you make reference to were by Paul Lowrance and not myself. Thanks anyway... -Original Message- From: John Winterflood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 9:55 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: 2nd law of thermodynamics is incorrect R Stiffler wrote: ... Carbon resistors generate more thermal voltage noise than Metal film resistors Sponsored Link Get a free Motorola Razr! Today Only! Choose Cingular, Sprint, Verizon, Alltel, or T-Mobile. http://www.letstalk.com/inlink.htm?to=592913
RE: [Vo]: 2nd law of thermodynamics is incorrect
Paul, this is far of subject (?) but it is of interest and will warm the hearts of the MIB fearful, (which I am). We began to notice strange things with email and an associate with great internet talent offered to help. (This was 2 years ago). He was able to trace our mail going through a US Military Server in Germany? Now I do not want to start INet rumors or get people all excited with something that I can not today provide proof of, yet the problem left when all routing later switched through VA. Funny :-) but not funny... Those of you at Carnivore, Raptor and Chameleon have fun, because I stopped making sense long ago. -Original Message- From: Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 11:38 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]: 2nd law of thermodynamics is incorrect Indeed, it seems everything I touch lately is performing highly unusual. People report that my MEMM wiki doesn't fully load. Certain posts at overunity.com don't post. Maybe it's the MIB, G Just trying to lighten up, as I'm really getting frustrating over this whole trip lately. Regards, Paul Lowrance --- R Stiffler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess his mail is getting messed up, the comments you make reference to were by Paul Lowrance and not myself. Thanks anyway... -Original Message- From: John Winterflood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 9:55 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: 2nd law of thermodynamics is incorrect R Stiffler wrote: ... Carbon resistors generate more thermal voltage noise than Metal film resistors Sponsored Link Get a free Motorola Razr! Today Only! Choose Cingular, Sprint, Verizon, Alltel, or T-Mobile. http://www.letstalk.com/inlink.htm?to=592913
RE: [Vo]: 2nd law of thermodynamics is incorrect
Hi Dr. Ronald R. Stiffler, Some time ago I posted at overunity.com that I narrowed down a constant successful hack attempt on my personal computer to the country of Germany. Understandably the government will *not* prohibit any advanced technology or physics theory in public hands for security issues. It seems they are a little afraid of terrorists and rogue countries such as Iran and N.Korea. Good thing my research is not about advanced technology. I completely understand their POV. It's my goal to spread the research information and ignite enough interest so the research will survive and continue. Regards, Paul Lowrance --- R Stiffler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Paul, this is far of subject (?) but it is of interest and will warm the hearts of the MIB fearful, (which I am). We began to notice strange things with email and an associate with great internet talent offered to help. (This was 2 years ago). He was able to trace our mail going through a US Military Server in Germany? Now I do not want to start INet rumors or get people all excited with something that I can not today provide proof of, yet the problem left when all routing later switched through VA. Funny :-) but not funny... Those of you at Carnivore, Raptor and Chameleon have fun, because I stopped making sense long ago. -Original Message- From: Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 11:38 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]: 2nd law of thermodynamics is incorrect Indeed, it seems everything I touch lately is performing highly unusual. People report that my MEMM wiki doesn't fully load. Certain posts at overunity.com don't post. Maybe it's the MIB, G Just trying to lighten up, as I'm really getting frustrating over this whole trip lately. Regards, Paul Lowrance --- R Stiffler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess his mail is getting messed up, the comments you make reference to were by Paul Lowrance and not myself. Thanks anyway... -Original Message- From: John Winterflood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 9:55 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: 2nd law of thermodynamics is incorrect R Stiffler wrote: ... Carbon resistors generate more thermal voltage noise than Metal film resistors Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index
