Overunity.com Archives

While searching for something else, stumbled across this interesting and very convincing scientific paper about a device that can extract electric power from low grade ambient heat at room temperature. Unlike heat engines, this doesn't require temperature gradient. The basic principle is quite simple: the thermal energy (Brownian motion) in the depletion zone of a special diode creates a potential difference, which charges a capacitor. The capacitor is then discharged utilizing the converted heat energy. Then the cycle starts over again.

The basic cell is microscopic, the power converted by a single diode is also minuscule (Pcell=0.5e−9 – 5e−9 W), but if you calculate the power density that can be extracted from a huge array of these units (like in an IC or MEMS) is remarkably large Pv=0.5 GW – 5 GW/m^3. Of course this is just a theoretical value, assuming that there would be a continuous input of heat power into that volume equal to the extracted electrical power in order to maintain the temperature at a reasonably high level. This heat supply system would consume some extra volume, diluting the quoted enormous theoretical power density. But if a practical embodiment of this converter array could achieve even a tiny fraction of this power density, it could be still used as a very compact refrigerator-electric generator that produces electric power, instead of consuming it.

The paper can be downloaded from:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.361.6283&rep=rep1&type=pdf

This is not the subject of my focus right now, but if there are people on this forum who are looking for FE principles that really work (or at least make sense, and have scientific basis) then this one deserves your attention.

Zoltan

Watch Dr. Daniel Sheehan on youtube; challenges to the second law...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBp_SPJAOJc
He also has an interesting talk about a computer that recovers its own heat and uses that to power itself.
A friend of mine is trying to make a practical device that converts infra red radiation directly into electricity.

The paper is quite convincing and the theory looks plausible, but that doesn't mean one should blindly believe it is absolutely correct, just because it was written by a scientist with a Ph.D. Blindly believing scientific "authorities" in FE research can be very misleading, and can cause losses (speaking from personal experience). While it is good to see that this subject has broken into the official scientific literature (which is weird on its own), something doesn't feel right around this invention. We have to use our own discernment and critical thinking to find out whether this is just another trap, or it is real. A bit of detective work would get us closer to the truth.

The video "SSE Talks - Challenges to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics - Daniel Sheehan" was recorded 8 years ago, and no sign of new developments. Nobody promotes it, or talks about this thing any more. There were at least 2 websites associated with this invention www.paradigmenergy.com and www.alternative-renewable-energy.com and both have disappeared about 4 years ago, or earlier.

Quote from: memoryman on May 11, 2018, 11:31:12 AM
He also has an interesting talk about a computer that recovers its own heat and uses that to power itself.

Do you have the link to that talk?

Does anybody see any reason why this invention would be a fallacy?

Let me play the devil's advocate just for a minute, and present another paper that attempts to debunk this invention. It was written by Germano D'Abramo who works for "Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica, Via Fosso del Cavaliere 100, 00133, Roma, Italy". The title of the paper is "A Note on Solid-State Maxwell Demon" and can be downloaded from:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/47817342_A_Note_on_Solid-State_Maxwell_Demon

His arguments are not valid though. Can anybody see the fallacy in his debunking?

What Dr.Sheehan di was to make an device to prove his theory; this may never become a practical product.
Here is the video  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgBnMFvZSXc
Same thing; just because it can be done does not mean that it can be made into a successful product.
What my friend is doing is similar; it has been proven in a lab but now needs to be scaled up.

Quote from: memoryman on May 12, 2018, 11:38:04 AM
What Dr.Sheehan di was to make an device to prove his theory; this may never become a practical product.

That is one possible explanation. Another more probable version is that his websites have disappeared exactly because this invention, and the underlying principle can be made into practical products that are too disruptive to publish in detail for the whole world. This could be also the reason why no further developments are being published.

Even though his websites have been taken offline, you can still find traces of them at archive.org (make a search and see). When you display the page of  www.alternative-renewable-energy.com as it has been (allegedly) archived on 30.10.2008:

https://web.archive.org/web/20081030015646/http://www.alternative-renewable-energy.com:80/
(backed up also at http://archive.is/y2YuY)

you will see a weird occurrence. On this snapshot of the page that supposed to have been taken in 2008, you can see also posts made in 2009, 2010, and 2012. If it was really archived in 2008, then how come it has posts made at later dates?

Let's put the significance of this discovery/invention into perspective. People in general don't talk about it, because only an insignificant percent knows it even exists. The mass media didn't inform the public about this (as far as I know). The representatives of the public (you) who are interested in FE research, read websites of FE researchers, and forums like this one are looking for something they can build themselves, and understand how it works. Inventions that don't fit this profile are generally ignored, just like this one has been ignored. This is how real FE inventions get swept under the rag, and prevented from freeing and enriching the commoners.

If you want to oppose this process, then you personally have to find, recognize, and understand such inventions (or develop your own, if you can), and talk about them everywhere you can. Make it viral. If this is not our responsibility, then who's is it? If enough people learn about it then there is a good chance that those who hide it, will have to at least acknowledge its existence, or even better, start mass producing it for the public. If you have doubts about the correctness of the basic principle presented by the inventors, then discuss it, research it until it gets confirmed or eliminated. Right now I don't see any scientific reason why this should not work as claimed. No new foggy theories have been introduced, only plane, old fashioned science of semiconductors, electrostatics, and mechanics.

Why would you be interested in contributing to the successful mass production of this invention? The most obvious reason is that converting ambient heat into useful work provides unlimited free energy for all. But there is an even more disruptive and sensational utilization of this principle in computer industry. The power consumption of the microprocessors and microchips represents a major obstacle for designing supercomputers for mass production. Its not only the price of the consumed electric power (and its limited availability) that is the problem, but also the cooling of chips. This is why microprocessors have to be relatively thin, so that the dissipated heat can be conducted away in a practical and economic way. The cooling system and the limited thickness of the chips dilute the density of electronics built into a single chip, its computational power, speed, and memory.

The invention of Dr. Sheehan at. al. can overcome both limitations. Microprocessors of insane density could be built that not only don't require external power supply, but don't produce waste heat either. No cooling required. Imagine a supercomputer that has got a processor of 1L volume (or more)! The computational power of such computers could jump to 1000 (or more) times the the speed and capacity of our PC's. This performance jump could enable design engineers to run realistic simulations of multi-physics processes of very high resolution and large size that are impossible today, due to speed and memory limitations. Such simulations could exponentially speed up the design of new technology in all fields of science, and lead to an avalanche of new discoveries and inventions. Bitcoin could be mined much more cheaply. There could be a major breakthrough in AI, which could further speed up the technology development by automating most of the related work that does not require human intuition and creativity. Much of today's science fiction could become reality within a few decades instead of centuries etc.

I hope that now you realize why this discovery has been swept under the rag. The shadow government wants to use it for themselves against the "useless eaters", and against other countries to establish the one world government. Hopefully, this will give you enough incentive to do something about it, before it is too late. This post was not directed to Memoryman specifically, but to everybody who reads it, and who is interested in FE.

This 'invention' may never become a practical product; not everything can be scaled.
Just because something is possible inn theory does not mean it is practical (or even useful).
My friend is working on doing this but is limited in resources. His progress is slow; expects a small sample this year.
Nothing has been swept 'under the rug" (not rag). Stop looking for conspiracies; ineptitude is far more common.

Quote from: memoryman on May 19, 2018, 05:59:17 PM
This 'invention' may never become a practical product; not everything can be scaled.

This is an unsubstantiated personal opinion expressed as vaguely as possible, like politicians do. Why are you putting the word invention between apostrophes? Are you suggesting that the devices presented by Dr. Sheehan are not inventions? Or is this an attempt to belittle their significance?

"...may never become..." is this just a guess, or do you have scientific reasons that prevent this from becoming a practical product (besides the opposing financial interests)? If you have such facts, then please explain them in detail. I am very curious exactly why do you think this can not be mass-produced?

"... not everything can be scaled." Ahem... Who said everything can be scaled? This is a straw man argument, usually used by people who pursue nefarious agendas (like those who try to debunk any reference to conspiracies that really exist). Exactly how do you think scaling is a prohibitive obstacle here? The prototype built by Dr. Nihat Okulan (Advanced NanoStructures) and measured by Dr. Sheehan and his team is already at the right target scale of few microns, which places it into the size range of MEMS devices. Here is a photo of the gap between the PN terminals with the scale marking on it - see attachment.

Here is the progress report with some more pictures: https://web.archive.org/web/20110210183734/http://www.alternative-renewable-energy.com:80/progress-reports/june-2010/

Quote from: memoryman on May 19, 2018, 05:59:17 PM"Stop looking for conspiracies; ineptitude is far more common."

So, you are implying the ineptitude of Dr. Sheehan and his team, right? Don't you think you are getting increasingly arrogant here? Are you trying to forbid me pointing out conspiracies that really exist? You could not make it more obvious that you are part of the controlled opposition, who poses pro-alternative energy, but in reality works to debunk and oppose any such grass roots development (no matter whether it's a hoax perpetrated mainly by disinfo agents; or it is real, like this one).

If anybody is seriously interested in finding out the truth about this subject, it is highly recommended that you read the archived website, especially the progress reposts:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110211112149/http://www.alternative-renewable-energy.com:80/category/progress-reports/

The measurements have confirmed the validity of the claims presented in the paper of Dr. Sheehan.

I have no interest of getting into a pissing match.
I am a great fan of Dr. Sheehan and hope that he or someone else will make this into a product.
I also cannot predict the future, so I make none. If you don't like it, just stop responding.
Have a great day.

 Thank you for sharing this information.
I have no doubt that it can be developed in practical product...but it probably require huge investments.
It would be interesting to know about Dr. Sheehan progress with this device as last video from 2013 ...


BR.
-V.

Gentlemen, I rarely comment here because honestly, I don't find looking for a perpetuum mobile to be a rewarding hobby. But this case puzzles me enough to make an exception. You seem to be confident that the theory of Sheehan is correct and the provided photos and videos are credible proof for this. Did you ever consider the possibility that the measurement claims could be inaccurate? Mr. Sheehan has got a Ph. D. and you trust him for that, but so does Mr. D'Abramo. He has got very solid academic credentials too, look here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germano_D%27Abramo and here https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Germano_Dabramo.

