Horace Heffner wrote:
>
> On Jun 17, 2007, at 6:28 AM, Paul Lowrance wrote:
>
>> Horace Heffner wrote:
>>> On Jun 13, 2007, at 4:14 PM, Paul Lowrance wrote:
>>>> Some basic facts present standard physics fully understands and
>>>> accepts:
>>>>
>>>> Blackbody radiation: At a room temperature of 297 Kelvin (74.93 F,
>>>> 23.85 C) both sides of a thin sheet of opaque material radiates
>>>> 882.4 Watts per square meter.
>>> Actually, the above is off by half. Each side of the square meter
>>> radiates (5.6705119E-8 kg/(s^3 (deg. K)^4)) * (297 deg. K)^4 * (1
>>> m^2) = 441.2 watts.
>>> Regards,
>>> Horace Heffner
>>
>>
>>
>> Horace Heffner,
>>
>> You missed the key words. I will quote my above words and highlight
>> the key words, "***BOTH SIDES*** of a thin sheet of opaque material
>> radiates 882.4 Watts per square meter." Surely you know what the
>> words "both sides" means brother?
>
>
> It is ambiguous at best. If John and Bob each have hair then both John
> and Bob have hair. If both John and Bob each spend $10 then John and
> Bob both spend $10. If both John and Bob spend $10 then John and Bob
> both collectively spend $20. It is a lot more clear (to me) to simply
> say John and bob each spent $10, and a little less specific to say John
> and Bob collectively spent $20. It is at best unclear when you say John
> and Bob both spent $10.
>
>
>>
>> My number was correct.
>
> So is 42. But what does it mean? 8^)
Let's clarify one thing. You said, "Actually, the above is off by half." You
were wrong. My answer was not off by half. Here is the full quote:
---
Horace Heffner wrote:
> Paul Lowrance wrote:
>
>> Some basic facts present standard physics fully understands and accepts:
>>
>> Blackbody radiation: At a room temperature of 297 Kelvin (74.93 F,
>> 23.85 C) both sides of a thin sheet of opaque material radiates 882.4
>> Watts per square meter.
>
> Actually, the above is off by half. Each side of the square meter
> radiates (5.6705119E-8 kg/(s^3 (deg. K)^4)) * (297 deg. K)^4 * (1 m^2)
> = 441.2 watts. The difficulty with trying to capture this energy is
> that an antenna at the same temperature will be similarly radiating.
---
I will kindly wait for you to admit your error.
>>
>> > The difficulty with trying to capture this energy is
>> > that an antenna at the same temperature will be similarly radiating.
>>
>>
>> That is completely irrelevant to the task of capturing such energy.
>> Connected to the antenna would be a low voltage solid-state switch
>> that conducts when the antenna's voltage is positive and turns off
>> when negative. This creates a DC voltage that may be pumped to a
>> device that amplifies the voltage; e.g., pumped to an inductor, which
>> then the inductors current is suddenly removed, which causes a voltage
>> spike (collapsing field) to charge the battery. The amplified voltage
>> charges a DC battery. The DC battery does indeed emit blackbody
>> radiation and thermal noise, but that does not drain the battery. The
>> battery is a DC source.
>
> This is nonsense. You imply the blackbody radiation is uniform over the
> surface of an antenna like the signal from a radio station,
No I did not. I have yet to find anyone who understands antenna theory better
than I.
> that there is a way to obtain a "signal" that is proportional in some way to
> antenna area. Various frequencies of photons are absorbed or emitted
> from small (but collectively acting in a quantum sense) adjacent areas
> of the antenna at the same time. Plank's Radiation Law gives the energy
> spectrum (of both the incoming and outgoing photons at equilibrium):
>
> E(lambda,T) = ((2 h c^2)/lambda^5) / (e^(h c / (lambda K T)) - 1)
>
> which is a distribution of energies but which does have a peak at
> lambda_max:
>
> lambda_max = (3x10^7 angstroms/(deg. K))/T
>
> At thermal equilibrium, at which any perpetual motion machine must
> eventually operate due to the infinite time constant, the effect of
> black body radiation nets out to zero,
Your statement "the effect of black body radiation nets out to zero" is wrong.
Blackbody radiation effect never nets out to zero. Show me one example where
blackbody radiation nets out to zero.
> but the antenna effect for large
> areas is always zero.
I never said anything about large areas. I'm talking about wide THz bandwidth
antennas. Regardless, such radiation wouldn't even net out to zero for a one
mile antenna, LOL.
> What you are left to work with is ordinary
> ambient temperature kinetic heat.
Well, there are so many issues in your previous assumptions that we cannot even
begin to comment on your above statement, as it becomes irrelevant.
>> No offense intended to you brother, and indeed IMHO you are obviously
>> above average intelligence, but I'm beginning to understand why
>> humanity has yet to achieve global "free energy." People just don't
>> seem to see what I've always thought to be the obvious.
>
> If it were so obvious and easy you and hundreds of others would have
> practical working machines for sale at Sears, WalMart, etc. That of
> course hasn't stopped many lunatic fringe folks like me from speculating
> on ways to violate "laws" of thermodynamics over the years, or ways to
> tap ambient energy. See:
>
> http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/NuclearZPEtapping.pdf
> http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/SLVN.pdf
> http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/TED.pdf
> http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ZPE-CasimirThrust.pdf
> http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/SR-CircleCoil.pdf
> http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/HighISP-Drive.pdf
> http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/AtomicExpansion.pdf
>
> and a bunch of cold fusion related speculations at the site. I think it
> may well be that technology is at or close the point where Maxwell's
> demon can be constructed. But I've been saying that for years.
> Unfortunately, talking about it is not the same as actually doing it.
No offense, but pure fuzzy logic. You are not grasping the topic. I will so
kindly ask you to put your money where your mouth is brother. How much money
will you offer me if I can send you a machine that generates "free energy?"
Huh, LOL?
I've debate with the best physicists and engineers including one professor well
adverse in QM. In hundreds of email exchanges a team of physicists could not
find one error in my statements. Yet I found ~ half dozen errors in their
statements. One of such error was so bad that the professor publicly stated his
error was not a reflection on QM, LOL.
Please allow me to enlighten you brother. It is not difficult to build a machine
that captures such ambient energy, period! The challenge is in building a
machine that can capture significant ambient energy without building a
ridiculously large machine. It will require nano scale technology or darn clever
macro scale design. It's the later that I am working on, and will succeed single
handedly.
Regards,
Paul Lowrance
