RE: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT

[Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint]

PDF was too large, so go get U.S. Patent No. 0119825, McFarland.

-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 4:29 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT

Terry - Not sure I follow. Are you saying that "virtual inertia" comes from
being undisturbed for a time? Please elaborate.


-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 

> [why should "undisturbed" matter? Does making a connection to ZPE 
> require some kind of local stability?]

Jones,

Maybe this is somehow related to the Aspden Effect?

http://www.haroldaspden.com/

T

Re: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT

[Harry Veeder]

My first statement is only correct if the putative cooler is an active
cooling system. By that I mean it is behaving like the diode
equivalent of a heat pump. A heat pump requires an external input of
energy that is equal to or greater than the heat transferred out of
the system. In this system the input energy is electrical and is less
than the heat energy transferred out of the system so it qualifies as
OU.

OTOH, if it is a passive cooling system, which simply cools by
emitting radiation, it wouldn't qualify as OU.  However, as David
Roberson pointed out this cooling process  differs from how an ideal
black body is suppose to cool.

Harry


On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Harry Veeder  wrote:
> If it is a cooler, it appears to violate the first law.
> If it is an energy converter, it appears to violate the second law.
>
> I guess the question is: what is it?
>
>
>
> Harry

Re: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT

[Terry Blanton]

On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
> Terry - Not sure I follow. Are you saying that "virtual inertia" comes from
> being undisturbed for a time? Please elaborate.

I was thinking of an inverse of the Aspden Effect, ie if the aether is
left undisturbed for some amount of time a sort of energy
"precipitant" might occur.

After all, if you're not a part of the solution, you're a part of the
precipitant.



Solly.

T

RE: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT

[Jones Beene]

Terry - Not sure I follow. Are you saying that "virtual inertia" comes from
being undisturbed for a time? Please elaborate.


-Original Message-
From: Terry Blanton 

> [why should "undisturbed" matter? Does making a connection to ZPE require
> some kind of local stability?]

Jones,

Maybe this is somehow related to the Aspden Effect?

http://www.haroldaspden.com/

T

Re: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT

[Terry Blanton]

On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> [why should "undisturbed" matter? Does making a connection to ZPE require
> some kind of local stability?]

Jones,

Maybe this is somehow related to the Aspden Effect?

http://www.haroldaspden.com/

T

Re: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT

[David Roberson]

I think that systems have always radiated heat energy by the blackbody method.  
That is one way for a diode to act as a cooler, but this only works if the 
radiated energy is directed toward a cooler region of space.

In one way of looking at it:  All of the electrical energy dissipated by an 
insulated, lone diode in space would be emitted in one form of radiation or the 
other.  Light or infrared, etc. would be emitted in an amount equal to the 
power input.

Perhaps they have found a way to enhance the light part of the spectrum at the 
expense of the heat portion.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Daniel Rocha 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Tue, Feb 28, 2012 12:58 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT


The diode is working as a cooler. 


2012/2/28 Harry Veeder 

According to the second law you can only get a system to do "work"  if
parts of the system are at different temperatures. In this situation
the system is a diode and it does work by converting heat into light.
It is hard to tell from the description, but I am guessing the entire
diode is at an  elevated temperature.

harry


On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:
> Why do you think it would violate the 2nd law? I don't understand.
>
> 2012/2/28 Harry Veeder 
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Daniel Rocha 
>> wrote:
>> > Pay attention at this:
>> >
>> > " Experiments directly confirm for the first time that this behavior
>> > continues beyond the conventional limit of unity electrical-to-optical
>> > power
>> > conversion efficiency."
>> >
>> > It is above the conventional, not that it produces energy out of
>> > nothing.
>> > This is just a way of saying that it exceeded expectation of light
>> > emission
>> > for a LED.
>>
>>
>> Yes. It uses electricity to change heat into light. The abstract:
>>
>> "A heated semiconductor light-emitting diode at low forward bias
>> voltage V> lattice to the photon field. Here the rates of both radiative and
>> nonradiative recombination have contributions at linear order in V. As
>> a result the device’s wall-plug (i.e., power conversion) efficiency is
>> inversely proportional to its output power and diverges as V
>> approaches zero. Experiments directly confirm for the first time that
>> this behavior continues beyond the conventional limit of unity
>> electrical-to-optical power conversion efficiency."
>>
>>
>> however, wouldn't this require a violation of the second law of
>> thermodynamics?
>>
>> Harry
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>








-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT

[Daniel Rocha]

That's right. The 2nd law is not valid for very simple systems or open
systems, which is the case above.