From Wikipedia "Germano D'Abramo (born 25 May 1973) is an Italian mathematician, physicist and discoverer of minor planets.[2]"
And Researchgate claims he is a physics professor at a university in Italy "Current institution: Ministero dell'Istruzione, dell'Università e della Ricerca | MIUR Rome, Italy. Current position: Physics Professor"

In his paper "A Note on Solid-State Maxwell Demon" that was mentioned in the first post he has offered two different arguments that prove there is no violation of the second law of thermodynamics. He mathematically demonstrates that there can't be an external electric field between the open terminals of the np semiconductor. I am not a physicist and don't have a Ph. D. but reading his explanation I can't find the error in his arguments. Can somebody explain why you are ignoring his paper and get excited over Mr. Sheehan's diode? What is wrong with Germano's explanations?

Nonlinear.
I am not familiar with Dr. D'Abramo, but will read it.
Dr. Sheehan's work I can understand (I am not a physicist).
The vast majority of discoveries do not result in products, simply because they don't scale.

Quote from: vasik041 on May 21, 2018, 02:21:00 PM
Thank you for sharing this information.
I have no doubt that it can be developed in practical product...but it probably require huge investments.
It would be interesting to know about Dr. Sheehan progress with this device as last video from 2013 ...

You are welcome. Right now I can not see any reason why this principle could not be developed into practical products. The theory is solid and correct. The required technology to manufacture MEMS and microchips already exists, and they are well advanced. The design engineers don't even have to build countless, very expensive prototypes in order to know how they would work. New MEMS designs can be simulated using multi-physics finite element analysis software like COMSOL, ANSYS, ELMER, FENICS etc. and analyse their behaviour even before they get built. In fact even I could do such simulations, even though I am not getting paid for such work.

The only thing required is investment for production that only the richest can afford. This is a huge problem for the 'commoners' who don't belong to the top 1%, because you can be sure that the elite never misses the opportunity to profit from revolutionary new inventions. They have a rule: "never let a crisis go to waste". If they always turn even a crisis into their own advantage, then why would they let a golden opportunity like this go to waste? They are not really against FE inventions, as many people think. They are happy to use them for their own enrichment, and probably just sell us the power, as long as they can do that without the danger of leaking the technology to the people. Why is this a huge problem for us? Because the larger is the gap between the technology available to the elite 1%, and the technology available to us, the more oppressed and enslaved we become.

The US patent office constantly filters the patent applications and appropriates those that they deem to threaten their power structure and financial interests (or blocks them for years). Of course, they do that under the excuse of "protecting national security", but that is just dust thrown into your eyes, so you shouldn't see the truth. Here is an essential reading for those who don't know what is really going on: "Government Secrecy Orders on Patents Have Stifled More Than 5,000 Inventions"
https://www.wired.com/2013/04/gov-secrecy-orders-on-patents/

If you want to know the current status of the related research and development, the most straightforward thing to do would be to simply send an email the Dr. Sheehan and ask him, right? But if a secrecy order has been put on his invention (which is almost certain), then he would be forbidden to tell you the truth. So you would either not get a response at all, or get some evasive false reply. Even the fact of it being under secrecy order is a secret, so in that case all he could do is to lie. It might be worthwhile to try contacting him, but I wouldn't really trust the response.

I have made a patent search under Sheehan's name as inventor and found some, but those are not about this diode. There is nothing about this invention in the patent office, which is simply unbelievable. The only reasonable explanation is that it is under secrecy order. If that is true, then people won't see this coming to the market any time soon unless Russia or China starts mass producing and selling it to the whole world. Even that is improbable, because the same power structure rules those countries as well, and they are not interested in empowering their subjects.

Quote from: Nonlinear on May 21, 2018, 03:44:10 PM
Can somebody explain why you are ignoring his paper and get excited over Mr. Sheehan's diode? What is wrong with Germano's explanations?

Certainly. Memoryman is going to read it, according to his promise. Let's give him a chance to shine, show the errors in Germano's paper, and clear your doubts. ;) If he (or some other volunteer) can't do it, or the explanation is incomplete, then I will tell you my take on Germano's arguments.

I appreciate critical thinking, and the desire to correctly understand the theory, because besides spreading the information, that is almost the only thing we can do in this case. But in order to confidently spread this information, one has to have a solid conviction that this works as claimed, and also understand why it can't work any other way. If such a solid base is missing, the attackers (whether out of ignorance, or out of intent to suppress) would quickly debunk your presentations.

Thank you for detailed answer ZL!
I do not think that it is good idea to send emails to somebody I am not familiar with. It would create distraction.Russia depends heavily on oil and natural gas sales, there are many suppressed FE inventions there also.It is unlikely that it going to help people get FE .
I do not know about China, but it seems to be even worse regime... nobody going to help us except ourselves :)

BR,-V.

Quote from: vasik041 on May 22, 2018, 01:50:59 PM
...nobody going to help us except ourselves

You have hit the nail on the head. But the majority of people (even those who claim to be FE researchers) prefer to assume that the word 'ourselves' in that sentence means somebody else in the group.  ;)

Do you agree with Germano's arguments?

QuoteDo you agree with Germano's arguments?

Why should I agree ? :)Electric field was experimentally measured by two independent labs. It is exists.
And more (probably it is radical :) - I think that Second law is more like superstition or religious belief.There are so many evidence against it, only ignorant or politically/financially etc motivated people can argue about it.And it is funny that astronomer talk about this. What about new galaxies? forming starts? Isn't it decreasing of entropy ? There are many other examples closer to us...
BR,-V.

A poll has been added to this thread where you can place your bets on the horses.  ;D
Who is going to win the race?
Dr. Sheehan and his supporters, or the debunkers and their followers?

The results of the poll can be viewed after submitting your vote.

Regards,
Zoltan

Please correct spelling errors in the poll.

Quote from: memoryman on May 24, 2018, 04:00:20 PM
Please correct spelling errors in the poll.

Done! Thanks for the heads up. The idea of the poll came up on the fly when I was in a hurry, and the copy-paste of typos just made it worse.

But I hope readers realize that English is not my first language (I am Hungarian). I have learned it on my own, without attending any courses. Therefore, there will be many typos (and grammatical errors) in my posts for which I am not going to apologize (or even bother to correct them), because they are irrelevant when we are talking about FE. This is not a forum about hair splitting English grammar or the fine art of poetry that would be all about proper spelling. By the way, I have seen many native English speakers who write worse than I do, with more typos...

Putting the hair splitting exercise aside, how about you finding the logical/scientific errors (instead of typos) in Germano's paper? That we would highly appreciate. In fact Nonlinear (and we as well) is eagerly waiting for your explanations. Do you want to look important? Here is your chance.

 Based on number answers to the poll this topic not too popular :)
My observations suggest that most people don't bother reading texts longer that half a page nowadays.
I think that one wrong assumption in Germano's paper is comparing p-n junction with two different metals "junction". I put quotes because it is completely different system.
"A p–n junction is a boundary or interface between two types of semiconductor materials, p-type and n-type, inside a single crystal of semiconductor."
(from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%E2%80%93n_junction)

I voted for the 3rd option 'totally confused'.  :-\

Why are you expecting an explanation from memoryman? Based on his previous posts on this forum, he is just bossing around bullying people as if he were a great authority. He hasn't got a clue about this subject, otherwise he would have already started to explain the mistakes in Germano's paper, instead of typos.  ::)

Quote from: vasik041 on May 26, 2018, 01:07:49 AM
Based on number answers to the poll this topic not too popular :)

Good observation. The poll serves multiple purposes. Besides giving an insight into the opinions of people about the science part, it also serves as a kind of traffic- and genuine interest 'barometer'. Tell me one reason why this topic supposed to be popular on this forum (assuming we live in a decent world), and I will tell you ten reasons why it can't be popular (in our real world of the evil and mean).

Quote from: vasik041 on May 26, 2018, 01:07:49 AM
My observations suggest that most people don't bother reading texts longer that half a page nowadays.

Yes, they are the newly evolved super human species called homo facebookus, with an attention span of about 5 minutes.
https://www.trackvia.com/blog/productivity/truth-shrinking-attention-span/

There is always an excuse for this, like "I am extremely busy", which might even be true. But then what is the benefit from scattering one's attention into 101 unrelated interests that don't last longer than 10 minutes each at a time? Well, it is the addiction of the 'monkey mind' that is constantly looking for novelty, excitement, and entertainment (gimme a jolt of dopamine).

Dopamine jolt behind internet addiction
https://www.ft.com/content/27514afc-5444-11e2-9d25-00144feab49a

It is seeking happiness in the observed world where it actually doesn't exists, but that is another story... If one wants to achieve any success in anything, then it is better to choose only one or two subjects of interest, and spend on them as much time as it requires to master them. Readers who are loath to read even a single article to the end are of no use to the cause anyway.

Quote from: vasik041 on May 26, 2018, 01:07:49 AM
I think that one wrong assumption in Germano's paper is comparing p-n junction with two different metals "junction". I put quotes because it is completely different system.
"A p–n junction is a boundary or interface between two types of semiconductor materials, p-type and n-type, inside a single crystal of semiconductor."

I wouldn't blame Germano for this comparison, because in principle he is right about the fact that the internal electric field at the junction boundary in the depletion zone uses the same build-up mechanism in both dissimilar metal-metal junctions, and n-p semiconductor junctions.

A single crystal semiconductor is generally used in diodes in order to avoid contamination of the joining surfaces, internal imperfections, reduce dissipative losses, make production simple and economical, and improve characteristics. But theoretically, if you would have two such single crystals one doped p and the other n type with perfectly smooth surfaces, you could reproduce the same n-p depletion region, and junction potential difference by pressing them together to make a diode, as if they were a single crystal. Actually this is not only possible in theory, but it has been already accomplished in practice as well. Here is a relevant patent that explains how to do it:

Method of tightly joining two semiconductor substrates
http://www.freepatentsonline.net/4962062.pdf

Another old patent that supports this analogy used by Germano is about a metal-metal diode array that uses dissimilar metals to form diodes and rectify thermal noise. This patent of Brown M. Charles III also claims to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics by converting thermal electrical noise into electrical power. Unfortunately, the estimated power density doesn't look too promising to give it great practical significance.