Re: [Vo]: 2nd law of thermodynamics is incorrect
R Stiffler wrote: I guess his mail is getting messed up, the comments you make reference to were by Paul Lowrance and not myself. My mistake - sorry about that. Your formatting (without caretted indenting) together with my sloppy editing caused that. Paul wrote: ... Radiation resistance generates no thermal noise. That may be true but the argument would be entirely semantic. The exact same process of fluctuation-dissipation occurs and once some thermal power has been dissipated by an antenna, then noise with thermal characteristics comes back in via your antenna and looks identical to a warm resistor generating Johnson noise. One might likewise argue that a resistor itself generates no thermal noise (since in a zero degree K thermal bath it certainly doesn't) and blame the effect on something going on in the resistor with another name - eg brownian motion of the electrons or something, but again that would just be semantics. The fact remains that whatever mechanism is available to _dissipate_ electrical power into the radiation resistance of the aether, must also act in reverse to produce electrical _fluctuations_ from the energy previously or similarly dissipated (hence the dissipation-fluctuation theorem). Once equilibrium with the surroundings is reached, the power flowing from a warm resistor to a warm environment via an antenna will be exactly equal to the power flowing back from the warm environment to the warm resistor. In order to have no thermal noise being sourced into a circuit from an antenna, one would have to locate it so that its entire visible environment was at absolute zero (which is very similar to what is required for a resistor to generate no thermal noise). ... the antenna connected to a carbon resistor does indeed radiate more power than an antenna connected to a metal film resistor. Only if you provide power in the form of a current through the carbon resistor to get the flicker mechanism oscillating (see the wikipedia flicker noise reference I offered previously). But then a powered integrated RF oscillator connected to an antenna will radiate even more power than a powered carbon resistor!
Re: [Vo]: 2nd law of thermodynamics is incorrect
R Stiffler wrote: I guess his mail is getting messed up, the comments you make reference to were by Paul Lowrance and not myself. My mistake - sorry about that. Your formatting (without caretted indenting) together with my sloppy editing was the cause. Paul wrote: ... Radiation resistance generates no thermal noise. That may be true but the argument would be entirely semantic. The exact same process of fluctuation-dissipation occurs and once some thermal power has been dissipated by an antenna, then noise with thermal characteristics comes back in via your antenna and looks identical to a warm resistor generating Johnson noise. One might likewise argue that a resistor itself generates no thermal noise (since in a zero degree K thermal bath it certainly doesn't) and blame the effect on something going on in the resistor with another name - eg brownian motion of the electrons or something - but again that would just be semantics. The fact remains that whatever mechanism is available to _dissipate_ electrical power into the radiation resistance of the aether, must also act in reverse to produce electrical _fluctuations_ from the energy previously or similarly dissipated (hence the _dissipation-fluctuation_ theorem). Once equilibrium with the surroundings is reached, the power flowing from a warm resistor to a warm environment via an antenna will be exactly equal to the power flowing back from the warm environment to the warm resistor. In order to have no thermal noise being sourced into a circuit from an antenna, one would have to locate it so that its entire visible environment was at absolute zero (which is very similar to what is required for a resistor to generate no thermal noise). ... the antenna connected to a carbon resistor does indeed radiate more power than an antenna connected to a metal film resistor. Only if you provide power in the form of a current through the carbon resistor to get the flicker mechanism oscillating (see the wikipedia flicker noise reference I offered previously). But then a powered integrated RF oscillator connected to an antenna will radiate even more power than a powered carbon resistor!
