Nick,
Nick Palmer wrote:
> Paul, you seem to think that just because you have used a computer
> modelling program (LT Spice) that it's predictions are necessarily
> reality. If the initial assumptions and parameters that were modelled
> and programmed in are in error it won't be of much use to help us in the
> area we are looking at. Your EE friends have never, in a real situation,
> needed to know or even been able to measure the thermally generated
> voltage noise when there is *no* current of any description, AC or DC,
> passing though the resistor.
You have to be kidding.
> Ideally, it could be measured, if it
> exists, but in the real world there is no ideal instrument. I don't care
> if your EE friends lol at this - that would just show they don't fully
> understand what they are dealing with.
The challenge for EE's is *NOT* measuring noise. A great deal of EE's spend
their entire career designing circuits and chips that have the least amount of
noise. Viewing noise is one of the simplest task in electronics.
BTW, the main issue with your recent posts is that you make it very clear that
such thermal voltage noise is ***current dependant.*** You should build a low
noise op-amp and measure both the voltage and current caused by a resistors
thermal noise. I can assure you the amount of thermal voltage noise does not
change relative to current.
Some people would say that's basic 101 Electronics. Shame on you for spreading
disinformation!
> Your point about several random
> sources adding up and "BTW, true voltage noise has no upper voltage
> crest" yet again sabotages your position.
It only sabotages it to naïve youngsters, no offense intended to anyone.
> By analogy, looking at random
> thermal molecular vibrations (heat) you might as well say that
> temperature is only a statistical average - that there exists all
> temperatures of particles in the spoon - that some in a room temperature
> teaspoon are at a notional 5,000,000 degreesC. Just try using this spoon
> to boil a cuppa though - you'll have a bloody long wait for your tea if
> you wait for a number of random sources to align and give you useable
> heat above ambient temperature.
Again, no offense, but that's pure fuzzy logic. Again, adding two purely random
noise sources increase the root mean square by sqrt(2). You should try it some
day. Just do it by hand (pen waving) or with your calculator. Just take a
hundred purely random numbers between 1 an -1, add them up and see what RMS
value you get.
> Let's cut to the chase. Build one of these diode/resistor/LED devices
> that unequivocally generates significant, useable cohered output - such
> as photons of a frequency and magnitude sufficient to cause a PV cell to
> generate, say, 1 continuous watt using only ambient room temperature
> heat without a lower temperature sink (to give the difference in energy
> levels that is essential to create work) and I will give you £1,000.
There's nothing magical about 1 continuous watt. One ***should*** only have to
prove the point.
> Of course once you have done this, then the world will also beat a path to
> your door but I suspect that hell will freeze over first.
That's a cup half empty comment.
> You are one
> amongst countless free energy dreamers - they failed - you will fail
> too.
That's a cup half empty comment.
> Your hand waving
That's a very well known term used by skeptics and debunkers. What's funny is
watching physicists wave the pens as they write mathematical equations.
Personally I prefer computer software over pen and hand waving, lol.
> when pinned down is nowhere near as impressive as
> such masters of the art as Joseph Newman and Dennis Lee or Joe Champion.
Thanks for the confidence, support, and positive thinking, lol. I'll keep my
glass half full mentality thank you very much!
> BTW, I really think people who use the glass half full/empty "witticism"
> are half wits.
God bless you!
Regards,
Paul Lowrance