Diode Array
http://www.freepatentsonline.net/3890161.pdf

Also, you can create contact potential difference by twisting together two wires made of dissimilar metals, like a thermocouple. The potential difference will be present, but the contact resistance might be too large for certain purposes. Therefore even in case of metal-metal junctions it is preferable to either electroplate one metal on the other, or join them together by some other thermal method (like spot welding).

But here is a crucial question: if the contact potential difference is present in both n-p diodes, and thermocouples as well, then why can't we measure them with a digital multimeter of decent quality?

Do you know the answer to this? If you give the right answer, then we might be able to find a way around this obstacle, and measure it in another way. Finally this is the main trump card of Germano, namely the claim that there isn't any electric field in the vacuum between the facing semiconductor faces of Sheehan's diode. If you prove this to be false by an acceptably accurate macroscopic measurement, then the ultimate and only one real authority, mother Nature will give her final verdict about who is right and who is wrong. (a hint: the explanation can be found online, google is your friend).

Quote from: Nonlinear on May 26, 2018, 09:41:34 AM
I voted for the 3rd option 'totally confused'.  :-\
Why are you expecting an explanation from memoryman?

OK, I see that you are loosing patience and want to read the explanations now. We are not waiting for memoryman any longer, his pride prevented him from even saying that he can't explain Germano's mistakes, and we should not wait for that... Therefore we are going to proceed with the explanations, as you can see from my last response to Vasik. A bit more patience, and hopefully your confusion will disappear soon.

" his pride prevented him from even saying that he can't explain Germano's mistakes" maybe there are no mistakes.
You guys are funny. I will look at the documents when I decide; not when you want it.
It has a very low priority to me.

QuoteSo our PN junction behaves like a charged capacitor

(from https://www.quora.com/What-is-contact-potential-in-pn-junction-diode)


It is difficult to measure because capacitance of PN junction is very small (it made small on purpose, capacitance in normal operation is unwanted effect).
-V.

Quote from: vasik041 on May 27, 2018, 01:54:11 PM
"So our PN junction behaves like a charged capacitor "
(from https://www.quora.com/What-is-contact-potential-in-pn-junction-diode)

It is difficult to measure because capacitance of PN junction is very small (it made small on purpose, capacitance in normal operation is unwanted effect).

Your quoted page gives a nice explanation about what the contact potential difference is in a p-n junction, but it doesn't explain why we can't measure that with a DMM. The statement that it behaves like a charged capacitor does not explain why you can't measure the say 0.7V built-in potential difference between the two terminals of the diode with a simple voltmeter attached. Why can't you just connect a resistor to it and use it as a battery?

The capacitance is very small indeed, and the stored charge will quickly get discharged via the voltmeter's inner resistance. But your explanation assumes that when this capacitor gets discharged by the voltmeter, then there is nothing to recharge it. Current stops flowing.

Important question: does the built-in potential difference disappear inside the depletion region when you discharge this capacitor?

Quote from: ZL on May 27, 2018, 01:09:03 PM

Yes, they are the newly evolved super human species called homo facebookus, with an attention span of about 5 minutes.
https://www.trackvia.com/blog/productivity/truth-shrinking-attention-span/

LOL, that is funny and sad at the same time.  ;D Folks, this is a serious problem, we should stop using facebook. If anyone disagrees, watch this video:
You Will Wish You Watched This Before You Started Using Social Media | The Twisted Truth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmEDAzqswh8&feature=youtu.be

"But here is a crucial question: if the contact potential difference is present in both n-p diodes, and thermocouples as well, then why can't we measure them with a digital multimeter of decent quality?"

Dr. D'Abramo's paper confuses me, but using Google doesn't require a PhD. Hopefully vasik041 will not mind if I interject with the answer. Google: "why can we not measure diode contact potential" without quotation marks, and bingo, there is your answer in the first hit!

Semiconductors: Why can't the built-in potential across the depletion region of a p-n diode be measured externally?
https://www.quora.com/Semiconductors-Why-cant-the-built-in-potential-across-the-depletion-region-of-a-p-n-diode-be-measured-externally

"Important question: does the built-in potential difference disappear inside the depletion region when you discharge this capacitor?"

Nope, I don't think so. It disappears only if an exact same external forward voltage is applied to the junction.

Excellent find Nonlinear! Not because that page:
https://www.quora.com/Semiconductors-Why-cant-the-built-in-potential-across-the-depletion-region-of-a-p-n-diode-be-measured-externally

(or Quora in general) would be the clearest, most reliable, and most accurate source of true scientific information, but because it also gives us a glimpse into the anatomy of academic disinformation. When we are dealing with FE we can't separate the search for true scientific- and technical information from the need for constant critical discernment, keeping in mind the possibility of deliberate disinformation by the academics (and other shills) who try to hide and obfuscate certain scientific facts that are crucial for FE inventions.

I could have answered your request for explaining the errors in Germano's paper by simply writing a similar paper (might do that later as well), and uploading it for you. But that would have given you and other interested readers only dry data, which readers might not understand any better than they do the papers of Germano, and Daniel. For genuine FE researchers it is more important to realize that there is such thing as deliberate academic disinformation perpetuated specifically to prevent the discovery of anything that could violate the laws of thermodynamics (especially the first one - creating energy from seemingly nothing, or annihilating it). One also needs a way, a method by which such disinformation can be suspected, recognized, and dismissed in favour of true scientific facts that may be under attack and suppression. Let's demonstrate such a method for this case.

On your quoted web-page there are 6 answers at the present, and there is a controversy; they present contradictory explanations. Some are arguing that:

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

they follow the line (and agenda) of Germano. But there are at least 2 correct explanations as well (following the correct explanations of Dr. Sheehan), one of which claims that:

Quote...Now this potential cannot be measured directly by connecting a voltmeter across the diode. The reason for this is that as soon a connection is made between the diode terminal and a conductor (metal), a Schottky diode is created at the metal-p/n junction. The two Schottky diodes, created at the p-terminal metal interface and n-terminal metal interface effectively reverse the effect of the built-in potential. As a result, you would see zero potential difference across the diode.

Now after pointing out the chosen correct answer, let's take a look into the anatomy of deception present on that page, and then later let's explain how and why we have arrived to the conclusion that the later answer must be correct. Nonlinear, can you please analyse the case of the wrong answer? Who gave the wrong answers? Do they have college/university education and/or scientific title? Are they members of the academy? If they claim to have such credentials, then can we verify and confirm the validity of these claims? In an online forum anybody could claim any credentials if anonymous...

How and why did the wrong answer end up at the top of the list, represented as the "chosen truth" by consensus? Who voted it to the top of the list (do you recognize any pattern of demographics, qualifications etc?). Do you recognize any nefarious agenda? If yes, then exactly what are they trying to hide and why? You know what I mean, just analyse the page and situation, and based on your knowledge what insights can you gain regarding the controversy? Other readers are also invited to present their insights.

 This is probably offtopic here but it very well describes situation in mainstream science
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg)


Charged capacitor with zero voltage...very typical :)

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

QuoteRehan 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:

QuoteUpvoted 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)

QuoteEducation:
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...

Quotedo 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:

QuoteAryan 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.

QuoteDo 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.

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:

QuoteAll 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:

Quote...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:

Quote... speed of light  - they are not fudging the results... they prefer to call it intellectual phase locking.  8) 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:

QuoteModern 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.

Reminds me of Quenco/Quetron


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


Philip Hardcastle was active on this forum years ago: https://overunity.com/12207/quentron-com/ (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/ (http://revolution-green.com/mettec-and-more/)


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

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:

QuoteThis 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:

Quote...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

Quote... 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?

Quote from: ZL on June 03, 2018, 09:10:57 AM
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.

We will get to the paper of Germano soon Nonlinear. All this preliminary discussion serves the purpose to ease the understanding of Germano's fallacies.

Continuing from my last post, let's take a look now at the two answers on the Quora page that are at least principally correct. One of those that was given first in 2012 by Abde Ali Kagalwalla, PhD Student, UCLA says:

Quote... this potential cannot be measured directly by connecting a voltmeter across the diode. The reason for this is that as soon a connection is made between the diode terminal and a conductor (metal), a Schottky diode is created at the metal-p/n junction. The two Schottky diodes, created at the p-terminal metal interface and n-terminal metal interface effectively reverse the effect of the built-in potential. As a result, you would see zero potential difference across the diode.

I suppose that by "diode terminals" he means the two ends of the diode semiconductor, which are outside the depletion region (and not the metal legs that are attached to these surfaces). This is only principally correct, because the metal terminals that are attached to the semiconductors of most commercial diodes form ohmic contacts with the semiconductors, not schottky diodes.

Next to the junction surface in the semiconductor of a schottky diode there is a depletion region, similar to the one in a common diode. The width of this region (and the built-in potential) is large enough to block the current flow in the reverse direction (with small leakage), and thus act as a diode and rectify current. If the doping concentration is further increased, then the depletion region is getting narrower, the built in potential smaller, and the reverse leakage current larger, until it becomes useless as a diode. By proper doping techniques ohmic contacts are formed at the terminals of common p-n diodes.

However, the answer is principally correct in the sense that even the ohmic contacts between metal and semiconductor have a contact potential, similar to those between two different metals with different work functions. These two contact potentials between the semiconductor and metals coupled in series form a potential difference that exactly opposes the voltage across the p-n depletion region, therefore no net current will be driven by these voltages. This is why we can't measure the built-in voltage by simply making ohmic contacts with the instrument probes when touching the semiconductor surface. But this doesn't mean that we can't measure the built in voltage by other methods, and prove their existence.

This case is analogous to the situation when you want to measure the contact potential difference of a thermocouple without temperature gradient on it. There is a voltage across its terminals, but you can't measure it with a simple voltmeter, and it cant drive a current in a closed loop if you short-circuit its terminals. The reason for this is that when you connect metals to the thermocouple additional contact potential differences will be created at those contacts where two different metals touch. The total sum of all such potential differences in a closed circuit will be zero, they will not drive a net current, and thus a contact potential difference will be unmeasurable by this simple method.

