GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 499679
  • *Total Topics: 14805
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 15
  • *Total: 18

Author Topic: A Solid-State Maxwell Demon  (Read 3744 times)

Offline Nonlinear

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: A Solid-State Maxwell Demon
« Reply #30 on: May 31, 2018, 03:06:31 PM »
Interesting video vasik041. There are still a few free thinkers left in academy who dare to question authority.

About the quora article. The answers don't appear on the page in chronological order, but based on the votes they receive. The one voted up to the top, the wrong one, was written by Rehan Kapadia, Assistant Professor at University of Southern California (2014-present).

Looking for his credentials at Viterbi Faculty Directory
https ://viterbi.usc.ed u/directory/faculty/Kapadia/Rehan

Quote
Rehan Kapadia
Assistant Professor of Electrical Engineering-Electrophysics
Education
    2013, Doctoral Degree, Electrical Engineering, University of California - Berkeley
    2010, Master's Degree, Electrical Engineering, University of California - Berkeley
    2008, Bachelor's Degree, Electrical Engineering, University of Texas – Austin

Everything checks out, he is a real person and he is a member of academy with a PhD in electrical engineering (he is of Indian origin). His credentials are solid enough to intimidate the unsuspecting readers into silence and surrender.

Next to the date of answer is this additional argument meant to unshakably establish the authoritative nature of the answer:
Quote
Upvoted by Farhad Taghibakhsh, PhD in electronics, ex-instructor in semiconductor physics

It takes more effort to check his background, but on the site sydex.ne t/page66020 we can find his credentials as well (his name indicates Iranian origin)

Quote
Education:
University of Waterloo   2004 – 2008
PhD

K.N. Toosi University of Technology   1996 – 1998
Master's degree

University of Sistan & Balouchestan   
Bachelor's degree

His credentials look solid as well. I think they are desperately trying to send the message to everyone like, 'which daredevil is going to challenge the truth of this answer'? Don't you dare, or else…

Quote
do you recognize any pattern of demographics, qualifications etc?

Well, this question didn't make much sense to me until I have clicked on the “View Upvoters” link. Now it is clear. Of the 79 upvoters about 59 is of Indian origin (based on their names), this is about 75% of all voters. About half of the voters claim to have relevant college or university degrees. Besides the mentioned top 2 distinguished participants the author and the highlighted upvoter, there are some more notable supporters:

Quote
Aryan Lall - Dual Degree Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology,
Marko Sokolich - Lecturer at University of California, Los Angeles (2003-present)
Fotis Avgidis - Works at CERN
Aayush Saxena - Works at Ajay Kumar Garg Engineering College
Yunshan Jiang - Works at University of California, Los Angeles
Karan Mehta - Intern, Silicon Photonics Group at Intel (2018-present)
Nil Gurel - Works at Georgia Institute of Technology
Sushmit Mallik - Works at Intel
Aneesh Kulkarni - Engineer at Qualcomm
Prashanth Paramahans - Works at Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay
Yiwen Rong - LED designer
Matthew Spencer - PhD Candidate in Integrated Circuit Design

In summary, the top false answer has been written by an academic, assistant professor of Electrical Engineering-Electrophysics, and there are several upvoters with significant credentials who should know the truth. People with dual degrees, lecturers, CERN and Intel engineers, LED designers, PhD candidates supposed to know the correct answer… right?

The disproportionate number or Indian names suggest foul play with the upvoting. Someone with lots of money could have hired these people to participate in the upvoting campaign. Why mainly Indians? Well, this gives some ideas

A Sampling of U.S. Companies that Send Call Center Work Offshore
https ://www.cwa-union.or g/pages/a_sampling_of_companies_that_send_call_center_work_offshore

The organizers of the campaign are stingy, and want to pocket part of the funds by hiring cheap players. This also shifts the blame on the Indians in case of scandal, and the organizers can wash their hands.

Quote
Do you recognize any nefarious agenda? If yes, then exactly what are they trying to hide and why?