2012/2/28 Nigel Dyer 

> The paper says that it is working at a temperature of 135 C, which is
> relatively elevated.
>
> I agree that this does violate the second law, in that it is doing work
> but there is not a heat source and sink.  However, as my son, who knows
> more about physics than I do says, the second law is not so much a law,
> merely a guideline.  There are a number of situations where it does not
> hold, so we can add this to the list.
>
> One Achilles heal of the second law would appear to be pumped Bose
> condensates such as lasers, so it is no great surprise to find an example
> here.
>
> However, we only get over unity at less than <10E-10 watts, so its
> practical application at this point is somewhat limited.But maybe with
> a little more research
>
> Nigel
>
>
> On 28/02/2012 17:38, Harry Veeder wrote:
>
>> According to the second law you can only get a system to do "work"  if
>> parts of the system are at different temperatures. In this situation
>> the system is a diode and it does work by converting heat into light.
>> It is hard to tell from the description, but I am guessing the entire
>> diode is at an  elevated temperature.
>>
>> harry
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Daniel Rocha
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> Why do you think it would violate the 2nd law? I don't understand.
>>>
>>> 2012/2/28 Harry Veeder
>>>
 however, wouldn't this require a violation of the second law of
> thermodynamics?
>
> Harry
>
>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Daniel Rocha - RJ
>>> danieldi...@gmail.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT

[Nigel Dyer]

The paper says that it is working at a temperature of 135 C, which is 
relatively elevated.


I agree that this does violate the second law, in that it is doing work 
but there is not a heat source and sink.  However, as my son, who knows 
more about physics than I do says, the second law is not so much a law, 
merely a guideline.  There are a number of situations where it does not 
hold, so we can add this to the list.


One Achilles heal of the second law would appear to be pumped Bose 
condensates such as lasers, so it is no great surprise to find an 
example here.


However, we only get over unity at less than <10E-10 watts, so its 
practical application at this point is somewhat limited.But maybe 
with a little more research


Nigel

On 28/02/2012 17:38, Harry Veeder wrote:

According to the second law you can only get a system to do "work"  if
parts of the system are at different temperatures. In this situation
the system is a diode and it does work by converting heat into light.
It is hard to tell from the description, but I am guessing the entire
diode is at an  elevated temperature.

harry

On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:

Why do you think it would violate the 2nd law? I don't understand.

2012/2/28 Harry Veeder

however, wouldn't this require a violation of the second law of
thermodynamics?

Harry




--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT

[Harry Veeder]

If it is a cooler, it appears to violate the first law.
If it is an energy converter, it appears to violate the second law.

I guess the question is: what is it?



Harry

On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:
> The diode is working as a cooler.
>
> 2012/2/28 Harry Veeder 
>>
>> According to the second law you can only get a system to do "work"  if
>> parts of the system are at different temperatures. In this situation
>> the system is a diode and it does work by converting heat into light.
>> It is hard to tell from the description, but I am guessing the entire
>> diode is at an  elevated temperature.
>>
>> harry
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Daniel Rocha 
>> wrote:
>> > Why do you think it would violate the 2nd law? I don't understand.
>> >
>> > 2012/2/28 Harry Veeder 
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Daniel Rocha 
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Pay attention at this:
>> >> >
>> >> > " Experiments directly confirm for the first time that this behavior
>> >> > continues beyond the conventional limit of unity
>> >> > electrical-to-optical
>> >> > power
>> >> > conversion efficiency."
>> >> >
>> >> > It is above the conventional, not that it produces energy out of
>> >> > nothing.
>> >> > This is just a way of saying that it exceeded expectation of light
>> >> > emission
>> >> > for a LED.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Yes. It uses electricity to change heat into light. The abstract:
>> >>
>> >> "A heated semiconductor light-emitting diode at low forward bias
>> >> voltage V> >> lattice to the photon field. Here the rates of both radiative and
>> >> nonradiative recombination have contributions at linear order in V. As
>> >> a result the device’s wall-plug (i.e., power conversion) efficiency is
>> >> inversely proportional to its output power and diverges as V
>> >> approaches zero. Experiments directly confirm for the first time that
>> >> this behavior continues beyond the conventional limit of unity
>> >> electrical-to-optical power conversion efficiency."
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> however, wouldn't this require a violation of the second law of
>> >> thermodynamics?
>> >>
>> >> Harry
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Daniel Rocha - RJ
>> > danieldi...@gmail.com
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>