The next answer on the Quora page that is worth discussing was given by Daniel Fernandes, EE PhD Student at Stanford University in 2014, which was upvoted by another notable person, Idham Hafizh, PhD candidate in Electronics, Politecnico Di Milano. It was posted a year later than the top wrong answer of Rehan; apparently Daniel didn't fall for the deception. Actually this answer doesn't originate from Daniel, but instead he simply posted a quote from a textbook:

QuoteThe contact potential across W is a built-in potential barrier, in that it is necessary to the maintenance of equilibrium at the junction; it does not imply any external potential. Indeed, the contact potential cannot be measured by placing a voltmeter across the devices, because new contact potentials are formed at each probe, just canceling V0. By definition V0 is a equilibrium quantity, and no net current can result from it.

Solid State Electronic Devices by Streetman and Banerjee, Sixth Edition.

This is actually the best answer on that Quora page, and it supposed to be voted up by consensus to the top. But apparently, the distorted, corrupted, and illusory 'democracy' (voting) doesn't serve the real truth and the interests of the readers, but rather the corrupting corporate interests.

This quote from the textbook is a bit vague (perhaps deliberately so), in order to strike a compromise between giving a totally wrong explanation that supports the disinfo agenda, and a completely correct description with detailed explanations that would imply the possibility to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. At one point in the book the author acknowledges that there is a real potential difference between the p and n regions outside the depletion region, and thus also between the two ends of the semiconductor:

QuoteThe electric field appears in some region W about the junction, and there is an equilibrium potential difference V0 across W. In the electrostatic potential diagram of Fig. 5–11b, there is a gradient in potential in the direction opposite to E, in accordance with the fundamental relation 4 E(x) = -dV(x)/dx. We assume the electric field is zero in the neutral regions outside W. Thus there is a constant potential Vn in the neutral n material, a constant Vp in the neutral p material, and a potential difference V0 = Vn-Vp between the two. The region W is called the transition region, and the potential difference V0 is called the contact potential.

But, in the quote posted earlier he is trying to obfuscate the implications of this fact by immediately adding that "The contact potential... does not imply any external potential." This statement is vague, and it can be interpreted at least in two different ways. One possible interpretation is that by "external potential" he means the external voltage across the metal terminals of a commercial diode. In this case his statement is correct, because there is indeed no net voltage across these terminals due to the opposing contact potentials between the semiconductor and metal terminals that cancel the built-in voltage.

The other possible interpretation is that the "external potential" here means the potential difference between the two external surfaces of the diode semiconductor's ends (the semiconductor surfaces farthest from the p-n junction) when there are no metal terminals attached. In that case this statement is false, because there is a voltage across these external extremities of the semiconductor surfaces, and also an external electric field in the vacuum (or air, or other non-conductive material that surrounds the semiconductor). The author himself has acknowledged this fact in the latest quote.

The other vague statement of the author that more forcefully dissuades people from asking inconvenient questions about this matter is: "By definition V0 is a equilibrium quantity, and no net current can result from it." Again, one possible interpretation of "no net current" here is to assume that this is a DC current, which is expected to flow in a closed circuit composed of metal conductors, and thus including the pesky contact potential differences that cancel the current. In this case the statement is correct. Most readers interpret it this way, and stop investigating the phenomenon any further as is appears uninteresting and fully explained.

The other possible interpretation is that "no net current" means no instantaneous transient current inside the semiconductor either. With this interpretation the statement is incorrect, because the diffusion current (driven by thermal energy) that builds up the built-in voltage can drive a net current within the semiconductor, whenever the balance between the drift current and the diffusion current is disrupted. This net current will flow until the balance is established again. This is a transient process, but nevertheless a real process, and if it is periodically repeated, it can drive a continuous net current even if it is not a smooth DC. Such a device was proposed by Dr. Sheehan.

Even though the authors of the quoted textbook Ben G. Streetman and Sanjay Kumar Banerjee did their best to dissuade readers from exploring this phenomenon to violate the laws of thermodynamics, this is still one of the clearest and best official explanations. In other official literature there are much more aggressive attempts to conceal the possibility to use this as a Maxwell demon. In my next post I will expose a few samples of such aggressive propaganda.

Continued from my last post.
Now let's take a final look at the chronological order of the answers on that Quora page. The first was posted in sep. 2012 by Abde referring to schottky diodes, which was principally correct. The establishment didn't like this partial truth, therefore they have posted the completely wrong debunking answer of Rehan on Apr 7, 2013, and promoted it to the top as the best explanation, chosen by artificial consensus. Then on Jul 28, 2014 Daniel Fernandes has posted a quote from a textbook that provided the best answer, and it is more authoritative than that of Rehan. This spoiled the initial plan of disinformation, demonstrating that there are still people out there who can think independently and see through the hoax. They needed a plan B to debunk the truth again, thus came Farhad and posted his nonsense on Jan 26, 2016. This pretty much looks like a poker or chess game, where the truth and freedom is at stake.

We have discussed earlier the hair rising redefinition of the word "voltage" in the answer of Rehan. This is a very aggressive attack on scientific truth. It is such a radical assertion that it must have come from higher 'authorities' of disinformation, and in that case it must be present and advertised at other places as well. Googling the expression from Rehan's post : 'A voltage refers to a difference in fermi level between two points on the device' we get a Wikipedia hit about Voltage. Here is a relevant quote from that page that pushes the same aggressive agenda:

QuoteThe electric field is not the only factor determining charge flow in a material, and different materials naturally develop electric potential differences at equilibrium (Galvani potentials). The electric potential of a material is not even a well defined quantity, since it varies on the subatomic scale. A more convenient definition of 'voltage' can be found instead in the concept of Fermi level. In this case the voltage between two bodies is the thermodynamic work required to move a unit of charge between them. This definition is practical since a real voltmeter actually measures this work, not a difference in electric potential.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage

It is trivially obvious that the electric field is not the only force that can move the electric charges and create current. Simple mechanical force, like the one driving the belt of a Van de Graaff generator can move electric charges and generate current. In our case of Sheehan's diode the thermal energy can move free charge carriers via the process of diffusion and create the diffusion current. This doesn't provide a legitimate reason to change the definition of voltage. The fact that the electric potential can vary on a subatomic scale, does not mean that the original definition is useless, and therefore it has to be thrown out through the window. If the awkward newly proposed redefinition of voltage supposed to represent the "thermodynamic work required to move a unit of charge" between two points, then it is not electric in nature anymore. But the unit of Volt is purely electric in nature, and therefore voltage supposed to remain such as well, unless of course the 'authorities' want to confuse people by mixing apples with oranges. They are trying to mix up the work done by thermal movement (apples), with the work done by purely electric forces or electric field (oranges) under the term "thermodynamic work". If a mathematician would want to redefine the arithmetic operation of addition as 2 nails + 2 hammers = 4 nails, then people would be rightfully shocked and we would hear plenty of protests. Why is this not happening in the case of new voltage redefinition attempt?

Here is another example of obfuscation in the book "Fundamentals of Solid-State Electronics" by Sah, Chih-Tang:

QuoteThe fundamental esoteric point is that it is the gradient of the quasi-Fermi potential that drives the diffusion plus the drift current as shown by (331.1) to (331.4A) while the gradient of the electrostatic potential produces only a electric or electrostatic field that drives only a drift current. This drift current is completely canceled by the diffusion current at equilibrium and hence the potential that drives the drift current cannot be measured.

(The emphasis is not mine but present in the book as well). The fact that the drift current cancels the diffusion current in an equilibrium doesn't mean that the potential difference and electric field that drives the drift current doesn't exist for an outside observer, and can not be measured. It can be measured, and it has been measured, just not in the simplistic way of touching the two probes of a common voltmeter to the terminals of the diode. The effort to mix apples with oranges and combine the "diffusion plus drift currents" under the banner of quasy-Fermi potential is present here as well. Why not treat the diffusion current as a separate phenomenon from the drift current as they really are? The diffusion current doesn't need the existence of a built-in voltage (or drift current) because it is driven by the thermal energy combined with the gradient of free charge carrier concentrations (diffusion). The drift current is driven by an electric field. They are completely separate phenomena happening at the same place at the same time.

Did you notice the expression "The fundamental esoteric point" (underscored in the book for emphasis)? Esoteric point? How does esotery become part of science, especially when dealing with relatively simple phenomena that can be verified by accurate measurements? This in itself is a tell-tale sign of shady intentions.

I am sure that if we would continue to search diligently we could find more attempts in literature to hide the truth about the real nature of diffusion current in a diode, and the fact that it can be used as a Maxwell demon. But this much will suffice for now, and in my next post I will start discussing Germano's paper.

The proper discussion of Germano's paper requires some illustrations and mathematical equations, which can't be easily implemented in a post on this forum. Therefore, there is no way around writing a paper about it in pdf format. This will take more time than just cobbling up a forum post, and it might require a couple of days.

In mean time if anybody already knows what the errors in Germano's paper are based on our explanations so far, then you are welcome to post your explanations.

There may be an easier way to measure the depletion layer potential that does not involve any expensive atomically-tiny pointy objects.

Suppose we have two plates, one of P-type silicon, another of N-type, one micron apart forming a capacitor, and a separate PN diode made of the same materials.  Initially touch the P and N parts of the diode to the matching plates.   The junction should charge up the capacitor to around 0.6 volts.  Now disconnect the diode, then pull the plates apart to one centimeter.  Faster than you can say V=Q/C, the plates should now have 6000 volts across them, enough to make a tiny spark.  For practical measurement, one could connect a charge amplifier between the plates, then measure the charge transferred as they separate.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_amplifier (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_amplifier)

This same technique should work to measure almost any contact potential between conductors.

Great ideas not_a_mib!

The basic principle of your first suggestion to increase the potential difference by separating the plates of charged capacitor was actually mentioned in Germano's debunking paper "A Note on Solid-State Maxwell Demon" and he also referred to two other papers that have discussed this method. One of them is "The discovery of the electric current" by Piero Cotti and here is a relevant quote from it:

QuoteAfter 1792, Volta searched for the contact voltage between different metals. In 1795, he succeeded in building a sensitive static electrometer, in which he made use of a variable capacity (Fig. 1). Thus, he had a very sophisticated measuring device at his disposal, with which voltages of around one volt could be measured. In 1799, he carried out the first measurements of contact voltage between metals, a phenomenon which is only measurable when the contact is broken (Fig. 2).

https://kundoc.com/pdf-the-discovery-of-the-electric-current-.html
(it is wise to download everything connected to this research as long as you can...)