They are trying to intimidate the readers and poster into accepting a fake answer with an overwhelming gang of authorities. They are hiding the inconvenient truth because it contradicts the second law of thermodynamics.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A Solid-State Maxwell Demon
« Reply #30 on: May 31, 2018, 03:06:31 PM »

Offline ZL

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 95
Re: A Solid-State Maxwell Demon
« Reply #31 on: June 02, 2018, 04:12:16 PM »
Thanks for the great analysis, Nonlinear. Now let's focus on the scientific part of the controversy, and analyse the top wrong answer.

Here is a quote from Rehan's explanation:
Quote
All the answers given about contacts, etc. are completely incorrect. The reason you don't measure any voltage when you put a volt meter across a p-n junction is that there is no voltage across the depletion region to measure.

Why? Well there is a difference between an electrostatic potential and a voltage. A voltage refers to a difference in fermi level between two points on the device, while an electrostatic potential is the integrated electric field between two points on the device. For simplicity, assume that the p-n junction is 1-D.

This difference (voltage and electrostatic potential) is extremely important.

In a p-n junction in the dark with no external bias, the Fermi level is the same everywhere (it must be or there would be current flowing). So what voltage would you measure when you put two probes down, one on the n-side and one on the p-side? If you assume you have magical, ohmic contact probes. Then the voltage you measure is the difference between the fermi level on the n-side and p-side. We've already said that those two numbers are equal, so you measure 0 Volts.

https://www.quora.com/Semiconductors-Why-cant-the-built-in-potential-across-the-depletion-region-of-a-p-n-diode-be-measured-externally

First he rejects the answers given earlier by others that refer to the contact potentials between the metal contacts and the semiconductor as the reason for no voltage measured on the voltmeter. But actually those answers are much closer to the truth (and make more sense) than his answer given in this quote.

Then he drops a bomb shell that completely contradicts the basics of electrical theory:

Quote
...there is no voltage across the depletion region to measure.

If there would be no voltage across the depletion region, then there would be nothing to stop the free charge carriers from drifting (diffusion) from one type of semiconductor into the other type, until their concentrations would become equal everywhere. If there would be no such built-in voltage, then it would also mean that there could be no electric field and no uncompensated bound (ionic) space charge within the diode in thermal equilibrium. If there would be no internal electric field, then there could be no depletion region either. But if you look up any decent textbook on the fundamentals of semiconductor physics, they all claim that there is a depletion region, because there is an internal electric filed. And since there is this internal electric field at the junction, then there must be a built-in potential difference between the two sides of the p-n junction as well.

Since his mind numbing assertion is contradictory and makes no sense, the only way to shove this down the throats of the readers is to confuse the basic definitions of electrical theory. He presents an even more absurd explanation that creates total confusion. He asserts that the electrostatic potential and voltage are not the same! Did you get that? Now let's stop here and try to digest that nonsense.

If we want to split hair, then the correct statement is that the electrostatic potential difference is the same as voltage by definition. But, even if we skip over this minor inaccuracy and leave out the word “difference”, the absolute electrostatic potential is still measured in volts. Voltage between two points by definition is the electric potential difference between those two points. If we move one of these points, the reference point to the infinity, then the potential difference between these two pints is identical with the absolute electric potential of the other point (which is not at infinity). This absolute electrostatic potential is also voltage, even though the distance between the examined point and reference point is assumed to be infinitely large.

He correctly states that the “... electrostatic potential is the integrated electric field between two points on the device...” because that is how one can calculate the value of the electrostatic potential difference, by integration. But then he also attempts to redefine the meaning of the word “voltage” in the same sentence by asserting that it is not the same as the electrostatic potential difference between two points. He contradicts one of the most basic definitions of classical electromagnetics.