Re: [Vo]: 2nd law of thermodynamics is incorrect
In reply to John Winterflood's message of Wed, 15 Nov 2006 01:54:51 +0800: Hi, [snip] With regard to Johnson noise, if you short or open the resistor, then the entire 4kT watts generated is simply dissipated back into the sourcing resistor as heat and there is no net power flow. If you load it with a matched resistance then you can draw off half of this power, but if the resistor you load it with is at the same temperature, then it also generates this same power back in the first resistor and again there is no net power flow. Coupling to it via a transformer is no different to using a different value of resistor as the source - the voltage to current ratio changes but the power available remains constant. Similarly connecting many such resistors in series or parallel simply changes the impedance (or voltage to current ratio) without changing the available power. It isn't the transformer that is meant to have an effect. It's the diode. A diode is not of course a very good switch and has a gently changing V/I slope (ie impedance) near zero bias. Which is precisely why you put the transformer in between. That shifts the voltage up the curve of the diode away from the zero bias point. However you would need an incredible transformer ratio, and the resulting minute current on the diode side may be lost in the noise of the diode. This depends somewhat on whether or not these purported signals from the resistor can be ganged together. Since they would have random phase relative to one another, they would likely at least on occasion enhance one another leading to a spike that might be transformed and rectified. Thus it must also generate Johnson noise by the same mechanism (whenever there is a path for electrical power to be dissipated as heat, then there is the reverse path in which the heat bath can generate electrical power - this is called the fluctuation dissipation theorem in physics). Presumably this noise power source/sink will vary slightly in impedance with the voltage/current fluctuations The transformer transforms the impedances, so that there is a deliberate mismatch between resistor and diode. - but I am sure nature will have organised it such that no configuration you can dream up will allow net power to be generated from thermal energy! A solar cell already does this, it just operates at a higher ambient temperature. Its built in diode, acts like a 0 K heat sink. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
[Vo]: 2nd law of thermodynamics is incorrect
Carbon resistors generate more thermal voltage noise than Metal film resistors. That by itself proves nothing, but when applied to an antenna with radiation resistance we disprove the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Consider two experiments where the only difference is one uses a noisier resistor as a voltage source. Preface: Radiation resistance generates no thermal noise. Experiment A: Resistor in series with an antenna. Thermal noise source resistance: R Antenna radiation resistance: Rr RMS thermal noise: Va RMS current: Va / (R + Rr) Radiated power: I^2 Rr = (Va / (R + Rr))^2 * Rr Experiment B, with noisier resistor: Resistor in series with an antenna. Thermal noise source resistance: R Antenna radiation resistance: Rr RMS thermal noise: Va * 1.1 RMS current: Va * 1.1 / (R + Rr) Radiated power: I^2 Rr = (Va * 1.1 / (R + Rr))^2 * Rr Experiment B radiates more power. Experiment B will be cooler than experiment A. Lets simply. Neither experiment A or B have a power source except thermal noise. Experiment B radiates more power. It is a very simple circuit. Over time, more energy is leaving experiment B than experiment A. Therefore experiment B will be colder than experiment A. Regards, Paul Lowrance Sponsored Link Degrees online in as fast as 1 Yr - MBA, Bachelor's, Master's, Associate Click now to apply http://yahoo.degrees.info
RE: [Vo]: 2nd law of thermodynamics is incorrect
Deborah D. L. Chung has been on this issue for some time, the following links may be of interest in ref. to the carbon resistor and excess energy. The Chung's Negative Resistance experiment Dr. Deborah D. L. Chung, professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering at University at Buffalo (UB) http://jlnlabs.imars.com/cnr/index.htm Created by Deborah Chung, Niagara Mohawk Professor of Materials Research in the UB School of Engineering and Applied Sciences Thermal Paste To Help Minimize Overheating In Electronic Devices http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/07/030714092651.htm http://jim.