Tweet
I would like to submit to the Physics community a proposal for Perpeptual Energy. Now usually when a bonafide physicist catches wind of a nutjob claiming perpetual energy; it is commesurate to blood in the water, the sharks come calling.
However, to establish a common ground let me first say that while I am not a physicist, I do understand the laws of physics very well. And I know that this has been said countless ways, all of them valid in their own perspective however the laws of thermodynamics are essentially this; 0. there is a game. 1. You can't win. 2. The best you can do is break even. 3. The only way to break even is at absolute zero.
Now I will present my idea, the mathematical theorem, and the actual numbers plugged into the theorem to prove its validty. To save time I will do my utmost to argue your points for you so that you do not have to waste your keystrokes or breathe as it were.
The idea is simple, combine photovoltaic cells with Light Emitting Diodes, to exchange light for electricity in a perfect balance. The mathematical theorem is as simple as the pythagorean theorem and is none less valid. Led input - PV output = 0. Now I know immediately that this is how you feel.
How many times do we have to go through this?
Now let me argue your points for you. OK, Shawn let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say that there is a new solar cell just invented that is 100% efficient and it is connected to a revolutionary LED just created that is 100% efficient.
Now lets even say that they are connected with a superconductor (that does not require power hungry machines). Let's even say that we placed all this inside a 100% reflective box so that no light is lost. Even with all this do you not understand that light carries heat and that some of that heat would be absorbed into the mirrors therefore depleating the whole process until it completely shuts down? 
To put it bluntly, you are wasting your time. Hopefully, I have argued your point well enough. And I completely agree that [(Led input i pv ouput = (0) or (+1)] I.E. to break even or acheve over-unity is NOT possible through and increase of efficiency.
Now as to not waste your time I will share with you my viewpoint. I beleive that both "breaking even" and "overunity" can be achieved through electrical manipulation. Gentlemen, we have been approaching this problem from the wrong perspective. I will explain how this can be acheived if you will simply keep reading.
I have actually run this experiment at my house with a reflective box lined with solar cells. I used a 200 watt LED that at 6 amps put out 16,000 lumen. This 16,000 lumen caused the solar cells to put out 670 milliamps. A small recap 200 watts of light (6 amp input) produced 16,000 lumen which produced (670 milliamps ouput). I used 6 amps to produce the light but only created a tenth in ouput, nowhere near perpetual. Now comes the I told you so's. The rational train of thought would be to try to raise the ouput somehow. Yet the only way to raise the ouput is through efficiencies and the best we could do any any circumstance is to get out as much as we put in; 6 amps in and 6 amps out. Yet as previously stated it is a waste of time and NOT possible even at 100% efficiency.
God grant me the patience to accept the things i can not change, the bravery to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference.
If we know that we can not acheive over-unity through an increase in efficiency then why don't we simply "accept the things that we can not change". Yet we need to have the "bravery" to change the things we can." Instead of using the input as the base of comparison/goal what if we used the output as the goal. By raising the voltage on an led you can drop the amperage required. So if we used a high voltage LED at 200 volts and 1 amps it would still produce the same 200 watts required to produce the required 16,000 lumen of light and 670 milliamps of output. A small recap. 1000 milliamps Input produced 670 milliamps ouput. Now this is 67% of perpetual. Does an LED like this exist...yes. Could we make the required voltage...yes by using amorphous silicon to produce the voltage, combined with monocrystalline solar cells to produce the amperage. Now in your head you are probably saying 67% is not even close enough to get a nod from me.
Alright, let me tempt you once more. what if we used an Led that was 400 volts and 500 milliamps? This would still be 200 watts and still produce 16,000 lumen of light which would still produce 670 milliamps of output. A small reacap: 500 milliamps of input produces 670 milliamps of output. Ladies and gentlemen as once stated to me, "If you deny the laws of physics which have never been proven wrong then you are simply committing the unforgivable sin if wilfull ignorance." I do not deny the laws of physics or thermodynamics, as it were, but this does not break the laws. Yet I ask you is it "Wisdom" to deny the theorem(LED input - PV ouput = +1) and the math which proves it? Is this also not willful ignorance? And I know the burden of proof is on me. However, I would appreciate constructive feedback and focus on the proposal, as well as any assistance in acheiving my goal at a quicker pace, and not my poor spelling, grammer or punctuation. The challenge? If there is a physicist that understands this and agrees and is willing to put their reputation at stake, along with their time, energy and backing then I will share monitary gain, credit and even play second fiddle to all public acknowledgements.
