A Solid-State Maxwell Demon

[Nonlinear]

Interesting video vasik041. There are still a few free thinkers left in academy who dare to question authority.

About the quora article. The answers don't appear on the page in chronological order, but based on the votes they receive. The one voted up to the top, the wrong one, was written by Rehan Kapadia, Assistant Professor at University of Southern California (2014-present).

Looking for his credentials at Viterbi Faculty Directory
https ://viterbi.usc.ed u/directory/faculty/Kapadia/Rehan

Rehan Kapadia
Assistant Professor of Electrical Engineering-Electrophysics
Education
    2013, Doctoral Degree, Electrical Engineering, University of California - Berkeley
    2010, Master's Degree, Electrical Engineering, University of California - Berkeley
    2008, Bachelor's Degree, Electrical Engineering, University of Texas – Austin

Everything checks out, he is a real person and he is a member of academy with a PhD in electrical engineering (he is of Indian origin). His credentials are solid enough to intimidate the unsuspecting readers into silence and surrender.

Next to the date of answer is this additional argument meant to unshakably establish the authoritative nature of the answer:

Upvoted by Farhad Taghibakhsh, PhD in electronics, ex-instructor in semiconductor physics

It takes more effort to check his background, but on the site sydex.ne t/page66020 we can find his credentials as well (his name indicates Iranian origin)

Education:
University of Waterloo   2004 – 2008
PhD

K.N. Toosi University of Technology   1996 – 1998
Master's degree

University of Sistan & Balouchestan   
Bachelor's degree

His credentials look solid as well. I think they are desperately trying to send the message to everyone like, 'which daredevil is going to challenge the truth of this answer'? Don't you dare, or else...

do you recognize any pattern of demographics, qualifications etc?

Well, this question didn't make much sense to me until I have clicked on the "View Upvoters" link. Now it is clear. Of the 79 upvoters about 59 is of Indian origin (based on their names), this is about 75% of all voters. About half of the voters claim to have relevant college or university degrees. Besides the mentioned top 2 distinguished participants the author and the highlighted upvoter, there are some more notable supporters:

Aryan Lall - Dual Degree Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology,
Marko Sokolich - Lecturer at University of California, Los Angeles (2003-present)
Fotis Avgidis - Works at CERN
Aayush Saxena - Works at Ajay Kumar Garg Engineering College
Yunshan Jiang - Works at University of California, Los Angeles
Karan Mehta - Intern, Silicon Photonics Group at Intel (2018-present)
Nil Gurel - Works at Georgia Institute of Technology
Sushmit Mallik - Works at Intel
Aneesh Kulkarni - Engineer at Qualcomm
Prashanth Paramahans - Works at Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay
Yiwen Rong - LED designer
Matthew Spencer - PhD Candidate in Integrated Circuit Design

In summary, the top false answer has been written by an academic, assistant professor of Electrical Engineering-Electrophysics, and there are several upvoters with significant credentials who should know the truth. People with dual degrees, lecturers, CERN and Intel engineers, LED designers, PhD candidates supposed to know the correct answer... right?

The disproportionate number or Indian names suggest foul play with the upvoting. Someone with lots of money could have hired these people to participate in the upvoting campaign. Why mainly Indians? Well, this gives some ideas

A Sampling of U.S. Companies that Send Call Center Work Offshore
https ://www.cwa-union.or g/pages/a_sampling_of_companies_that_send_call_center_work_offshore

The organizers of the campaign are stingy, and want to pocket part of the funds by hiring cheap players. This also shifts the blame on the Indians in case of scandal, and the organizers can wash their hands.

Do you recognize any nefarious agenda? If yes, then exactly what are they trying to hide and why?

They are trying to intimidate the readers and poster into accepting a fake answer with an overwhelming gang of authorities. They are hiding the inconvenient truth because it contradicts the second law of thermodynamics.

[ZL]

Thanks for the great analysis, Nonlinear. Now let's focus on the scientific part of the controversy, and analyse the top wrong answer.

Here is a quote from Rehan's explanation:

All the answers given about contacts, etc. are completely incorrect. The reason you don't measure any voltage when you put a volt meter across a p-n junction is that there is no voltage across the depletion region to measure.

Why? Well there is a difference between an electrostatic potential and a voltage. A voltage refers to a difference in fermi level between two points on the device, while an electrostatic potential is the integrated electric field between two points on the device. For simplicity, assume that the p-n junction is 1-D.