But here is the "magic" claim that Germano uses as a weapon "...contact voltage between metals, a phenomenon which is only measurable when the contact is broken". This has been weaponized by Germano and others in his mentioned paper as:

QuoteFar from the depletion region there is no free charge accumulation. A simple laboratory experiment with Cu and Zn plates and a gold-leaf electroscope can confirm such a behavior [6,7]. Only when the two metals are removed apart the charges, initially localized within the depletion layer, are free to spread across the surfaces of the metallic plates [6,7,8], satisfying electrostatic equi-potentiality, see Fig. 4.

It is trivially simple to realize why the actually existing free charge accumulation at the ends of the diode can't be measured with a simple gold-leaf electroscope. Its sensitivity is not good enough for this. It can't measure a voltage as low as 1V. If it could do this, then Volta would not have needed to design a special variable capacity electroscope for the purpose, but he could have measured it with a common metal leaf electroscope. Separating the two dissimilar metals from each other is necessary only in order to amplify the voltage and make it measurable with a metal leaf electroscope. But the contact voltage is there even when the two metals are in contact. This voltage is measurable with today's very sensitive high input impedance electronic electroscopes even without separating the two metals (by electrostatic induction; without touching the terminals).

Harper has invested a lot of effort and science into measuring the contact potential accurately and reliably using the principle of variable capacitance (to amplify the voltage). There is quite a bit of unexpected difficulty in doing this in practice. The difficulty is that while the metals are being separated, there can be several points of contact to be broken, and much of the charge can get discharged in this process (flow back to the other metal) while the plates are in very close proximity, but not touching anymore. Here is the paper of Harper:

The Volta Effect as a Cause of Static Electrification by Harper
https://www.jstor.org/stable/98725?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
(if you sign up for a free account at jstor, you can download this paper for free)

Even though your version of this measurement still requires separating charged plates to amplify voltage, it can still debunk Germano's argument. If it were true that there is no free charge accumulation far from the depletion region (and thus no voltage across the diode semiconductor terminals) as Germano claims, then the two attached semiconductor capacitor plates could not pick up any charges at all. Then one could not measure any voltage across the separated plates either.

The only difficulty is the fabrication of the external semiconductor plates that have the exact same material properties and doping concentrations as those of the diode terminals. Another difficulty is to do the measurement in conditions where the contamination of the plates can be prevented, otherwise the doping can be altered. The best option would be to make the plates and the diode from scratch, from the same material using the same doping. I am not sure though if this can be practically accomplished at home without access to clean room etc. If you don't want to actually measure the charge and voltage, but you are satisfied with simply detecting if there is any charge at all, then I suppose one could attempt such an experiment at home as well.

But even if you would detect a charge by this method, Germano and his debunker fellows could still argue that the charges did not originate from the diode p-n depletion region, but from the contacts between the diode terminals and capacitor plates when they were separated. This way their claim that the charges appear only when the plates are separated could remain vindicated.

However, if you make use of his analogy between the diode's built-in voltage, and two dissimilar metal-metal contact potential difference, then you are in much better position to disprove the disputed claim. If instead of a diode, you use a thermocouple (or just connect two dissimilar metals with high work function differences), and instead of the semiconductor plates, you use capacitor plates made of the same two metals as those of the thermocouple, then that can definitely disprove Germano's argument. It can do that, because there can't be a contact potential difference between the capacitor plate and thermocouple terminal if they are made of the same metal. Therefore, if there is any charge and voltage on the capacitor plates after the separation/amplification, then that could have originated only from the contact potential of the junction (which has not been separated). These charges must have been present at the terminals of the thermocouple far away from the junction, which debunks Germano's claim that there could not be any free charge accumulation outside the depletion region, while the dissimilar metals are in contact. Therefore this is an experiment that is worth performing at home, to put this argument to rest once and for all.

The other option you mentioned to use modern semiconductors and opamps to built sensitive electroscopes that can measure even 1V with extremely low leakage current is another, perhaps even better option to experimentally disprove the disputed argument. For those with deep pockets this should be a piece of cake by using one of the high end electroscopes of Tektronix, like the "Keithley Electrometers for Ultra-High Resistance/Ultra-Low Current Measurements" which has got these characteristics:

QuoteThe 5½-digit Model 6514 and Model 6517B Electrometers offer 1fA sensitivity, >200TΩ input impedance on voltage measurements, and charge measurements down to 10fC. The 6½-digit Model 6430 Sub-Femtoamp Remote SourceMeter SMU Instrument can measure current with 1aA sensitivity. Its low noise and drift performance make it ideal for research on single electron devices, highly resistive nanowires and nanotubes, polymers, and electrochemical applications.

https://www.tek.com/keithley-low-level-sensitive-and-specialty-instruments/keithley-high-resistance-low-current-electrom
(or similar like PASCO Model ES-9078).


I suppose the readers of this forum can't afford such instrument, but with some extra elbow grease they can design and build their own electrometers using schematics like those on the wiki page. Or perhaps even a primitive circuit like the one used by Bill Beaty could be used to at least detect (even if its measurement accuracy would not be good enough) the existence of free charge at the terminals of the thermocouple. As long as the whole device is kept at the same temperature it should provide an acceptable practical proof.

Ridiculously Sensitive Electric Charge Detector
http://amasci.com/emotor/chargdet.html

Regarding the paper I am working on that explains the errors in Germano's arguments in great detail; it takes longer to prepare than I thought, but it is coming. The reason for the delay is this claim of his:

Quote...This behavior does not match what happens in laboratory experiments and in the real world.
It is already well known that this is not what really happens (see the Volta effect [8]). When two metals with different work functions (and similarly, when an n- and a p-semiconductor) are joined, the charge drift is only local and the charge displacement remains localized within the thin depletion layer, in equilibrium. Far from the depletion region there is no free charge accumulation. A simple laboratory experiment with Cu and Zn plates and a gold-leaf electroscope can confirm such a behavior [6,7]. Only when the two metals are removed apart the charges, initially localized within the depletion layer, are free to spread across the surfaces of the metallic plates [6,7,8], satisfying electrostatic equi-potentiality, see Fig. 4.

He talks about this nonsense "...It is already well known that this is not what really happens..." as if it would be a well established non-controversial fact that everybody supposed to know (and accept), and which has been already proven in the papers he referred to here. Well, to give it justice, I have had to find and read these reference papers, and see what kind of proof they can offer to support this false claim. Then since I was forced to put so much time and effort into this, then let me make the disproof even more accurate and convincing by arranging some FEM simulations of a diode's electrostatic field that surrounds it, and include such images. He hasn't got a single argument that can stand a scientific scrutiny, based on well established laws of electrostatics and semiconductor physics. Hopefully it will be ready in a few more days.

The Germano paper states that there are no diffusion forces across the JII (vacuum) gap, but neglects the Van der Waals forces at the JII plate surfaces.  If one tries to move an electron across the gap from the N plate to the P plate, a short range attraction should be seen between the electron and plate, related to the work function of the N material, as well as the expected repulsion due to the electric field.  A similar attraction would be seen as the electron nears the P plate.  What one will probably find is that these additional forces will prevent discharging the capacitor.  Any conductor that bridges the plates will produce additional junctions with their own potentials, all of which inconveniently sum to zero.  Use dielectric materials to carry the charge could be explored, such a tiny glass bead moving back and forth between the P and N surfaces, picking up and carrying a small amount of charge each time.  These might still be limited by the above short-range forces.


The PN junction and plate system is similar to a piston and cylinder isothermally compressing and expanding a gas.  This suggests a classic Carnot-like heat engine cycle.  Consider two PN junctions, one kept at a higher temperature than the other, and the variable capacitor made from the same P and N material plates.  Start with the plates separated, connect them to the hot PN junction, then move the plates closer.  The junction potential should charge the plates, absorbing heat from the junction, and doing mechanical work on the plates.  Now move the plates to the cold junction, then pull them back apart.  Mechanical work is required, and is converted to heat in the cold junction.  Repeat.  The cold junction has a lower potential than the hot, so net mechanical work is done, but some heat is dumped, still Carnot-limited.

not_a_mib, Germano wrote that there is no electric field between the JII plate surfaces, and therefore it makes no sense to worry about any other forces there. The Van der Waals forces are not strong enough to be observed if the interatomic distance of two atoms is greater than 0.6 nm. I think that the gap of JII is much greater than 1 nm, and these forces can be neglected.

The other idea requires a temperature gradient and that is not very practical at micro scale. The whole purpose of this invention is to covert thermal energy without needing a temperature gradient. The anvil and hammer MEMS resonator nicely overcomes all these problems.

May be you want to consider this explanation:

https://www.quora.com/Will-Daniel-Sheehans-second-law-violating-device-which-is-a-modified-P-N-junction-diode-save-the-planet-from-global-warming (https://www.quora.com/Will-Daniel-Sheehans-second-law-violating-device-which-is-a-modified-P-N-junction-diode-save-the-planet-from-global-warming)

Sometimes people in mainstream science make errors, some might be frauds, some might be idiots and some might understand less or more than others. But one thing is certain, there is no big conspiracy. The conspiracy would have to be worldwide and it would cost way to much to involve tenthousands in every country.

And another thing is certain: Amongst the people who attack mainstream science there is an overwhelming majority who are stupid, who are frauds and who are delusional.

You might want to take this into consideration.

Greetings, Conrad

Hi Conrad,
ok, I don't want to argue with you, but just out of curiosity... Let's assume for a moment that there is no "conspiracy" and everything fine. How than you explain bunch of very strange facts e.g. dead inventors of FE devices ?

Regards,-V.

Quote from: vasik041 on June 13, 2018, 12:13:04 PM
Hi Conrad,
ok, I don't want to argue with you, but just out of curiosity... Let's assume for a moment that there is no "conspiracy" and everything fine. How than you explain bunch of very strange facts e.g. dead inventors of FE devices ?

I am not arguing for or against something, I just want you to think. Like you, I know nothing and I have no proof for anything. But I do not want to stop my brain functioning when I read obvious nonsense.

Nothing is fine on this world. But you do not need a conspiracy to explain stupidity, aggression and greed. This is how people are. Usually everything gets messed up, also conspiracies. So, the biggest argument against conspiracies is that they are too good to be true. Nothing works as well as the conspiracy lovers want it to function.