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/17/1/57.pdf http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normalid=APPLAB0 000871313311801idtype=cvipsgifs=yes -Original Message- From: Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 11:27 AM To: vortex-l Subject: [Vo]: 2nd law of thermodynamics is incorrect Carbon resistors generate more thermal voltage noise than Metal film resistors. That by itself proves nothing, but when applied to an antenna with radiation resistance we disprove the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Consider two experiments where the only difference is one uses a noisier resistor as a voltage source. Preface: Radiation resistance generates no thermal noise. Experiment A: Resistor in series with an antenna. Thermal noise source resistance: R Antenna radiation resistance: Rr RMS thermal noise: Va RMS current: Va / (R + Rr) Radiated power: I^2 Rr = (Va / (R + Rr))^2 * Rr Experiment B, with noisier resistor: Resistor in series with an antenna. Thermal noise source resistance: R Antenna radiation resistance: Rr RMS thermal noise: Va * 1.1 RMS current: Va * 1.1 / (R + Rr) Radiated power: I^2 Rr = (Va * 1.1 / (R + Rr))^2 * Rr Experiment B radiates more power. Experiment B will be cooler than experiment A. Lets simply. Neither experiment A or B have a power source except thermal noise. Experiment B radiates more power. It is a very simple circuit. Over time, more energy is leaving experiment B than experiment A. Therefore experiment B will be colder than experiment A. Regards, Paul Lowrance Sponsored Link Degrees online in as fast as 1 Yr - MBA, Bachelor's, Master's, Associate Click now to apply http://yahoo.degrees.info
Re: [Vo]: 2nd law of thermodynamics is incorrect
In reply to Paul's message of Mon, 13 Nov 2006 11:27:11 -0800 (PST): Hi, [snip] Lets simply. Neither experiment A or B have a power source except thermal noise. Experiment B radiates more power. It is a very simple circuit. Over time, more energy is leaving experiment B than experiment A. Therefore experiment B will be colder than experiment A. Please forgive my ignorance, but I thought that thermal noise occurred as a consequence of a current passing through a resistor. A current driven by an external voltage. I didn't think that resistors actually generated anything by themselves. Hence, I wouldn't expect either experiment to radiate anything at all (through the antenna). (The only radiation I would expect would be normal thermal radiation, from the body of the resistor, as a consequence of their being at a specific temperature.) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/ Competition provides the motivation, Cooperation provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: 2nd law of thermodynamics is incorrect
Why have we tried to decrease the time measurement window? Look at the first oscilloscopes, they were deemed a great advance in measurement technology, yet they were slow, the window was broad. Technology improved and we began to see things in waveforms that we were amazed with. The faster the scope got the more we saw and the more we understood, to a limit. Storage scopes were the butter on the bread, yet x-hertz views did and do not exist today. So in short, how do we view an event in real time? We dont. The only way you can view an event is if you are viewing in the same time frame as the event. Okay what does this mean? It means you are the event! Your can never be the observer and see what is taking place in the event, unless you are the event. In short we can never see that short time frame where dimensional interaction is actually playing a part in the observed reaction. Left field? Okay, but so are some of the other Hypotheses such as String Theory.
RE: [Vo]: 2nd law of thermodynamics is incorrect
Robin! I'm at a loss?
So you are saying that 'Carbon' has 0 {zero} background radiation? Like it
is at 0 K'
Why can not an object which radiates energy (we know all thing do) can not
be fed into an antenna, properly tuned and transmit energy?
Maybe your time is before the old carbon element phones where we turned a
crank to ring the phone of whom we were calling and often found that the
noise from the 'mouth piece' element was extreme an higher that our voice
signal?
-Original Message-
From: Robin van Spaandonk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 12:48 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: 2nd law of thermodynamics is incorrect
In reply to Paul's message of Mon, 13 Nov 2006 11:27:11 -0800
(PST):
Hi,
[snip]
Lets simply. Neither experiment A or B have a power
source except thermal noise. Experiment B radiates
more power. It is a very simple circuit. Over time,
more energy is leaving experiment B than experiment A.
Therefore experiment B will be colder than experiment
A.
Please forgive my ignorance, but I thought that thermal noise
occurred as a consequence of a current passing through a resistor.
A current driven by an external voltage. I didn't think that
resistors actually generated anything by themselves. Hence, I
wouldn't expect either experiment to radiate anything at all
(through the antenna).
(The only radiation I would expect would be normal thermal
radiation, from the body of the resistor, as a consequence of
their being at a specific temperature.)
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/
Competition provides the motivation,
Cooperation provides the means.