RE: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT

[Jones Beene]

On the CoE "balance sheet" - we have light emission, which can be converted
into watts equivalent. 

 

If the electrical input were to be 60% of that value, and the rest is
assumed (correctly) to come from ambient heat, then there is no CoE
violation. This would be ultra high efficiency in the same way that a heat
pump is not OU, but is highly efficient since it removes heat from the
environment. (there are two distinct meanings for "COP")

 

But until precise calorimetry proves that there is not a "third" input (in
addition to electrical and ambient heat) then the door is slightly ajar. 

 

No one is suggesting (yet) that there is an anomaly or a violation. 

 

But if you do not look for it carefully, instead of making assumptions -
then it cannot be found.

 

 

From: Daniel Rocha 

 

Why do you think it would violate the 2nd law? I don't understand.

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT

[Daniel Rocha]

What about heat ->electricity -> light?

2012/2/28 Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint 

> The key wording is here:
>
> ** **
>
> "A heated semiconductor light-emitting diode at low forward bias voltage
> V
> **to pump heat from the lattice to the photon field.**”
>
> ** **
>
> It is converting **heat** energy to light… not electricity-to-light!!!
>
> ** **
>
> Thus, as they **lower** the forward bias V,  **electrical** efficiency
> INCREASES because it is not using electrical current for operation; as
> Jones said, it’s the E-field which ALLOWS the HEAT-to-LIGHT conversion.  If
> the material is not very conductive, one can have a large E-field with
> miniscule current flow… thus, very little ELECTRICAL power use.
>
> ** **
>
> -Mark
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Daniel Rocha [mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 28, 2012 9:21 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT
>
> ** **
>
> Why do you think it would violate the 2nd law? I don't understand.
>
> 2012/2/28 Harry Veeder 
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Daniel Rocha 
> wrote:
> > Pay attention at this:
> >
> > " Experiments directly confirm for the first time that this behavior
> > continues beyond the conventional limit of unity electrical-to-optical
> power
> > conversion efficiency."
> >
> > It is above the conventional, not that it produces energy out of nothing.
> > This is just a way of saying that it exceeded expectation of light
> emission
> > for a LED.
>
> 
>
> Yes. It uses electricity to change heat into light. The abstract:
>
> "A heated semiconductor light-emitting diode at low forward bias
> voltage V lattice to the photon field. Here the rates of both radiative and
> nonradiative recombination have contributions at linear order in V. As
> a result the device’s wall-plug (i.e., power conversion) efficiency is
> inversely proportional to its output power and diverges as V
> approaches zero. Experiments directly confirm for the first time that
>
> this behavior continues beyond the conventional limit of unity
> electrical-to-optical power conversion efficiency."
>
> 
>
> however, wouldn't this require a violation of the second law of
> thermodynamics?
>
> Harry
>
>
>
> 
>
> ** **
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
>
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>
> ** **
>



-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT

[Harry Veeder]

Some months ago I speculated that LENR might one day be used as a heat
source to generate light directly using a thermophotovoltaic effect.
This work suggests it might be feasible. I even mentioned it to Rossi,
on his blog but he just saw it as a means to generate electricty from
the light produced.