He asserts instead a completely different, confusing definition of voltage, based on statistical quantum theory, and probabilities. The awkward redefinition of voltage is the “difference in fermi level between two points”. Why is this redefinition good for obfuscating the otherwise obvious truth, that there must be a real voltage across the junction that also must be measurable, since it is a real physical phenomenon? Because they can safely claim that the fermi level does not only depend on the electric field, but it also depends on other forces and phenomena present in the material.

This allows them to mix apples with oranges, and arrive to non-physical results and conclusions that prevent any possibility of the violation of the laws of thermodynamics. If the reader is not sufficiently attentive, and/or doesn't have a firm understanding of electromagnetics, there is a good chance that he won't recognize this slight of hand trick, the mixing of apples with oranges. If he doesn't understand the new definition, and the apparent resulting contradiction of existing electric field, but missing voltage, then he will think that it is his own fault, because his mental capabilities are not as sharp as the intellect of others who understand. Which academic, physicist or engineer with a degree would admit such a thing, and have the courage to ask embarrassing questions about the new definition? Very few, and their voices are suppressed by the choir of the “authorities” and their obedient followers who just repeat the nonsense like tape recorders.

The video posted by Vasik:
Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion BANNED TED TALK
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg

brilliantly fits in at this point of explanations, because Dr. Sheldrake describes the exact same slight of hand trick used to hide the fact that the speed of light is not really constant, but it measurably changes. These variations are small, but they are still large enough that they can't be caused by measurement errors or inaccuracies. They can't be ignored, they are real. I have seen this video before, but always enjoy the humorous way he explains very important and profound hidden truth. Thanks Vasik for the link, it was a marvellous coincidence to post it right now.

How does this relate to the slight of hand we are discussing? Well, Einstein asserted that the speed of light is constant, therefore it must be constant, because he was a genius and he can't possibly be wrong, period. The forcing of this theory upon the population is not a mistake, but has a very specific agenda to eradicate the notion of ether from physics, because if that were studied, we could gain access to FE, probably reaction less thrust, and interstellar travel. This is the privilege of the elite only, it is not meant to empower their subjects, so it must be hidden by any means.

To support this point, people are referred to the Michelson–Morley experiment that supposed to be authoritative and decisive in the matter. There have been many scientist, and other measurements that contradict the constancy of the speed of light with as solid arguments as that of  Michelson–Morley, but they are ignored, or debunked by the church of officialdom.

Now imagine the panic, when the instruments undeniably show that the speed of light changes! How to obfuscate and hide the obvious? Well, some experts of deception came up with an ingenious idea, to redefine the unit of measurement meter to depend on the speed of light. So when the speed of light changes, the length of the meter also changes with it, and you won't be able to recognize any change. They have created a circular logic effectively preventing us from recognizing the slight of hand, and the disinformation. Here is the brilliant way Rupert has presented the scandal:

Quote
… speed of light  - they are not fudging the results… they prefer to call it intellectual phase locking.  8) The speed if light may change again, but we will never know it... because we have fixed the speed of light by definition in 1972; it might still change, but we will never know it, because we defined the meter in terms of the speed of light, so the units have changed with it.

Do you see the pattern? They have redefined a basic unit of measurement in case of the speed of light controversy, and they have redefined the meaning of voltage in our case to hide any possibility of violating the laws of thermodynamics. It wasn't  Rehan who came up with this trick, but some much more experienced and shrewd disinfo experts, long before the creation of Quora. The traces of this operation are present in several textbooks as well.

There is one more important highlight in the video, when Rupert refers to this quote from Terence McKenna:

Quote
Modern science is based on the principle: ‘Give us one free miracle, and we’ll explain the rest.’ The one free miracle is the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it in a single instant from nothing. ~ Terence McKenna

This is equivalent to the quote often used “ The emperor has got no cloths!” The official science does everything it can to ridicule, debunk, and suppress any notion that energy could be created from nothing, or annihilated to disappear into 'nothing', saying that such thing is absurdly impossible and even unimaginable, because that would be a miracle. And as everybody knows, there are no miracles. But when their big-bang theory demands the existence of such a miracle, then that is completely normal and plausible…  They are two-faced hypocrites who have created an art and science from disinformation methodology and suppression.