Re: [Vo]: 2nd law of thermodynamics is incorrect
--- Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In reply to Paul's message of Mon, 13 Nov 2006 11:27:11 -0800 (PST): Hi, [snip] Lets simply. Neither experiment A or B have a power source except thermal noise. Experiment B radiates more power. It is a very simple circuit. Over time, more energy is leaving experiment B than experiment A. Therefore experiment B will be colder than experiment A. Please forgive my ignorance, but I thought that thermal noise occurred as a consequence of a current passing through a resistor. A current driven by an external voltage. I didn't think that resistors actually generated anything by themselves. Hence, I wouldn't expect either experiment to radiate anything at all (through the antenna). (The only radiation I would expect would be normal thermal radiation, from the body of the resistor, as a consequence of their being at a specific temperature.) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk Hi Robin, Thermal noise is caused by vibrating thermal charges in matter. It's not related to any applied current. The rms voltage of thermal noise is : Vn = (4 K T R dF) ^ 0.5 K is Boltzmann constant, 1.3806503E-023 T is temperature in Kelvin R is resistance dF is bandwidth The total noise power in a matched load circuit is Pt = 4 K T dF Power across the matched load is Pt = 2 K T dF Of course that's not much power, but size is not a factor. So the object could be a nanometer. When you consider trillions of such objects with say 1 THz bandwidth then you are in well in the kilowatt region. 2 * 1.38E-023 * 295 K * 1.00e+12 = 8.142E-009 W 1 trillion such objects = 8.14 KW With just 1 GHz bandwidth, 8.14 W Regards, Paul Lowrance Sponsored Link Mortgage rates near 39yr lows. $420k for $1,399/mo. Calculate new payment! http://www.LowerMyBills.com/lre
Re: [Vo]: 2nd law of thermodynamics is incorrect
In reply to R Stiffler's message of Mon, 13 Nov 2006 15:13:45
-0800:
Hi,
[snip]
Robin! I'm at a loss?
So you are saying that 'Carbon' has 0 {zero} background radiation? Like it
is at 0 K'
No, what I was trying to say was that I didn't think you could
measure an electrical signal coming from a carbon resistor (as
opposed to a thermal signal). If you can, and there is an
electrical signal, then you should be able to rectify it if you
first pass it through a transformer to adequately increase the
voltage.
Why can not an object which radiates energy (we know all thing do) can not
be fed into an antenna, properly tuned and transmit energy?
No antenna needed. The thing itself is already transmitting (and
receiving) energy at IR frequencies.
I just didn't think this manifested as an electrical current in
the resistor (and I still don't).
Maybe your time is before the old carbon element phones where we turned a
crank to ring the phone of whom we were calling and often found that the
noise from the 'mouth piece' element was extreme an higher that our voice
signal?
Since these used an external current (supplied by the hand cranked
generator), I don't think this example really makes your point
very well. Furthermore, I suspect that the noise you refer to was
primarily generated by graphite particles making and breaking
contact with one another under influence from the voice itself.
IOW no voice - no noise. However I think I have used such a
device maybe once in my lifetime, so my memory isn't all that good
on that score.
-Original Message-
From: Robin van Spaandonk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 12:48 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: 2nd law of thermodynamics is incorrect
In reply to Paul's message of Mon, 13 Nov 2006 11:27:11 -0800
(PST):
Hi,
[snip]
Lets simply. Neither experiment A or B have a power
source except thermal noise. Experiment B radiates
more power. It is a very simple circuit. Over time,
more energy is leaving experiment B than experiment A.
Therefore experiment B will be colder than experiment
A.
Please forgive my ignorance, but I thought that thermal noise
occurred as a consequence of a current passing through a resistor.
A current driven by an external voltage. I didn't think that
resistors actually generated anything by themselves. Hence, I
wouldn't expect either experiment to radiate anything at all
(through the antenna).
(The only radiation I would expect would be normal thermal
radiation, from the body of the resistor, as a consequence of
their being at a specific temperature.)
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/
Competition provides the motivation,
Cooperation provides the means.
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/
Competition provides the motivation,
Cooperation provides the means.