This difference (voltage and electrostatic potential) is extremely important.

In a p-n junction in the dark with no external bias, the Fermi level is the same everywhere (it must be or there would be current flowing). So what voltage would you measure when you put two probes down, one on the n-side and one on the p-side? If you assume you have magical, ohmic contact probes. Then the voltage you measure is the difference between the fermi level on the n-side and p-side. We've already said that those two numbers are equal, so you measure 0 Volts.

https://www.quora.com/Semiconductors-Why-cant-the-built-in-potential-across-the-depletion-region-of-a-p-n-diode-be-measured-externally

First he rejects the answers given earlier by others that refer to the contact potentials between the metal contacts and the semiconductor as the reason for no voltage measured on the voltmeter. But actually those answers are much closer to the truth (and make more sense) than his answer given in this quote.

Then he drops a bomb shell that completely contradicts the basics of electrical theory:

...there is no voltage across the depletion region to measure.

If there would be no voltage across the depletion region, then there would be nothing to stop the free charge carriers from drifting (diffusion) from one type of semiconductor into the other type, until their concentrations would become equal everywhere. If there would be no such built-in voltage, then it would also mean that there could be no electric field and no uncompensated bound (ionic) space charge within the diode in thermal equilibrium. If there would be no internal electric field, then there could be no depletion region either. But if you look up any decent textbook on the fundamentals of semiconductor physics, they all claim that there is a depletion region, because there is an internal electric filed. And since there is this internal electric field at the junction, then there must be a built-in potential difference between the two sides of the p-n junction as well.

Since his mind numbing assertion is contradictory and makes no sense, the only way to shove this down the throats of the readers is to confuse the basic definitions of electrical theory. He presents an even more absurd explanation that creates total confusion. He asserts that the electrostatic potential and voltage are not the same! Did you get that? Now let's stop here and try to digest that nonsense.

If we want to split hair, then the correct statement is that the electrostatic potential difference is the same as voltage by definition. But, even if we skip over this minor inaccuracy and leave out the word "difference", the absolute electrostatic potential is still measured in volts. Voltage between two points by definition is the electric potential difference between those two points. If we move one of these points, the reference point to the infinity, then the potential difference between these two pints is identical with the absolute electric potential of the other point (which is not at infinity). This absolute electrostatic potential is also voltage, even though the distance between the examined point and reference point is assumed to be infinitely large.

He correctly states that the "... electrostatic potential is the integrated electric field between two points on the device..." because that is how one can calculate the value of the electrostatic potential difference, by integration. But then he also attempts to redefine the meaning of the word "voltage" in the same sentence by asserting that it is not the same as the electrostatic potential difference between two points. He contradicts one of the most basic definitions of classical electromagnetics.

He asserts instead a completely different, confusing definition of voltage, based on statistical quantum theory, and probabilities. The awkward redefinition of voltage is the "difference in fermi level between two points". Why is this redefinition good for obfuscating the otherwise obvious truth, that there must be a real voltage across the junction that also must be measurable, since it is a real physical phenomenon? Because they can safely claim that the fermi level does not only depend on the electric field, but it also depends on other forces and phenomena present in the material.

This allows them to mix apples with oranges, and arrive to non-physical results and conclusions that prevent any possibility of the violation of the laws of thermodynamics. If the reader is not sufficiently attentive, and/or doesn't have a firm understanding of electromagnetics, there is a good chance that he won't recognize this slight of hand trick, the mixing of apples with oranges. If he doesn't understand the new definition, and the apparent resulting contradiction of existing electric field, but missing voltage, then he will think that it is his own fault, because his mental capabilities are not as sharp as the intellect of others who understand. Which academic, physicist or engineer with a degree would admit such a thing, and have the courage to ask embarrassing questions about the new definition? Very few, and their voices are suppressed by the choir of the "authorities" and their obedient followers who just repeat the nonsense like tape recorders.

The video posted by Vasik:
Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion BANNED TED TALK
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg

brilliantly fits in at this point of explanations, because Dr. Sheldrake describes the exact same slight of hand trick used to hide the fact that the speed of light is not really constant, but it measurably changes. These variations are small, but they are still large enough that they can't be caused by measurement errors or inaccuracies. They can't be ignored, they are real. I have seen this video before, but always enjoy the humorous way he explains very important and profound hidden truth. Thanks Vasik for the link, it was a marvellous coincidence to post it right now.