However, to establish a common ground let me first say that while I am not a physicist, I do understand the laws of physics very well. And I know that this has been said countless ways, all of them valid in their own perspective however the laws of thermodynamics are essentially this; 0. there is a game. 1. You can't win. 2. The best you can do is break even. 3. The only way to break even is at absolute zero.
Now I will present my idea, the mathematical theorem, and the actual numbers plugged into the theorem to prove its validty. To save time I will do my utmost to argue your points for you so that you do not have to waste your keystrokes or breathe as it were.
The idea is simple, combine photovoltaic cells with Light Emitting Diodes, to exchange light for electricity in a perfect balance. The mathematical theorem is as simple as the pythagorean theorem and is none less valid. Led input - PV output = 0. Now I know immediately that this is how you feel.
How many times do we have to go through this?Now let me argue your points for you. OK, Shawn let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say that there is a new solar cell just invented that is 100% efficient and it is connected to a revolutionary LED just created that is 100% efficient.
Now lets even say that they are connected with a superconductor (that does not require power hungry machines). Let's even say that we placed all this inside a 100% reflective box so that no light is lost. Even with all this do you not understand that light carries heat and that some of that heat would be absorbed into the mirrors therefore depleating the whole process until it completely shuts down? To put it bluntly, you are wasting your time. Hopefully, I have argued your point well enough. And I completely agree that [(Led input i pv ouput = (0) or (+1)] I.E. to break even or acheve over-unity is NOT possible through and increase of efficiency. Now as to not waste your time I will share with you my viewpoint. I beleive that both "breaking even" and "overunity" can be achieved through electrical manipulation. Gentlemen, we have been approaching this problem from the wrong perspective. I will explain how this can be acheived if you will simply keep reading.
I have actually run this experiment at my house with a reflective box lined with solar cells. I used a 200 watt LED that at 6 amps put out 16,000 lumen. This 16,000 lumen caused the solar cells to put out 670 milliamps. A small recap 200 watts of light (6 amp input) produced 16,000 lumen which produced (670 milliamps ouput). I used 6 amps to produce the light but only created a tenth in ouput, nowhere near perpetual. Now comes the I told you so's. The rational train of thought would be to try to raise the ouput somehow. Yet the only way to raise the ouput is through efficiencies and the best we could do any any circumstance is to get out as much as we put in; 6 amps in and 6 amps out. Yet as previously stated it is a waste of time and NOT possible even at 100% efficiency.
God grant me the patience to accept the things i can not change, the bravery to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference.
If we know that we can not acheive over-unity through an increase in efficiency then why don't we simply "accept the things that we can not change". Yet we need to have the "bravery" to change the things we can." Instead of using the input as the base of comparison/goal what if we used the output as the goal. By raising the voltage on an led you can drop the amperage required. So if we used a high voltage LED at 200 volts and 1 amps it would still produce the same 200 watts required to produce the required 16,000 lumen of light and 670 milliamps of output. A small recap. 1000 milliamps Input produced 670 milliamps ouput. Now this is 67% of perpetual. Does an LED like this exist...yes. Could we make the required voltage...yes by using amorphous silicon to produce the voltage, combined with monocrystalline solar cells to produce the amperage. Now in your head you are probably saying 67% is not even close enough to get a nod from me.
Alright, let me tempt you once more. what if we used an Led that was 400 volts and 500 milliamps? This would still be 200 watts and still produce 16,000 lumen of light which would still produce 670 milliamps of output. A small reacap: 500 milliamps of input produces 670 milliamps of output. Ladies and gentlemen as once stated to me, "If you deny the laws of physics which have never been proven wrong then you are simply committing the unforgivable sin if wilfull ignorance." I do not deny the laws of physics or thermodynamics, as it were, but this does not break the laws. Yet I ask you is it "Wisdom" to deny the theorem(LED input - PV ouput = +1) and the math which proves it? Is this also not willful ignorance? And I know the burden of proof is on me. However, I would appreciate constructive feedback and focus on the proposal, as well as any assistance in acheiving my goal at a quicker pace, and not my poor spelling, grammer or punctuation. The challenge? If there is a physicist that understands this and agrees and is willing to put their reputation at stake, along with their time, energy and backing then I will share monitary gain, credit and even play second fiddle to all public acknowledgements.
Comment