Harry

On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint
 wrote:
> The key wording is here:
>
>
>
> "A heated semiconductor light-emitting diode at low forward bias voltage
> V
> *to pump heat from the lattice to the photon field.*”
>
>
>
> It is converting *heat* energy to light… not electricity-to-light!!!
>
>
>
> Thus, as they *lower* the forward bias V,  *electrical* efficiency INCREASES
> because it is not using electrical current for operation; as Jones said,
> it’s the E-field which ALLOWS the HEAT-to-LIGHT conversion.  If the material
> is not very conductive, one can have a large E-field with miniscule current
> flow… thus, very little ELECTRICAL power use.
>
>
>
> -Mark
>
>
>
> From: Daniel Rocha [mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 9:21 AM
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT
>
>
>
> Why do you think it would violate the 2nd law? I don't understand.
>
> 2012/2/28 Harry Veeder 
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Daniel Rocha 
> wrote:
>> Pay attention at this:
>>
>> " Experiments directly confirm for the first time that this behavior
>> continues beyond the conventional limit of unity electrical-to-optical
>> power
>> conversion efficiency."
>>
>> It is above the conventional, not that it produces energy out of nothing.
>> This is just a way of saying that it exceeded expectation of light
>> emission
>> for a LED.
>
> Yes. It uses electricity to change heat into light. The abstract:
>
> "A heated semiconductor light-emitting diode at low forward bias
> voltage V lattice to the photon field. Here the rates of both radiative and
> nonradiative recombination have contributions at linear order in V. As
> a result the device’s wall-plug (i.e., power conversion) efficiency is
> inversely proportional to its output power and diverges as V
> approaches zero. Experiments directly confirm for the first time that
>
> this behavior continues beyond the conventional limit of unity
> electrical-to-optical power conversion efficiency."
>
> however, wouldn't this require a violation of the second law of
> thermodynamics?
>
> Harry
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
>
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT

[Daniel Rocha]

The diode is working as a cooler.

2012/2/28 Harry Veeder 

> According to the second law you can only get a system to do "work"  if
> parts of the system are at different temperatures. In this situation
> the system is a diode and it does work by converting heat into light.
> It is hard to tell from the description, but I am guessing the entire
> diode is at an  elevated temperature.
>
> harry
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Daniel Rocha 
> wrote:
> > Why do you think it would violate the 2nd law? I don't understand.
> >
> > 2012/2/28 Harry Veeder 
> >>
> >> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Daniel Rocha 
> >> wrote:
> >> > Pay attention at this:
> >> >
> >> > " Experiments directly confirm for the first time that this behavior
> >> > continues beyond the conventional limit of unity electrical-to-optical
> >> > power
> >> > conversion efficiency."
> >> >
> >> > It is above the conventional, not that it produces energy out of
> >> > nothing.
> >> > This is just a way of saying that it exceeded expectation of light
> >> > emission
> >> > for a LED.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes. It uses electricity to change heat into light. The abstract:
> >>
> >> "A heated semiconductor light-emitting diode at low forward bias
> >> voltage V >> lattice to the photon field. Here the rates of both radiative and
> >> nonradiative recombination have contributions at linear order in V. As
> >> a result the device’s wall-plug (i.e., power conversion) efficiency is
> >> inversely proportional to its output power and diverges as V
> >> approaches zero. Experiments directly confirm for the first time that
> >> this behavior continues beyond the conventional limit of unity
> >> electrical-to-optical power conversion efficiency."
> >>
> >>
> >> however, wouldn't this require a violation of the second law of
> >> thermodynamics?
> >>
> >> Harry
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Rocha - RJ
> > danieldi...@gmail.com
> >
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

RE: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT

[Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint]

The key wording is here:

 

"A heated semiconductor light-emitting diode at low forward bias voltage
Vmailto:danieldi...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 9:21 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT

 

Why do you think it would violate the 2nd law? I don't understand.

2012/2/28 Harry Veeder 

On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Daniel Rocha 
wrote:
> Pay attention at this:
>
> " Experiments directly confirm for the first time that this behavior
> continues beyond the conventional limit of unity electrical-to-optical
power
> conversion efficiency."
>
> It is above the conventional, not that it produces energy out of nothing.
> This is just a way of saying that it exceeded expectation of light
emission
> for a LED.