How does this relate to the slight of hand we are discussing? Well, Einstein asserted that the speed of light is constant, therefore it must be constant, because he was a genius and he can't possibly be wrong, period. The forcing of this theory upon the population is not a mistake, but has a very specific agenda to eradicate the notion of ether from physics, because if that were studied, we could gain access to FE, probably reaction less thrust, and interstellar travel. This is the privilege of the elite only, it is not meant to empower their subjects, so it must be hidden by any means.

To support this point, people are referred to the Michelson–Morley experiment that supposed to be authoritative and decisive in the matter. There have been many scientist, and other measurements that contradict the constancy of the speed of light with as solid arguments as that of  Michelson–Morley, but they are ignored, or debunked by the church of officialdom.

Now imagine the panic, when the instruments undeniably show that the speed of light changes! How to obfuscate and hide the obvious? Well, some experts of deception came up with an ingenious idea, to redefine the unit of measurement meter to depend on the speed of light. So when the speed of light changes, the length of the meter also changes with it, and you won't be able to recognize any change. They have created a circular logic effectively preventing us from recognizing the slight of hand, and the disinformation. Here is the brilliant way Rupert has presented the scandal:

... speed of light  - they are not fudging the results... they prefer to call it intellectual phase locking.  The speed if light may change again, but we will never know it... because we have fixed the speed of light by definition in 1972; it might still change, but we will never know it, because we defined the meter in terms of the speed of light, so the units have changed with it.

Do you see the pattern? They have redefined a basic unit of measurement in case of the speed of light controversy, and they have redefined the meaning of voltage in our case to hide any possibility of violating the laws of thermodynamics. It wasn't  Rehan who came up with this trick, but some much more experienced and shrewd disinfo experts, long before the creation of Quora. The traces of this operation are present in several textbooks as well.

There is one more important highlight in the video, when Rupert refers to this quote from Terence McKenna:

Modern science is based on the principle: 'Give us one free miracle, and we'll explain the rest.' The one free miracle is the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it in a single instant from nothing. ~ Terence McKenna

This is equivalent to the quote often used " The emperor has got no cloths!" The official science does everything it can to ridicule, debunk, and suppress any notion that energy could be created from nothing, or annihilated to disappear into 'nothing', saying that such thing is absurdly impossible and even unimaginable, because that would be a miracle. And as everybody knows, there are no miracles. But when their big-bang theory demands the existence of such a miracle, then that is completely normal and plausible...  They are two-faced hypocrites who have created an art and science from disinformation methodology and suppression.

This post is already longer than most readers are comfortable to read in one go, but my explanation has only started. Therefore let's stop here for now, take a break, and I will continue it in another post. Thanks for your patience, and valuable contributions to this conversation people.

[broli]

Reminds me of Quenco/Quetron


http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3430
https://quentron.wordpress.com/


Philip Hardcastle was active on this forum years ago: https://overunity.com/12207/quentron-com/


But it seems he hasn't died down yet and the tech goes by the name METTEC (Magnetic Electron Tunneling Thermal Energy Convertor) now: http://revolution-green.com/mettec-and-more/


Basically using electron quantum tunneling and a magnetic field to bias this tunneling into one direction.

[ZL]

This is the continuation of the analysis presented in my last post.
We have discussed that there are two key assertions in Rehan's answer, one is that there is no voltage across the depletion region, and the second is that voltage is not identical with the electrostatic potential difference. After revealing these "amazing" pieces of official propaganda he is hammering the issue into the head of the reader some more by emphasizing the key element of deception:

This difference (voltage and electrostatic potential) is extremely important.

Indeed, for them it is extremely important that you get totally confused, stop thinking, and just blindly accept and believe their assertions as truth. If you wouldn't accept their new redefinition of voltage, then their first claim, that there is no voltage across the depletion region to measure, would be an obvious nonsense. Like an elephant in the room. So it is extremely important for them that you accept their new definition of voltage, and stop questioning authority.