This post is already longer than most readers are comfortable to read in one go, but my explanation has only started. Therefore let's stop here for now, take a break, and I will continue it in another post. Thanks for your patience, and valuable contributions to this conversation people.

Offline broli

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2181
Re: A Solid-State Maxwell Demon
« Reply #32 on: June 03, 2018, 01:05:57 PM »
Reminds me of Quenco/Quetron


http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3430
https://quentron.wordpress.com/


Philip Hardcastle was active on this forum years ago: https://overunity.com/12207/quentron-com/


But it seems he hasn't died down yet and the tech goes by the name METTEC (Magnetic Electron Tunneling Thermal Energy Convertor) now: http://revolution-green.com/mettec-and-more/


Basically using electron quantum tunneling and a magnetic field to bias this tunneling into one direction.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A Solid-State Maxwell Demon
« Reply #32 on: June 03, 2018, 01:05:57 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline ZL

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 95
Re: A Solid-State Maxwell Demon
« Reply #33 on: June 03, 2018, 03:10:57 PM »
This is the continuation of the analysis presented in my last post.
We have discussed that there are two key assertions in Rehan's answer, one is that there is no voltage across the depletion region, and the second is that voltage is not identical with the electrostatic potential difference. After revealing these “amazing” pieces of official propaganda he is hammering the issue into the head of the reader some more by emphasizing the key element of deception:

Quote
This difference (voltage and electrostatic potential) is extremely important.

Indeed, for them it is extremely important that you get totally confused, stop thinking, and just blindly accept and believe their assertions as truth. If you wouldn't accept their new redefinition of voltage, then their first claim, that there is no voltage across the depletion region to measure, would be an obvious nonsense. Like an elephant in the room. So it is extremely important for them that you accept their new definition of voltage, and stop questioning authority.

Now let's take a look at the second post just below that of Rehan, which pushes the same false claim that there is no voltage between the two edges of the depletion region with a different twist. It was written by “Farhad Taghibakhsh, PhD in electronics, ex-instructor in semiconductor physics” who is the same as the distinguished upvoter of the top answer. Here is a quote from his answer:

Quote
...Move the probes in towards the edges of the depletion region on each side ... you still don't read any voltage ... until you reach the edges of the depletion region. You still don't read any voltage, because if you count the charges (mathematically speaking, integrate) between the probes the sum is zero. Now keep one probe at one edge, say n-side, and move the other probe in toward the junction, you start to read increasing voltage (in number, the sign depends on which probe is moving, the red, or the black) until you reach the center of metallurgical junction. Now you read the built-in potential ... bingo. So, as you can see, if you want to read the junction potential you need to have one probe at the junction, and the other outside of the depletion region...
https://www.quora.com/Semiconductors-Why-cant-the-built-in-potential-across-the-depletion-region-of-a-p-n-diode-be-measured-externally

Apparently this is plan B in the strategy of deception, it was posted in 2016 three years after Rehan's post. Perhaps they have realized how awkward Rehan's answer was, and just in case there are people who would not fall for the first trick, Farhad is pushing a different deception. Let's see where does Farhad's explanation fail the test of common sense and classical electrostatic theory.

He claims that at the two opposite edges of the depletion region “...You still don't read any voltage, because if you count the charges (mathematically speaking, integrate) between the probes the sum is zero.” This reasoning of his proves that he doesn't understand basic electrostatics. In order to have an electric potential difference or voltage between two points it is not necessary to have any amount of unbalanced positive or negative charges between the two points.

A potential difference is created by an electric field, and the charges that create this electric field don't have to be between the two points where the voltage is measured. They can be very far away outside of the region of the two points. Or alternatively (which is more relevant to our case), there can be an equal number of positive and negative charges between the two points that create the electric field, and electric potential difference. The electric field inside the depletion region is created by the bound (immobile) positive and negative ions that form a space charge.