Yes. It uses electricity to change heat into light. The abstract:

"A heated semiconductor light-emitting diode at low forward bias
voltage V

Re: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT

[Harry Veeder]

According to the second law you can only get a system to do "work"  if
parts of the system are at different temperatures. In this situation
the system is a diode and it does work by converting heat into light.
It is hard to tell from the description, but I am guessing the entire
diode is at an  elevated temperature.

harry

On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:
> Why do you think it would violate the 2nd law? I don't understand.
>
> 2012/2/28 Harry Veeder 
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Daniel Rocha 
>> wrote:
>> > Pay attention at this:
>> >
>> > " Experiments directly confirm for the first time that this behavior
>> > continues beyond the conventional limit of unity electrical-to-optical
>> > power
>> > conversion efficiency."
>> >
>> > It is above the conventional, not that it produces energy out of
>> > nothing.
>> > This is just a way of saying that it exceeded expectation of light
>> > emission
>> > for a LED.
>>
>>
>> Yes. It uses electricity to change heat into light. The abstract:
>>
>> "A heated semiconductor light-emitting diode at low forward bias
>> voltage V> lattice to the photon field. Here the rates of both radiative and
>> nonradiative recombination have contributions at linear order in V. As
>> a result the device’s wall-plug (i.e., power conversion) efficiency is
>> inversely proportional to its output power and diverges as V
>> approaches zero. Experiments directly confirm for the first time that
>> this behavior continues beyond the conventional limit of unity
>> electrical-to-optical power conversion efficiency."
>>
>>
>> however, wouldn't this require a violation of the second law of
>> thermodynamics?
>>
>> Harry
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Rocha - RJ
> danieldi...@gmail.com
>

Re: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT

[Daniel Rocha]

Why do you think it would violate the 2nd law? I don't understand.

2012/2/28 Harry Veeder 

> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Daniel Rocha 
> wrote:
> > Pay attention at this:
> >
> > " Experiments directly confirm for the first time that this behavior
> > continues beyond the conventional limit of unity electrical-to-optical
> power
> > conversion efficiency."
> >
> > It is above the conventional, not that it produces energy out of nothing.
> > This is just a way of saying that it exceeded expectation of light
> emission
> > for a LED.
>
>
> Yes. It uses electricity to change heat into light. The abstract:
>
> "A heated semiconductor light-emitting diode at low forward bias
> voltage V lattice to the photon field. Here the rates of both radiative and
> nonradiative recombination have contributions at linear order in V. As
> a result the device’s wall-plug (i.e., power conversion) efficiency is
> inversely proportional to its output power and diverges as V
> approaches zero. Experiments directly confirm for the first time that
> this behavior continues beyond the conventional limit of unity
> electrical-to-optical power conversion efficiency."
>
>
> however, wouldn't this require a violation of the second law of
> thermodynamics?
>
> Harry
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT

[Daniel Rocha]

I don't think it is a matter of protecting position because of crazy
claims. What they did was not unusual in the sense that there is no surplus
of energy, but more efficiency then expected.

2012/2/28 Jones Beene 

> From: Daniel Rocha
>
>Pay attention at this:
>
>" Experiments directly confirm for the first time that this
> behavior continues beyond the conventional limit of unity
> electrical-to-optical power conversion efficiency."
>
>It is above the conventional, not that it produces energy
> out of nothing. This is just a way of saying that it exceeded expectation
> of
> light emission for a LED.
>
> Yes of course - these guys have to protect tenured positions at MIT, so
> they
> would never mention ZPE nor any of the other possibilities that we like to
> toss around here ...
>
> ... as Mel Brooks would say "we must protect our phony baloney jobs"
>



-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT

[Harry Veeder]

On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Daniel Rocha  wrote:
> Pay attention at this:
>
> " Experiments directly confirm for the first time that this behavior
> continues beyond the conventional limit of unity electrical-to-optical power
> conversion efficiency."
>
> It is above the conventional, not that it produces energy out of nothing.
> This is just a way of saying that it exceeded expectation of light emission
> for a LED.