There are conspiracies, but they are not long term, not over decades. No political system or power structure survives long term. Strategic alliances or financial agreements change rather rapidly. Every situation changes over time, also at universities, in enterprises, in clubs and in clandestines institutions. And today everything is more short lived than ever.

Conspiracy lovers expect too much from the people whom they imagine to organise conspiracies. Conspirators fuck up like everybody else therefore elaborate conspiracies would not work even if they were attempted as the steep stories tell. It is wishful thinking in a strange sense.

Conspiracy theories do not explain the world. Fortunately the world is much more complicated and richer than conspiracy theories make you believe. And the people and even you yourself are much less predictable or governable than conspiracy theories allege.

Everybody dies one day, also FE inventors. Whatever I saw from FE inventors was never worth killing for. It just did not work and therefore one needs a conspiracy to hide the fact that it is nonsense.

Greetings, Conrad

"Whatever I saw from FE inventors was never worth killing for. It just did not work and therefore one needs a conspiracy to hide the fact that it is nonsense." Very well said.
Claims are considered FALSE until proven true (null-hypothesis), not the other way around.

The promised critique that explains what the errors are in Dr. D'Abramo's paper "A Note on Solid-State Maxwell Demon" has been published. You can download the pdf from my website for free at:

"Critique of the Paper 'A Note on Solid-State Maxwell Demon' by Germano D'Abramo"
by Zoltan Losonc

https://feprinciples.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/fallacies_of_dr_dabramos_critique.pdf
https://feprinciples.wordpress.com/downloads/

If something is unclear, or you find errors in it, then please let me know

Quote from: conradelektro on June 13, 2018, 05:51:56 PM
I am not arguing for or against something, I just want you to think. Like you, I know nothing and I have no proof for anything. But I do not want to stop my brain functioning when I read obvious nonsense.

Nothing is fine on this world. But you do not need a conspiracy to explain stupidity, aggression and greed. This is how people are. Usually everything gets messed up, also conspiracies. So, the biggest argument against conspiracies is that they are too good to be true. Nothing works as well as the conspiracy lovers want it to function.

There are conspiracies, but they are not long term, not over decades. No political system or power structure survives long term. Strategic alliances or financial agreements change rather rapidly. Every situation changes over time, also at universities, in enterprises, in clubs and in clandestines institutions. And today everything is more short lived than ever.

Conspiracy lovers expect too much from the people whom they imagine to organise conspiracies. Conspirators fuck up like everybody else therefore elaborate conspiracies would not work even if they were attempted as the steep stories tell. It is wishful thinking in a strange sense.

Conspiracy theories do not explain the world. Fortunately the world is much more complicated and richer than conspiracy theories make you believe. And the people and even you yourself are much less predictable or governable than conspiracy theories allege.

Everybody dies one day, also FE inventors. Whatever I saw from FE inventors was never worth killing for. It just did not work and therefore one needs a conspiracy to hide the fact that it is nonsense.

Greetings, Conrad

Ok, I see your point. Closing your eyes and saying "I know nothing" makes life much more comfortable.
Regards,-V.

Quote from: vasik041 on June 13, 2018, 11:40:48 PM
Ok, I see your point. Closing your eyes and saying "I know nothing" makes life much more comfortable.

I see, you are the one who knows something. You are the man who knows what is really going on. Good, congratulations! Does your knowledge help you?

Greetings, Conrad

Quote from: ZL on June 13, 2018, 07:10:47 PM
The promised critique that explains what the errors are in Dr. D'Abramo's paper "A Note on Solid-State Maxwell Demon" has been published. You can download the pdf from my website for free at:

"Critique of the Paper 'A Note on Solid-State Maxwell Demon' by Germano D'Abramo"
by Zoltan Losonc

https://feprinciples.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/fallacies_of_dr_dabramos_critique.pdf (https://feprinciples.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/fallacies_of_dr_dabramos_critique.pdf)
https://feprinciples.wordpress.com/downloads/ (https://feprinciples.wordpress.com/downloads/)

If something is unclear, or you find errors in it, then please let me know

The only useful thing to do is to build a device according to the promise:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At least two methods have been designed so far for the extraction of useful work from the device. One of these uses a Linear Electrostatic Motor (LEM)[1, 3, 4], while the other is based on a Hammer and Anvil MEMS device [1, 3, 4, 5]. The basic idea behind these methods is to allow the electrostatic forces in the gap to periodically move objects against mechanical resistance and thus perform useful work.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enough words have been written, only a physical proof of principle can settle it.

The argument by the opponents (second law of thermodynamics holds) is very strong, because no physical proof (experiment) has be offered against it (only endless words).

The argument of the "inventor" is very weak, because it is not backed by an experiment. Every hypothesis has to be backed by an experiment. Many experiments prove that the second law of thermodynamics seems to be valid, but no experiment so far has conclusively shown a violation.

Physics only moves forward by help of observable and reproducible experiments, not by words.

The second law of thermodynamics has to be attacked with an experiment and not with words. The "inventor" and his avid followers have to provide a thingummy which can be reproduced. Put away the pencil or keyboard an go to the lab. To put it bluntly: stop blubbering till you have something tangible to show!

Greetings, Conrad

Conrad, have you watched Dr.Daniel Sheehan's video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBp_SPJAOJc ?
To me that is 'good enough'.

Quote from: memoryman on June 14, 2018, 01:34:43 PM
Conrad, have you watched Dr.Daniel Sheehan's video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBp_SPJAOJc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBp_SPJAOJc) ?
To me that is 'good enough'.

For me it is not enough. If I had done his presentations, I would have put a thingy on the table which at least makes a LED shine for 45 minutes (the duration of his presentation) with his new power source (heat from the environment).

Without that we get just hot air from his body cavities. I can do hot air by myself without Mr. Sheehan.

Mr. Sheehan is a very smooth talker, but even the smoothest talk will not overcome the second law of thermodynamics.

Science is not about believe, it is about conclusive experiments. If you like believe, fine, go to the church, you will be rewarded endlessly. But there will be no power generation, just power consumption.

Every scientific theory will be changed or abandoned the moment a physical experiment (not a thought experiment) disproves it. But without experiment, no change. Every good scientist considers theories to be temporary figments of thought till new ones have to be written based on experiments.

Greetings, Conrad

His device (it was actually built) was to prove the concept; NOT a practical device.
LoT2 is statistical law, not an absolute law. A statistical law does not apply to individual particles.

Quote from: memoryman on June 14, 2018, 01:50:41 PM
His device (it was actually built) was to prove the concept; NOT a practical device.
LoT2 is statistical law, not an absolute law. A statistical law does not apply to individual particles.

Fine, for you it is enough proof, for me not. And it does not matter what I believe. May be it also does not matter what you believe? I can not build such a device therefore I have no more interest in it. I will resume thinking about it after a device is available which produces at least 10 mA permanently. Everybody can measure 10 mA without resorting to statistics.


Greetings, Conrad

Quote from: ZL on June 13, 2018, 07:10:47 PM
The promised critique that explains what the errors are in Dr. D'Abramo's paper "A Note on Solid-State Maxwell Demon" has been published. You can download the pdf from my website for free at:

"Critique of the Paper 'A Note on Solid-State Maxwell Demon' by Germano D'Abramo"
by Zoltan Losonc

https://feprinciples.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/fallacies_of_dr_dabramos_critique.pdf
https://feprinciples.wordpress.com/downloads/

If something is unclear, or you find errors in it, then please let me know

Zoltan thank you for the explanations in your paper.
My confusion that Germano has created is gone now. I have a hard time to believe that a famous physicist with a PhD in physics could get all that so much wrong. I mean, I don't believe that he wrote all that in ignorance and he didn't know what you have explained. It is just not possible. It must have been a deliberate intent to deceive. Looking at the list of refuted debunkers on this thread (mainly from Quora) with PhDs in competent subjects, it is clear that there is a conspiracy to suppress this invention.

Quote from: conradelektro on June 14, 2018, 01:27:01 PM
Put away the pencil or keyboard an go to the lab. To put it bluntly: stop blubbering till you have something tangible to show!

conrad,  ::) to put it bluntly: you are a jerk!  Oh, wait... this is not news anymore, others have also said that already  ;D

Quote from: Nonlinear on June 15, 2018, 06:47:04 AM
conrad,  ::) to put it bluntly: you are a jerk!  Oh, wait... this is not news anymore, others have also said that already  ;D

What I am is not important. Who cares?

The important fact is that not a single FE or OU or whatever "science is not right" claim made in this forum in the last ten years (may be even longer) has been verified.

Oh, yes, it is a conspiracy, I know.

It is not a problem that some people like to make steep claims, but the avid consumers of these strange claims should be more careful and thoughtful. Also logic and the ability to read something with understanding might help.

Whenever I remind people that words are cheap and conclusive experiments are necessary and difficult, they become offended. If you have nothing to show besides words your position is weak. Being offended is not the cure. Also calling me a jerk does not constitute a conclusive experiment.

Greetings, Conrad

Quote from: conradelektro on June 15, 2018, 07:10:13 AM
What I am is not important. Who cares?

The important fact is that not a single FE or OU or whatever "science is not right" claim made in this forum in the last ten years (may be even longer) has been verified.

Oh, yes, it is a conspiracy, I know.

It is not a problem that some people like to make steep claims, but the avid consumers of these strange claims should be more careful and thoughtful. Also logic and the ability to read something with understanding might help.

Whenever I remind people that words are cheap and conclusive experiments are necessary and difficult, they become offended. If you have nothing to show besides words your position is weak. Being offended is not the cure. Also calling me a jerk does not constitute a conclusive experiment.

Greetings, Conrad

Conrad,
there are a lot of junk on this forum (and other FE forums) but that is not a reason to say that FE not possible.

What is your classification of following information? Is it unpractical and so should not be considered ?

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/230-percent-efficient-leds
https://inhabitat.com/mit-researchers-create-led-light-that-exceeds-100-percent-efficiency/

-V.

It is NOT an OU led; this is what happens when you look at headlines.

Quote from: memoryman on June 15, 2018, 10:33:34 AM
It is NOT an OU led; this is what happens when you look at headlines.

