Steven - I wasn't trying to insult you or Michel, however I was definitely
trying to insult Paul after his appallingly arrogant "intelligent thinking
beings" crack. Where is the late, great Chris Tinsley when you need him? He
could, and did, squash adolescent grandstanding like this in a couple of
sentences. I am not in his league. For you Steve and Michel, I will see if I
can explain what I meant because what you said appeared to show that you did
not get my argument.
Firstly, I did not say that there is no THERMAL noise (obviously there is
from the Brownian motion) I said that there is no thermally induced
effective *voltage* noise when there is no current flowing. Consider the
molecular situation in, say, a carbon resistor which is nicely noisy. The
Brownian motion of the carbon atoms clearly creates communicated vibrations
(thermal noise) but no effective electric noise - one could argue that the
electron cloud around the carbon atoms "vibrating" creates a varying
electric field around the atom at very close range but this is not going to
be a useable or rectifiable voltage.
If one argues that there are ionised carbon atoms present and that it is the
free electrons that are influenced you might have an argument that by using
a naturally very ionised substance it may increase the effect you are
looking for. However, the equation is analysed further on in the web site,
clearly written by someone familiar with sound engineering, and it goes on
to state that the thermal noise is *independent* of the material of the
resistor and only depends on the value of the resistance and the absolute
temperature. It follows that a material with zero free electrons would have
exactly the same thermal noise i.e. purely due to the Brownian motion of the
molecules.
Steven wrote
<<And I do not believe that the noise jumps from 0 to its "full-on value" as
soon as the current goes from exactly 0 to, say, 1 fempto-pico-amp.
the formula given in an earlier post, with which you did not disagree,
certainly does not describe something which
decreases with current. If it just _cuts_ _off_ at zero current, that would
be very strange behavior indeed! >>
This is where the "sound engineer's" (as opposed to a physicist's) equation
comes in. Yes, I do believe it jumps from zero to its full on "thermal noise
influencing free electrons" value in exactly the same way as there is no
current in a wire until you flick the switch and apply a voltage. When a
sound engineer "listens" to a noisy resistor with a "low noise amp" he is,
in a Schrödinger's cat sort of way, measuring a system but also affecting
that system at the same time - the connection of the amp inputs *will*
generate very small currents in the resistor and these will be influenced by
the *thermal* noise and this will be the source of the amplified "electrical
noise" which Paul hopes to rectify and light his LEDs with prior to powering
the entire world with them. He is expecting to cohere random vibrations
losslessly and output cohered useable energy capable of doing work at the
same energy level. THIS WILL NOT WORK. It is really elementary. Work can be
done only by going from a higher level to a lower level of energy - the
greater the difference between the levels, the more work can be done. If
there is no difference, there can be no work done. Get used to it... Still
no free lunch.
As far as "intelligent" goes I obviously have a different definition to you.
There is a difference between potentially intelligent, which Paul obviously
is, and demonstrated intelligence. An example: I wrote to our Government's
planning department in 1992 because they were about to uprate building
insulation standards. I pointed out that the threat from climate change was
so potentially serious that they should set new standards that rendered new
buildings carbon-neutral or better because these buildings would be present,
and using energy, during the critical times ahead. They wrote back with a
fairly tightly argued, articulate piece about how I was talking rubbish and
how it should be left to experts in town planning and architects with
letters after their name to decide what was best for us all. Thousands of
homes and flats have been built since then here with inadequate levels of
insulation. Just last week, the very same Department announced that they
were going to demolish and rebuild a large estate and make it carbon-neutral
because "they were in the vanguard against global warming" - 15 YEARS LATER
than they could have been. By your definition these people were, and are,
intelligent with impressive qualifications - by mine, they are bloody-minded
idiots pretending to be intelligent - they are as intelligent as the straw
man in the Wizard of Oz clutching his certificate. I am currently fighting
them on another front and they are STILL MAKING the same fundamental
mistakes in thinking.
- Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics Nick Palmer
-