Yes. It uses electricity to change heat into light. The abstract:

"A heated semiconductor light-emitting diode at low forward bias
voltage V

RE: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT

[Jones Beene]

From: Daniel Rocha 

Pay attention at this:

" Experiments directly confirm for the first time that this
behavior continues beyond the conventional limit of unity
electrical-to-optical power conversion efficiency."

It is above the conventional, not that it produces energy
out of nothing. This is just a way of saying that it exceeded expectation of
light emission for a LED.

Yes of course - these guys have to protect tenured positions at MIT, so they
would never mention ZPE nor any of the other possibilities that we like to
toss around here ... 

... as Mel Brooks would say "we must protect our phony baloney jobs"
<>

Re: [Vo]:Over unity at MIT

[Daniel Rocha]

Pay attention at this:

" Experiments directly confirm for the first time that this behavior
continues beyond the conventional limit of unity electrical-to-optical
power conversion efficiency."

It is above the conventional, not that it produces energy out of nothing.
This is just a way of saying that it exceeded expectation of light emission
for a LED.

2012/2/28 Jones Beene 

> Did you ever think you would hear MIT bragging about overunity?
>Thermoelectrically Pumped Light-Emitting Diodes Operating
> above Unity Efficiency
> 
>Parthiban Santhanam, Dodd Joseph Gray, Jr., and Rajeev J.
> Ram
>Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 097403 (2012)
>   Published
> February
> 27, 2012
>
>Physicists have known for decades that, in principle, a
> semiconductor device can emit more light power than it consumes
> electrically. Experiments published in Physical Review Letters finally
> demonstrate this in practice, though at a small scale.
>
> It is clear that the "Joule thief" and "Joule ringer" experiments that
> pepper the internet can produce more light from LEDs than should be
> available from the electrical input. The best I have seen is 50 uwatts
> going
> in to light an LED (that's micro- not milli-). This is 1000 times lower
> than
> the DC rating.
>
> If you have been around Vortex for a while you may remember 5-6 years ago
> there was a vocal proponent of using Silicon chip-making equipment
> (microlithography) to fabricate a dedicated ambient-to-electric converter -
> the so-called giga-diode TEG array. A interesting fellow named Charles M.
> Brown, from Hawaii, was the major proponent of this.
>
> He seems to have faded from view around 2007 but he claimed to have a "fab"
> lined up to produce such an array. His patent goes pack 37 years. In his
> last postings, he said this was to be GaAs or GaSb and have several billion
> diodes. He was going to enter this device in the Virgin alternative energy
> competition and according to this message - he did arrange to have a few
> produced. This is an interesting thread but the output is low. Apparently
> this is Paul Lowrance's site (former vortician)
>
> http://www.globalfreeenergy.info/2009/06/18/new-diode-setup-plans/
>
> There is old info up on Sterling Allan's site (with Brown's patent
> reference), but it seems to have not been updated in a while:
>
>
> http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Charles_M._Brown%27s_Thermal_Electric
> _Chip
>
> Jones
>
>
> BTW- Lowrance adds, "Low leakage *undisturbed* diodes typically produce 0.2
> to 0.5 volts DC. Piezos typically produce 1 to 7 volts DC. The key is in
> not
> disturbing the diode. The effect is extremely sensitive. Once disturbed,
> the
> passive component can take weeks to months to recover.
>
> [why should "undisturbed" matter? Does making a connection to ZPE require
> some kind of local stability?]
>
> The effect has baffled some of the best academic scientists. The unknown
> effect appears to be based on E-fields, and nothing to do with diode
> rectification. Within the diode is an intense E-field at the junction.
> Passive piezo elements have an intense internal E-field. Tests replicated
> by
> numerous academic scientists clearly show that highly shielded (both
> electrical and thermal) and undisturbed piezos produce DC voltage, and
> current when loaded.
>
> This effect is seen in various types of diodes and piezo elements. Low
> leakage components are recommended for best results. Experiments were
> conducted in rural areas, under-ground, up to three layers of metal
> shielding, in oil baths, up to 2 feet of thermal insulation. Dozens of
> different types of meters were used, including 100% passive tests void of
> all power & active components.
>
>
>


-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com