Well, more energy out than in, rest of the energy from surrounding heat. What else you need to call it OU ?

Energy coming in from a un-stated source (for example heat), measurement error or???

Quote from: vasik041 on June 15, 2018, 10:17:11 AM
Conrad,
there are a lot of junk on this forum (and other FE forums) but that is not a reason to say that FE not possible.

What is your classification of following information? Is it unpractical and so should not be considered ?

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/230-percent-efficient-leds (http://www.wired.co.uk/article/230-percent-efficient-leds)
https://inhabitat.com/mit-researchers-create-led-light-that-exceeds-100-percent-efficiency/ (https://inhabitat.com/mit-researchers-create-led-light-that-exceeds-100-percent-efficiency/)

-V.

The article is from 2012 and since then probably no progress.

Everything should and can be researched. But do not claim success before it happened.

I have nothing against looking at strange effects but please do not call it FE or OU or "violation of anything" before you can show a conclusive experiment. Claims in the picowatt are weak and need more work before you call it more than a speculation or a research projet.

The anouncements in this forum are all premature. The people who claim something do not understand the difference between speculation and proof. That is the essence of my criticism.

I allow everybody to speculate, to hope or to investigate whatever they desire. But I do not allow claims of FE, OU or "violation of anything"  without solid proof.  Picowatt claims  are weak, words  are weak and undocumented devices are  super weak. "Prove that it does not work" is also extraordinary weak.

Greetings, Conrad

Hi Conrad,
Thank you the answer.
I hope that I not offend you if I say that your answer is good illustration how "knowledge filtering" (aka as confirmation bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias) works.Unwanted facts and evidence just put aside under any excuse.
Its not only issue in physics, its general "scientific" method...

Regards,
-V.

Vasik041, the jerk agent is as biased as a 10 kV diode  ;D What would you expect from him? Objectivity? Or even openminded search for truth? Nah...! He already 'knows' the answer to all matters of OU. Simply not possible, period! And that's it!  ;D If I wouldn't know the answer, I would ask what the hell is such a mean fellow doing on a forum that supposed to discuss something impossible. And he is doing this full time like a professional, just look at the number of posts he made already, something like 6666.

Oh... wait, actually I am wrong, he doesn't already know the answer to these questions, and he has said this himself a few posts back, he wrote "I know nothing". But he poses like a know it all "authority"  ::)
But to me he looks like an ignorant shoemaker who trolls the concert halls, walks up to the stage, jerks the violin out of  Yehudi Menuhin's hands and starts schooling him about what is possible and what is not, and how to play the Mendelssohn violin concerto  ;D

Quote from: conradelektro on June 14, 2018, 01:44:55 PM
Without that we get just hot air from his body cavities. I can do hot air by myself without Mr. Sheehan.

This fellow is a puff of hot air himself!

Quote from: Nonlinear on June 17, 2018, 07:15:51 AM
Vasik041, the jerk agent is as biased as a 10 kV diode  ;D What would you expect from him? Objectivity? Or even openminded search for truth? Nah...! He already 'knows' the answer to all matters of OU. Simply not possible, period! And that's it!  ;D If I wouldn't know the answer, I would ask what the hell is such a mean fellow doing on a forum that supposed to discuss something impossible. And he is doing this full time like a professional, just look at the number of posts he made already, something like 6666.

Oh... wait, actually I am wrong, he doesn't already know the answer to these questions, and he has said this himself a few posts back, he wrote "I know nothing". But he poses like a know it all "authority"  ::)
But to me he looks like an ignorant shoemaker who trolls the concert halls, walks up to the stage, jerks the violin out of  Yehudi Menuhin's hands and starts schooling him about what is possible and what is not, and how to play the Mendelssohn violin concerto  ;D


This fellow is a puff of hot air himself!

Thank you for the commendation! I am proud that you are one of my fans in this forum. And it is good to see that at least a few people listen and understand my advice. Keep up the good work. To learn means to suffer.


Greetings, Conrad

While some of the noble warriors were valiantly fighting off the shill attacks, we have done more research in this subject, and the simulations have revealed some obstacles that were not mentioned in Dr. Sheehan's papers. These obstacles could invalidate at least one of the suggested methods of energy extraction, but the validity of the basic principle can be still proven by another method.

Due to the malicious shill activity I don't see any rational motivation to continue the discussion on this forum. It makes no sense to allow shills to disrupt any decent effort, and divert our attention from the work at hand into fighting mean arrogance and sheer stupidity.

Therefore a new moderated forum has been created for this thread (although other worthy FE principles may be also discussed) and I have started migrating my own posts to the new forum. There are valuable posts made by other posters here that would be nice to just copy-paste as they are, if the authors Vasik, Nonlinear, broli, and not_a_mib give their permission for this. The new forum is here:
http://feprinciples.my-board.org
All genuine (non-shill) FE researchers who are interested in this subject and willing to actively participate in, and contribute to this research and detective work are invited to sign up at the new forum. Shills will be banned anyway, so spare us the trouble...

There is a temporary thread to discuss the reposting issues, so until the migration is finished, please post in this temporary thread:
http://feprinciples.my-board.org/showthread.php?tid=2
If you give your permission to copy your posts and repost them on the new forum, then please let me know it here, or in the above temporary thread.

An updated new version of my paper has been also uploaded.

ZL
I think if you asked Conrad to "cease and desist" from these redundant engagements ...offering unsolicited scrutiny ...
I am sure he would withdraw ,  hopefully he is a gentlemen at heart .

I would hope respecting your topic and your wishes to discuss this with persons of like mind can continue here and does not end up having to be taken elsewhere.
that would be sad indeed.
respectfully
Chet K
PS
your link to the new spot has all manner of warnings from my server ?

ramset, shills are never "gentlemen at heart" by the very nature of their work. They have a nefarious job to do, which is to distort and hide the politically incorrect truth, subvert, create discord, divert attention to useless channels, create hate, fight, and basically dissolve any real FE research community and common effort. There may be some who do their best to pose as gentlemen, but that is only a mask, which comes off at the right moment when they betray the community and do their dirty work.

You know very well that in an unmoderated forum overtaken by shills real research that pursue realistic FE principles is not possible, not without getting overwhelmed and derailed by the disinfo agents. If this would not be so, why would you have started your own moderated forum? Advising me not to do the same is weird...

Why would the continuing of this thread in another, more peaceful forum be sad for genuine FE researchers? It might be sad for the disinfo operation, because they would lose control over our forum activities. The difference is only in URL and control. I hope it is not a big bother for the interested readers and posters to click on, or type a URL into their browser other than OU.com

It is not a new realization for me that constructive collaboration concerning worthy FE trails is not possible on unmoderated forums, like the one here. The only useful function of posting here seemed to be to make announcements that can reach a wider base of interested readers. But now even that illusion is dissipating. Just take a look at the poll attached to this thread. One of its function is to measure interest in this subject and thread that actually counts; the interest of those who are not too lazy, and have a sufficiently cooperative spirit to at least make a couple of clicks and vote. Is that really so difficult, and takes such a great effort?

After more than a month, there are only 6 votes. Wow, my friend, that is pretty much nothing. If I would stand up on a soapbox in the centre of a small town (not to speak about Hyde Park in London) and start talking about this subject, I would attract more eager and willing attention in one single day. There are about 1.5 billion English speakers in the world. Lets' assume that only 10% of those have access to internet, that is 150 million people. Let's assume that only 1% of them are interested in free energy, that is 1.5 million. Let's assume that only 1% of these care to check out this forum, that is 15000 people. Out of these 15000 potential viewers only 6 would care to give at least a meagre sign that they care about the subject by voting? Well, I think no more explanation is needed.

The point is that even this last motivation of reaching more people has disappeared. I can reach more than 6 people with a brand new forum, by simply inviting those I know would care. Some would argue, that the interest is reflected by the number of thread views displayed in the forum statistics. In reality that is a pretty much useless and misleading number. First of all, those don't show the real number of unique people, but just how many times a page has been viewed. It can also include non human bot visits. It can also be very easily manipulated to achieve certain goals of creating false impressions. A single person can view the same thread several times a day, by just checking in out of curiosity if there are any new posts. If you combine all these factor together, then you will realize that these statistics mean pretty much nothing if you want to know the real interest in a subject. Only a dozen of people viewing the same thread several times a day can create the impression of hundreds of views per day. If these dozen of people have multiple accounts like shills do, then they can even create the impression of a huge crowd to attract the attention of fad followers.

Why is there so meagre interest in worthy subjects like the solid-state Maxwell demon on this forum? Because during the many years real FE researchers have been either alienated by the shill invasions, or tired out by the countless and ceaseless hoax "research" that disinfo agents orchestrate here. Like exhausting a fish on hook. Sooner or later real interest dies off, and they stop visiting the forum because they already know (or have the impression) that no worthy FE discovery will be found here. And basically this is the ultimate goal of the suppression and disinfo operation. Make people disinterested and disillusioned in FE research. They have done a great job, their goal has been pretty much achieved already.

Summa summarum, for real FE researchers there is no rational reason why we should not start a new forum, and continue the collaboration there.

Quote from: ramset on June 17, 2018, 08:02:54 PM
your link to the new spot has all manner of warnings from my server ?

We have checked the accessibility of the new forum from several countries with different browsers, and it works just fine for now. If it goes down at any time, we will just move the forum to another host, or set up a different medium of collaboration. The platform and host is completely secondary, as long as we can have control over what is happening, and have the BtB (Ban the Bastard) button at hand.  ;)

ZL
I started no forum .

Here is what My computer shows when I click on your link in NE USA


https://screenshots.firefox.com/kqpmULgMdieJZwFm/www.siteadvisor.com (https://screenshots.firefox.com/kqpmULgMdieJZwFm/www.siteadvisor.com)

ramset, maybe it was not you personally who started the overunity research forum, but you were actively involved in recruiting/inviting people to join there. Its basically the same thing, same team.

The screenshot of warning you have received shows that the warning is issued by your McAfee Site Advisor software, which is basically controlled by the thought police control system, and the enforces of politically correct internet content. They are owned by the same crooked, spying control freak gang like Google, Facebook, Wikipedia, MSM, Microsoft, etc. Here are some links that give an insight into their rip-off business model, and how they are forcing people to unnecessarily cough up money for the big corporations:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/ghal9/mcafee_is_running_a_scam_siteadvisorcom_is_just_a/
http://www.snapfiles.com/siteadvisor.html
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/17/siteadvisor_false_alert/
McAfee Site Advisor is pretty much a scam.

