Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
> You think that unlike other materials in the room, it radiates less than
> it absorbs under those conditions. I'm saying I'm not so sure.
> Experiment can't give the answer at this time, of course -- or, rather,
> any real experiment using real solar cells will support my claim, not
> yours!
You admit room temperature radiates visible light photons. Think about what
happens when a visible light photon strikes a photovoltaic cell.
>> >> That is storing ambient temperature energy to a capacitor, which
>> will
>> >> indeed drop the net temperature in the closed system. Understandably
>> >> even present leading edge photovoltaic cells are highly
>> inefficient at
>> >> such low radiation levels, but by laws of probability such a
>> >> photovoltaic cell will generate DC electricity.
>> >
>> > The "laws of probability" predict that if you wait long enough you'll
>> > fly up into the air because the molecules under your chair will all
>> get
>> > together and bump the bottom of your seat at once. That's a violation
>> > of the second law, too, and in exactly the same sense.
>>
>>
>> Indeed, but I'd bet my money on a visible light photon striking a
>> solar cell and thus causing a charge differential on the output
>> occurring far before your body atoms reach coherence.
>
> And I'd bet 1,000,000 times more on being able to extract useful energy
> from the temperature difference obtained by driving a metal stake 3 feet
> into the ground, at any point in the country, any time of the year, than
> on your ability to extract useful energy from a solar cell sealed in a
> room with _no_ sources more intense or warmer than the ambient and _no_
> objects cooler than the ambient temperature.
The goal is to get physicists to first understand the possibility. Then they
can begin searching micro technology that maximizes the effect such as a micro
LED's connected to a noisy resistor. From there they can design machines
capable of building trillions of such units in a small space.
Regards,
Paul Lowrance