Now let's take a look at the second post just below that of Rehan, which pushes the same false claim that there is no voltage between the two edges of the depletion region with a different twist. It was written by "Farhad Taghibakhsh, PhD in electronics, ex-instructor in semiconductor physics" who is the same as the distinguished upvoter of the top answer. Here is a quote from his answer:

...Move the probes in towards the edges of the depletion region on each side ... you still don't read any voltage ... until you reach the edges of the depletion region. You still don't read any voltage, because if you count the charges (mathematically speaking, integrate) between the probes the sum is zero. Now keep one probe at one edge, say n-side, and move the other probe in toward the junction, you start to read increasing voltage (in number, the sign depends on which probe is moving, the red, or the black) until you reach the center of metallurgical junction. Now you read the built-in potential ... bingo. So, as you can see, if you want to read the junction potential you need to have one probe at the junction, and the other outside of the depletion region...

https://www.quora.com/Semiconductors-Why-cant-the-built-in-potential-across-the-depletion-region-of-a-p-n-diode-be-measured-externally

Apparently this is plan B in the strategy of deception, it was posted in 2016 three years after Rehan's post. Perhaps they have realized how awkward Rehan's answer was, and just in case there are people who would not fall for the first trick, Farhad is pushing a different deception. Let's see where does Farhad's explanation fail the test of common sense and classical electrostatic theory.

He claims that at the two opposite edges of the depletion region "...You still don't read any voltage, because if you count the charges (mathematically speaking, integrate) between the probes the sum is zero." This reasoning of his proves that he doesn't understand basic electrostatics. In order to have an electric potential difference or voltage between two points it is not necessary to have any amount of unbalanced positive or negative charges between the two points.

A potential difference is created by an electric field, and the charges that create this electric field don't have to be between the two points where the voltage is measured. They can be very far away outside of the region of the two points. Or alternatively (which is more relevant to our case), there can be an equal number of positive and negative charges between the two points that create the electric field, and electric potential difference. The electric field inside the depletion region is created by the bound (immobile) positive and negative ions that form a space charge.

But he claims that the reason why there can't be a voltage across the two opposite edges of the depletion region is because the sum of charges is zero between these two points. This is a false argument. Then he goes on to further demonstrate his lack of understanding electrostatics by claiming that

... if you want to read the junction potential you need to have one probe at the junction, and the other outside of the depletion region..." a "...capacitor does NOT represent a pn junction; two oppositely charged capacitors do. Each side of a pn junction is a capacitor with equal charge in number, but opposite polarity.

This claim implies that the direction of the electric field on the two sides of the metallurgical junction point in opposite directions, thus creating two opposing potential differences that cancel each other. Like in two equally charged capacitors connected in series with opposing polarities. In this analogy the left edge of the depletion region would correspond to the left terminal of the left capacitor. The junction point between the p-n regions would correspond to the point of connection between the right plate of the left capacitor and the left plate of the right capacitor. The right edge of the depletion region would correspond to the right plate of the right capacitor.

This is again nonsense, there are no two electric fields inside the p-n depletion region that would point in opposite directions. There is only one single electric field pointing in a single direction, from the positive bound charges (ions) towards the negative bound charges. This fellow hasn't got a clue about what he is talking about. But allegedly he has got a PhD in electronics, and he is an ex-instructor in semiconductor physics. Wow! People... just wow! What a corrupted world we live in... He must have bought his PhD at a discount, which would not upset me, but him being an ex-instructor in semiconductor physics is really bad. Like the blind is leading those who don't see. Checking who voted for his answer shows 8 people, while the answer below his given by Daniel Fernandes has got 16 upvotes. If the number of upvotes decides about the trustworthiness of the answer, then why is Daniel's answer below Farhad's, and not the other way around? There is an obvious bias even in the voting and consensus process on Quora.

Thanks Broli for the links, appreciated; I will take a look into it later. There were also other attempts to rectify the thermal motion in modified cold cathode electron tubes as well. But I wouldn't like to split our attention in many different directions in this thread until we finish discussing Sheehan's diode. Or at least until we finish the explanations about what are the errors in Germano's debunking paper. Afterwards probably I will withdraw again, stop posting here, and focus on my own research that is not related to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Then you and other readers can continue the line of thought if you like, also about other methods of 2nd law violations.

We can stop here again, and next time I will talk about the two answers on that page that are closest to reality. Are these explanations clear and understandable?

[Nonlinear]

Are these explanations clear and understandable?

Yes, please continue.
Thanks for your thorough explanations and for exposing the coverup, it helps a lot.
But my doubts raised by Germano didn't completely disappear yet.