Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeMar 9th 2012
     
    Posted By: TrimI will translate it for you. You think the man is an idiot because he disagrees with you.
    I think you are an idiot because you disagree with him.
    No trim, let's review: "...the thermal energy of the surrounding copper-chloride ions, which, in theory, is limitless,"

    The thermal energy of a volume of molecules is not limitless in either practice or theory. The man was misquoted or he is off his rocker.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeMar 9th 2012 edited
     
    Posted By: TrimI will translate it for you. You think the man is an idiot because he disagrees with you.
    I think you are an idiot because you disagree with him.


    Somebody is an idiot because as it stands the battery would stop working as soon as it heats up to the temperature of the surrounding copper-chloride ions. The thermal energy of the solution may be "infinite" but the thermal mass of the battery isn't.
    •  
      CommentAuthoretc etc
    • CommentTimeMar 9th 2012
     
    The paper in bold type states the energy input is heat from its surroundings and that it ran for over 20 days, I'm not sure if A or J have read the paper. If A and J have read the paper then they seem to be playing games with Trim.

    Here is the bold typed opening paragraph

    The energy of ionic thermal motion presents universally, which is as high as 4
    kJ·kg-1·K-1 in aqueous solution, where thermal velocity of ions is in the order of
    hundreds of meters per second at room temperature1,2. Moreover, the thermal velocity
    of ions can be maintained by the external environment, which means it is unlimited.
    However, little study has been reported on converting the ionic thermal energy into
    electricity. Here we present a graphene device with asymmetric electrodes configuration
    to capture such ionic thermal energy and convert it into electricity. An output voltage
    around 0.35 V was generated when the device was dipped into saturated CuCl2 solution,
    in which this value lasted over twenty days. A positive correlation between the
    open-circuit voltage and the temperature, as well as the cation concentration, was
    observed. Furthermore, we demonstrated that this finding is of practical value by
    lighting a commercial light-emitting diode up with six of such graphene devices
    connected in series. This finding provides a new way to understand the behavior of
    graphene at molecular scale and represents a huge breakthrough for the research of
    self-powered technology. Moreover, the finding will benefit quite a few applications,
    such as artificial organs, clean renewable energy and portable electronics.
    •  
      CommentAuthorTrim
    • CommentTimeMar 9th 2012
     
    @etc etc

    You are wasting your time trying to open such closed minds, I have spent years on it.

    You are better off playing last poster.

    When it is time to railroad people who stand on the track will get flattened.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeMar 9th 2012 edited
     
    Posted By: etc etcThe paper in bold type states the energy input is heat from its surroundings and that it ran for over 20 days, I'm not sure if A or J have read the paper. If A and J have read the paper then they seem to be playing games with Trim.


    The abstract actually makes sense but you seem to be misinterpreting it. The diode is cooled by the forward current. Heat from the surroundings is thus absorbed into the diode. This heat is then carried off by the light. Some of the heat that is moved originates in the ambient but the process requires another input: the electrical current. Yes - the light power emitted is slightly greater than the electrical power in. That is why they say "more than 100% efficiency"(sloppy language in my view). But the total power going into the diode exceeds the light output, and there is no violation of any laws.
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeMar 9th 2012
     
    Posted By: etc etcThe paper in bold type states the energy input is heat from its surroundings and that it ran for over 20 days, I'm not sure if A or J have read the paper. If A and J have read the paper then they seem to be playing games with Trim.

    Here is the bold typed opening paragraph

    The energy of ionic thermal motion presents universally, which is as high as 4
    kJ·kg-1·K-1 in aqueous solution, where thermal velocity of ions is in the order of
    hundreds of meters per second at room temperature1,2. Moreover, the thermal velocity
    of ions can be maintained by the external environment, which means it is unlimited.
    However, little study has been reported on converting the ionic thermal energy into
    electricity. Here we present a graphene device with asymmetric electrodes configuration
    to capture such ionic thermal energy and convert it into electricity. An output voltage
    around 0.35 V was generated when the device was dipped into saturated CuCl2 solution,
    in which this value lasted over twenty days. A positive correlation between the
    open-circuit voltage and the temperature, as well as the cation concentration, was
    observed. Furthermore, we demonstrated that this finding is of practical value by
    lighting a commercial light-emitting diode up with six of such graphene devices
    connected in series. This finding provides a new way to understand the behavior of
    graphene at molecular scale and represents a huge breakthrough for the research of
    self-powered technology. Moreover, the finding will benefit quite a few applications,
    such as artificial organs, clean renewable energy and portable electronics.
    Trim expresses the idea that this is a passive refrigerator. Such things do not exist.
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeMar 9th 2012
     
    Posted By: Angus
    Posted By: etc etcThe paper in bold type states the energy input is heat from its surroundings and that it ran for over 20 days, I'm not sure if A or J have read the paper. If A and J have read the paper then they seem to be playing games with Trim.


