TheEEStory.com

Well the researcher said something about it behaving like a solar cell. And in a solar cell theres a preexisting electric field which pulls an electron and a "hole" apart. In graphene it seems simmilar, tho im not sure what electric field would those two metals create. And whether it wouldnt work since its in ionic solution and thus probably conductive.

So a solar water heater is a heat engine and solar cell isnt? They both receive photons.

JCatania wrote:

No, light and heat propagate without energy input.

Of course they do, from the point where theres entropy is higher to where entropy is lower. But you have put energy in to get it in the other way.

However, when the researchers measured the minute power of the infrared radiation produced by the LED, they measured 70 pW of power being emitted by the LED while only 30 pW was being consumed, an efficiency of more than 200%.

As I get it, this looks like heat pump for light. You put work (electricity) in and get more light out while taking extra energy as heat from surroundings.

Second law of thermodynamics: Heat cannot spontaneously flow from a colder location to a hotter location.

All good here then as its not spontaneous.

Comment deleted.

Read the thread rules.

-b

watched

Last edited Fri, 09 Mar 2012, 7:22pm by radam

Not everyone is in the US to watch that trough Hulu, at least the torrent works.

You know conduction, convection and radiation? Heat transfer from hot panel to air is trough conduction/convection which needs surface area. How hot the panel gets (if its prevented from loosing heat to conduction/convection) is its ratio of accepting sunlight (about 300 to 900 nm) and not radiating IR (more than 1200nm). Google SELECTIVE SURFACE.

So I think you should check how selective is your paint and add some metal fins so that air has more surface area to heat up. Basically that would ensure you are pumping air thats as hot as possible. As you mentioned that your panel is too hot. Cansolar has a lot of surface are in those canpipes. :)

So if I get it right, this man whos english is as bad as his science, is claiming to get 90w for 3 minutes from somewhere else rather than a battery.

I know that wireless transfer is possible so maybe his local radio station has too powerfull transmiter :)

I was thinking about getting a DC power supply for my PC but its a few times the price of regular one and I would also have to find a source.

Doing a DC system probably best idea if youre doing everything from scratch. Having solar panels might be a reason to put everything on DC at home, but those appliances arent that common. Having one "box" for a cluster of computers laptops, tv and that stuff would also be a good idea but it doesnt exist as of yet as far as I know.

But not sure if its the right thing for washing machines, induction cookers, vacuum cleaners, basically anything that uses more than 200 watts.

Oh well I think I only made one error, comparing barrels to gallons :)

They say they could make 17 million gallons per year and I thought US consumption is 20 million gallons per day. But its 20 million BARRELS per day so that makes my estimate just 42 times too small. Or maybe 20 as one only gets about half as gasoline after refining.

So yeah up to about 1600 square miles in typical forrest. Hemp is better at it tho.

There is such a thing as omnidirectional solar cell, and solar cells do emit light if put on voltage (if only its in the 900 to 1200nm range which you dont see)

Well reading trough the article it seems the tech is converting any biomass to something oil like. Biomass meanying anything from trees, bushes, corn leftovers, dead animals...

I also wonder what are they actually using for fuel. Stating 2.2mwh/ton to electricity seems low compared to about 10mwh/ton that is in the wood for example.

So to run a 300ton plant whole year you need about 110k tons of biomass and it makes that 17mill barrels in that time. Given that oil consumption in US alone is about 20mill a day means one would need about 400 to 450 of those. Amount of biomass would be about 50mill tons. Out of the top of my head I can remember a forrest growing at about 8tonns per hectare -> 800tonns per square km (or 1300tonns per square mile). So one would need about 40k square miles of forrest to supply the US. And I guess utilisation of forrests in US is already close to max.

Tropical forrest would go down even faster of one would go this route.

And, as stated, car tires emit many multiples the PM a modern diesel does. Because of this, breathing in the air behind an EV on the highway will expose you to roughly the same amount of PM as breathing in the air behind a modern diesel. Around a 2% difference or so; less when the cars are equipped with other than narrow tires.

This report: http://www.iapsc.org.uk/document/0605_P_Boulter...
Seems to indicate tire wear is about 20% of total PM at roadside. Digging deeper into the slides it would seem emissions are about the range of US emission standard. This one: http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/conference/ei13/mob... seems to thinks its even lower.

Oh and btw, im from europe.

I have researched NuVinci for rigging into a hydrogenerator. But it turns out its about 70% efficient in low ranges.

student wrote:

zawy,

Tier II bin 5 standard is at 0.01 gram particulate per mile. This would be 500 grams for 50,000 miles. Diesels must come in below that level - which they do.

Due to calculations done today, I find the 0.1 g/m^3 incorrect. It is much lower. Using above mass % as proxy and calculating for Jetta diesel epa mpg (via CO2/mile) with 0.1 g/m^3, I get many multiples higher than regulatory standard limits on particulate. 0.1 g/m^3 has to get thrown out - it is inaccurate for on-road vehicles by a large multiple. It also wasn't matching the mass fraction it should be by at least one order of magnitude.

Well I didnt know what kind of diesel is stated in that article aswell, but Im guessing its an old one. If Zavys calculation is ok, then 0.1g/m3 would translate into about 0.5g/mile or about 0.3g/km which is twice the standard EU had in 1992.

Well truly reducing emmision by 15 or 30 in the last 20 years is quite a feat and its all good. But still one cant say it emits 0 pollution.

Anyway, translating 0.01g/mile into mass ratio would give something like 0.003g/m3 or 3ppm (0.0003%). EPA max level for "good" air quality with PM is about 14micrograms per m3. And our "modern" diesel is emitting about 3000, so quite more than "good" air.

The most polluted by PM that I can find in wikipedia is some city in mongolia which stands at about 300.

And yeah, the 2005 1.5liter turbodiesel I drive usually has unnoticable exhaust. But then come chilly mornings and im reversing into a black cloud.

Oh and hey blackhat, one bucket of electricity please! If you can.