The warning on your screenshot says:
"Whoa! Are you sure you want to go there?
http://feprinciples.my-board.org/ may try to steals your information."

Steal your information!? Really? It is a public forum, therefore everything posted there is already accessible to all and can't be stolen. What else do they mean could be stolen? Your user name and password? Just make up one for the forum that you don't use anywhere else, and it can't be used anywhere else; therefore it will be worthless to steal it. Are you worried that the Administrator and moderators can see your email address? Just create and give another email address that is not your main personal address. No one is asking for your real name, postal address, social security number, bank account numbers, and the size of your shoes.  ;D  People should be worried about Facebook, Google, and Microsoft spying on them, because those are existing and proven real threats, not about a pathetic hoax warning like the one given by McAfee Site Advisor.

By the way, on the McAfee Site Advisor warning page there is a button that says [Accept the Risk]. I don't think someone needs to be a genius to realize that there is nothing of real value that can be stolen from you on the forum you wish to visit, so why would anyone be worried to click on that button, and just ignore the false warning? My advise to people: don't use McAfee; but if for some awkward reason you must use it, then just ignore the false warning and bypass it. And by the way, don't give out your real personal information, not only in that forum, but basically nowhere as far as you can, and then nobody can steal from you what you don't give out voluntarily (or by coercion like at Facebook).

Quote from: ZL on June 17, 2018, 06:18:29 PM
While some of the noble warriors were valiantly fighting off the shill attacks, we have done more research in this subject, and the simulations have revealed some obstacles that were not mentioned in Dr. Sheehan's papers. These obstacles could invalidate at least one of the suggested methods of energy extraction, but the validity of the basic principle can be still proven by another method.

Due to the malicious shill activity I don't see any rational motivation to continue the discussion on this forum. It makes no sense to allow shills to disrupt any decent effort, and divert our attention from the work at hand into fighting mean arrogance and sheer stupidity.

Therefore a new moderated forum has been created for this thread (although other worthy FE principles may be also discussed) and I have started migrating my own posts to the new forum. There are valuable posts made by other posters here that would be nice to just copy-paste as they are, if the authors Vasik, Nonlinear, broli, and not_a_mib give their permission for this. The new forum is here:
http://feprinciples.my-board.org
All genuine (non-shill) FE researchers who are interested in this subject and willing to actively participate in, and contribute to this research and detective work are invited to sign up at the new forum. Shills will be banned anyway, so spare us the trouble...

There is a temporary thread to discuss the reposting issues, so until the migration is finished, please post in this temporary thread:
http://feprinciples.my-board.org/showthread.php?tid=2
If you give your permission to copy your posts and repost them on the new forum, then please let me know it here, or in the above temporary thread.

An updated new version of my paper has been also uploaded.

Zoltan
You may copy and repost my content on your forum, and thanks for taking interest in them.  8)

Hi Zoltan,
Yes, its ok copy my posts.
I not sure if it is wise to give up and go to other site. Public should see what is going on.
For example, I have my own yahoo group for many years. It is quiet and only few people are there.

Most people coming here for entertainment, not for research.
Regards,-V.

Another point, about question why p-n junction can't be "discharged" like capacitor.I talked with my friend and he pointed me obvious misconception about p-n junction.Charges (ions) in p-n junction are fixed. Electrons and holes moved by their field, not vise versa. It seems that most people confuse cause and effect.
It does not mean that we can't use heat...but it's different story.
:)

Quote from: Nonlinear on June 17, 2018, 07:15:51 AM
Vasik041, the jerk agent is as biased as a 10 kV diode  ;D What would you expect from him? Objectivity? Or even openminded search for truth? Nah...! He already 'knows' the answer to all matters of OU. Simply not possible, period! And that's it!  ;D If I wouldn't know the answer, I would ask what the hell is such a mean fellow doing on a forum that supposed to discuss something impossible. And he is doing this full time like a professional, just look at the number of posts he made already, something like 6666.

Oh... wait, actually I am wrong, he doesn't already know the answer to these questions, and he has said this himself a few posts back, he wrote "I know nothing". But he poses like a know it all "authority"  ::)
But to me he looks like an ignorant shoemaker who trolls the concert halls, walks up to the stage, jerks the violin out of  Yehudi Menuhin's hands and starts schooling him about what is possible and what is not, and how to play the Mendelssohn violin concerto  ;D

This fellow is a puff of hot air himself!

Nonlinear, of course it is not my business, but you seems to be educated man with good taste.There is absolutely no reason insult people despite their behavior.
:)

People who become personal do so because of a lack of facts and logic.

Zoltan, feel free to copy and redistribute any of my posts.

As mentioned By ZL

he has opened a moderated spot to discuss this here
http://feprinciples.my-board.org/showthread.php?tid=1&page=4 (http://feprinciples.my-board.org/showthread.php?tid=1&page=4)
respectfully
Chet K

Thanks to all who have granted me copyright for their content on this thread. The migration of the posts was finished on the 18th, and therefore only the posts of those were transferred who gave permission prior to that time. But this doesn't meant that some left out material would not be useful. New posts can be always added now, and some left out information reintroduced in the new thread at:

Free Energy Principles Forum
http://feprinciples.my-board.org

Naturally, shill-posts, fights, and irrelevant texts were left out to keep the information clean and reader friendly. But fights were not left out because they are wrong responses to shill attacks.

To make things clear, I consider fighting back the shill attacks not only acceptable, but to be the duty of all genuine (non-shill) forum members. It is the same duty like that of self defence (or even the defence of another innocent victim) when a bully attacks an innocent person. If he submits politely with a smiling face without any resistance, thinking that being such a glorious "Saint", practising non-violence is commendable and a great virtue, then he is completely misguided. By submitting to a bully he supports, encourages, and strengthens the bullies, especially if he also pays them protection money (which will be used against him and others). The dire consequence is that the bullies will just grow more arrogant, and aggressive, spread their mindset, create more bullies, and hurt more innocent people. If everybody would resist bullies with all their power, believe me, we would live in a better world. The attacked innocent might not win the fight, and might even suffer injuries, but that is the price of freedom. It does not matter who wins the fight, what matters is the resistance to evil. If all the attacked people would cause only a tiny wound on the bully, after 100 wounds the rascal might just succumb to the faith he deserves...

Quote from: vasik041
I not sure if it is wise to give up and go to other site. Public should see what is going on.
For example, I have my own yahoo group for many years.

Vasik, if you are still unsure despite seeing what happened here, and reading my arguments, then that is not a great sign of wisdom. The public can see what is going on in the moderated thread as well. If they could find this forum, they can also find the new one, even though it will take more time to find the links or hear about it. I have also had a Yahoo forum around 2003 when started my first FE website. But back then I was still quite naive and ignorant about the disinfo operation and shills. We did some good work together, performed some experiments and measurements, and created content for the website. But running the forum, communicating, creating web content etc. took more time and effort than the benefit from the contribution of the participants.

It also became clear that the "open source inventing and developing of FE devices" is an unrealistic pipe dream. Discoveries and inventions originate from gifted and knowledgeable individuals, and not from a group of clueless people. You could bring together a million blacksmiths in a forum with the tasks to invent the diesel motor, and see them fail miserably. Gifted individuals can cooperate with each other, or blacksmiths can help the potential inventors, but finally inventions and discoveries are born in single minds, and are not the results of a 'democratic' voting panel of blacksmiths. We can discuss these subjects in more detail in a dedicated thread on the new forum. With those realizations and some additional personal problems I decided to shut down the old Yahoo forum at some point, and just continued my own private research.

But this doesn't mean that a private moderated forum is useless. If time permits, it can be very useful to share and acquire information related to a researched subject. It doesn't have to host a group effort to invent something together. Everybody can invent their own gadgets (if they have what it takes) while still sharing information in the process for mutual benefit.

But most importantly, the results of a research about real or worthy FE principles have to reach the public. If this is not accomplished, then from humanity's point of view we have accomplished nothing useful. This is the main argument that finally convinced me to start a forum again, despite not having much more time for it, and not expecting much from it either (based on past experiences).

Quote from: vasik041
It is quiet and only few people are there.
Most people coming here for entertainment, not for research.

The fact that a moderated forum (that is not part of the disinfo operation) is 'quiet', is not a bad thing, but a boon that is conductive to creative work. Tesla worked on his inventions mainly within his own mind, which had to be quiet and focused in order to produce all those inventions. He has also worked in his not too crowded workshop, instead of being dejected that it is too quiet, not enough popular, and therefore moving his experiments to a circus, expecting constant applause from a huge public. If you do something noteworthy and produce results worth reading, then sooner or later there will be people willing to read it as well. The fact that most readers of 'popular' forums, like this one are only looking for entertainment, just supports the argument that nothing is really lost if they don't find or read the new forum. FE research should not be an entertainment industry.

Quote from: vasik041 on June 18, 2018, 12:52:56 PM
Another point, about question why p-n junction can't be "discharged" like capacitor.I talked with my friend and he pointed me obvious misconception about p-n junction.Charges (ions) in p-n junction are fixed. Electrons and holes moved by their field, not vise versa. It seems that most people confuse cause and effect.

Well, then your friend didn't show much wisdom either. The fact that the space charge in the depletion region is made of bound ions is described in all textbooks about semiconductors, and it is also mentioned in my paper. Nobody said that the free charge carriers move the bound ions. If somebody thinks so, then he needs to take up a textbook and start from the very beginning.

The explanation of your friend did not reveal the real reason why the free charges accumulated near the surface of the diode semiconductor ends (treated as capacitor plates) cant be discharged. It is due to the contact potential difference between metal-semiconductor, and between semiconductors of different doping concentrations. Please read my paper again; this has been explained thoroughly in it. My further contributions to the subject will be posted on the new forum.

It is hilarious how you consider yourself a "shill detector". It seems that anyone who disagrees with you (or even APPEARS to disagree) is labelled a 'shill'. The circular argument " OU exists but has been suppressed and that why you can't find products with it" (conspiracy theory) shows the lack of clear and critical 'thinking.

Oops! Wrong place.