    The abstract actually makes sense but you seem to be misinterpreting it. The diode is cooled by the forward current. Heat from the surroundings is thus absorbed into the diode. This heat is then carried off by the light. Some of the heat that is moved originates in the ambient but the process requires another input: the electrical current. Yes - the light power emitted is slightly greater than the electrical power in. That is why they say "more than 100% efficiency"(sloppy language in my view). But the total power going into the diode exceeds the light output, and there is no violation of any laws.
    etc etc is referring to the graphene cell article and not the LED piece.
    •  
      CommentAuthorTrim
    • CommentTimeMar 9th 2012 edited
     
    @Angus

    Forgive me but are you posting in the right thread? Shouldn't it be in the LED thread?

    I am sorry for my rudeness in my post to you but I was bloody angry at losing all my hard work, all that rewriting so I wouldn't sound to sarcastic or patronising to you.

    I agree with you "more than 100% efficiency" is a bad turn of phrase as it is impossible, although phrases "like he put in 110% effort" are increasingly common. I believe it means that as the amount of electricity supplied drops more of the electromagnetic radiation energy is supplied by the heat of the 'working' fluid.
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeMar 9th 2012
     
    Posted By: Trim@etc etc

    You are wasting your time trying to open such closed minds, I have spent years on it.

    You are better off playing last poster.

    When it is time to railroad people who stand on the track will get flattened.
    Childish crap like that makes it look like you are just trolling for responses.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeMar 9th 2012
     
    Posted By: Trim@Angus

    Forgive me but are you posting in the right thread? Shouldn't it be in the LED thread?

    I am sorry for my rudeness in my post to you but I was bloody angry at losing all my hard work, all that rewriting so I wouldn't sound to sarcastic or patronising to you.

    I agree with you "more than 100% efficiency" is a bad turn of phrase as it is impossible, although phrases like he put in 110% effort are increasingly common. I believe it means that as the amount of electricity supplied drops more of the electromagnetic radiation energy is supplied by the heat of the 'working' fluid.


    You are right. I must stop trying to read moletrap on my iPhone. It's like watching Aida through a keyhole.

    I will reconsider the posts in the light of the intended context. Nevertheless I think my modest comment on the LED is a model of clarity and elegant prose.
    •  
      CommentAuthorTrim
    • CommentTimeMar 9th 2012
     
    Pity I am not as good at it as you. If trolling was an Olympic event you would win the gold medal.
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeMar 9th 2012
     
    Yeah, yeah, yeah, now see if you can get a rise out of me by insulting my family or my manhood. You're descending into double oh dimwit territory.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeMar 9th 2012 edited
     
    When a {cation} with kinetic energy E{cation},i impacts the graphene surface, its kinetic energy will be converted into the internal energy of graphene due to the inelastic collision between the {cation} and the graphene (state 3)... Then the deformed graphene will try to release a part of the absorbed energy by releasing an electron from the bound state, and the remaining energy is used for the rebounded {cation} (state 4).


    That's his basic explanation. It's essentially the same situation as when you illuminate a bar of semiconductor material: you get carriers. Every time an electron is moved into the condition band a hole is also created, so you don't get net charge. These carriers are distributed throughout the sample: you don't get a voltage unless there is some reason for the carriers to separate. That's what the junction is for in a photodiode. But this appears to be equivalent to a photoconductor. A photoconductor is just a light sensitive resistor, and it don't make power by itself.

    I usually don't read Arxiv papers because they are such a random mix of good stuff and crap. In this case there might be good stuff in it, but the paper is so badly written it is effectively crap. He doesn't give any details about the "flow" of the cations across is device. If the results are real, then I suspect the flow is giving some kind of asymmetry so that the voltage can be created. If so, then mechanical power is being extracted from the flow. What would be the point when we have perfectly good turbines?
    •  
      CommentAuthorTrim
    • CommentTimeMar 9th 2012
     
    Yeah, yeah, yeah, now see if you can get a rise out of me by insulting my family or my manhood. You're descending into double oh dimwit territory.

    You have just proved my point.
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeMar 9th 2012
     
    Keep trying trim.
    •  
      CommentAuthorE-Man
    • CommentTimeMar 9th 2012 edited
     
    Posted By: TrimI will translate it for you. You think the man is an idiot because he disagrees with you. I think you are an idiot because you disagree with him.

    Joshs isn't necessarily disagreeing with Xu Zihan. He's disagreeing with what he believes your interpretation of Zihan to be. That there is some realizable potential for limitless energy.

    Xu Zihan appears to work out of 香港理工大學 and it's likely isn't a native English speaker. It's possible that Xu Zihan is using hyperbole or is incorrect in his usage. Not only that but that doesn't even touch on ideas about linguistic precision. For example in Japanese the 本音(true self) and 建前 (facade) social constructs allow for people to tell a complete untruth in particular social situations which would be considered unethical here. Even someone has some social more that states their language should be precise that doesn't necessarily hold when they are speaking a different language. For example my wife speaks 粵語 (Cantonese) fluently and is exceptionally strict on my usage but her English usage is by contrast rather imprecise.

    According to PolyU -Xu Zihan is not a professor or researcher but a masters candidate in physics. A masters student isn't necessarily an idiot BUT the number of idiot first papers produced by masters candidates is not small. There's also the fact that competition in HK for all levels of position is much higher than it is here. Thus making your research look awesome is probably viewed as a kind of "harmless self-promotion".

    So it seems there's lots of room for interpreting what was on that page. Your approach, treating it like it was written on stone tablets with one and only one possible interpretation which just-so-happens to be yours isn't the only candidate.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeMar 9th 2012 edited
     
    Posted By: E-ManA masters student isn't necessarily an idiot BUT the number of idiot first papers produced by masters candidates is not small. There's also the fact that competition in HK for all levels of position is much higher than it is here. Thus making your research look awesome is probably viewed as a kind of "harmless self-promotion".


    Bingo! (Maybe except for the "harmless".)
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeMar 9th 2012
     
    Posted By: E-Man
    Posted By: TrimI will translate it for you. You think the man is an idiot because he disagrees with you. I think you are an idiot because you disagree with him.

    Joshs isn't necessarily disagreeing with Xu Zihan. He's disagreeing with what he believes your interpretation of Zihan to be. That there is some realizable potential for limitless energy.

    Xu Zihan appears to work out of 香港理工大學 and it's likely isn't a native English speaker. It's possible that Xu Zihan is using hyperbole or is incorrect in his usage. Not only that but that doesn't even touch on ideas about linguistic precision. For example in Japanese the 本音(true self) and 建前 (facade) social constructs allow for people to tell a complete untruth in particular social situations which would be considered unethical here. Even someone has some social more that states their language should be precise that doesn't necessarily hold when they are speaking a different language. For example my wife speaks 粵語 (Cantonese) fluently and is exceptionally strict on my usage but her English usage is by contrast rather imprecise.

    According to PolyU -Xu Zihan is not a professor or researcher but a masters candidate in physics. A masters student isn't necessarily an idiot BUT the number of idiot first papers produced by masters candidates is not small. There's also the fact that competition in HK for all levels of position is much higher than it is here. Thus making your research look awesome is probably viewed as a kind of "harmless self-promotion".

    So it seems there's lots of room for interpreting what was on that page. Your approach, treating it like it was written on stone tablets with one and only one possible interpretation which just-so-happens to be yours isn't the only candidate.
    Yes, and more specifically, I am disagreeing with Trim's interpretation that Xu Zihan has constructed a passive refrigerator and at that with a variation of a Maxwell demon to boot. The article could be mischaracterizing Xu Zihan's actual statements, or the statements are BS.
    •  
      CommentAuthoretc etc
    • CommentTimeMar 9th 2012
     
    You have to admire the process of peer review.

    We have one vote for "he didn't mean what he said";
    one for "it is a fraud to get more funds",
    one for "it is a miracle",
    one for "it makes my teeth hurt"
    one for "it is a function of incompetent English language mastery" and
    one for "it is BS".

    I want to cast a review too, I say it is a Chinese conspiracy to undermine NE.
  1.  
    Posted By: TrimI will translate it for you. You think the man is an idiot because he disagrees with you.
    I think you are an idiot because you disagree with him.

    None of these possibilities are mutually exclusive. Some have greater probability than others, though.