But he claims that the reason why there can't be a voltage across the two opposite edges of the depletion region is because the sum of charges is zero between these two points. This is a false argument. Then he goes on to further demonstrate his lack of understanding electrostatics by claiming that
Quote
... if you want to read the junction potential you need to have one probe at the junction, and the other outside of the depletion region...” a “...capacitor does NOT represent a pn junction; two oppositely charged capacitors do. Each side of a pn junction is a capacitor with equal charge in number, but opposite polarity.

This claim implies that the direction of the electric field on the two sides of the metallurgical junction point in opposite directions, thus creating two opposing potential differences that cancel each other. Like in two equally charged capacitors connected in series with opposing polarities. In this analogy the left edge of the depletion region would correspond to the left terminal of the left capacitor. The junction point between the p-n regions would correspond to the point of connection between the right plate of the left capacitor and the left plate of the right capacitor. The right edge of the depletion region would correspond to the right plate of the right capacitor.

This is again nonsense, there are no two electric fields inside the p-n depletion region that would point in opposite directions. There is only one single electric field pointing in a single direction, from the positive bound charges (ions) towards the negative bound charges. This fellow hasn't got a clue about what he is talking about. But allegedly he has got a PhD in electronics, and he is an ex-instructor in semiconductor physics. Wow! People… just wow! What a corrupted world we live in… He must have bought his PhD at a discount, which would not upset me, but him being an ex-instructor in semiconductor physics is really bad. Like the blind is leading those who don't see. Checking who voted for his answer shows 8 people, while the answer below his given by Daniel Fernandes has got 16 upvotes. If the number of upvotes decides about the trustworthiness of the answer, then why is Daniel's answer below Farhad's, and not the other way around? There is an obvious bias even in the voting and consensus process on Quora.

Thanks Broli for the links, appreciated; I will take a look into it later. There were also other attempts to rectify the thermal motion in modified cold cathode electron tubes as well. But I wouldn't like to split our attention in many different directions in this thread until we finish discussing Sheehan's diode. Or at least until we finish the explanations about what are the errors in Germano's debunking paper. Afterwards probably I will withdraw again, stop posting here, and focus on my own research that is not related to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Then you and other readers can continue the line of thought if you like, also about other methods of 2nd law violations.

We can stop here again, and next time I will talk about the two answers on that page that are closest to reality. Are these explanations clear and understandable?

Offline Nonlinear

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: A Solid-State Maxwell Demon
« Reply #34 on: June 04, 2018, 08:17:53 AM »
Are these explanations clear and understandable?

Yes, please continue.
Thanks for your thorough explanations and for exposing the coverup, it helps a lot.
But my doubts raised by Germano didn’t completely disappear yet.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A Solid-State Maxwell Demon
« Reply #34 on: June 04, 2018, 08:17:53 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline ZL

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 95
Re: A Solid-State Maxwell Demon
« Reply #35 on: June 04, 2018, 12:12:52 PM »
We will get to the paper of Germano soon Nonlinear. All this preliminary discussion serves the purpose to ease the understanding of Germano's fallacies.

Continuing from my last post, let's take a look now at the two answers on the Quora page that are at least principally correct. One of those that was given first in 2012 by Abde Ali Kagalwalla, PhD Student, UCLA says:

Quote
… this potential cannot be measured directly by connecting a voltmeter across the diode. The reason for this is that as soon a connection is made between the diode terminal and a conductor (metal), a Schottky diode is created at the metal-p/n junction. The two Schottky diodes, created at the p-terminal metal interface and n-terminal metal interface effectively reverse the effect of the built-in potential. As a result, you would see zero potential difference across the diode.

I suppose that by “diode terminals” he means the two ends of the diode semiconductor, which are outside the depletion region (and not the metal legs that are attached to these surfaces). This is only principally correct, because the metal terminals that are attached to the semiconductors of most commercial diodes form ohmic contacts with the semiconductors, not schottky diodes.

Next to the junction surface in the semiconductor of a schottky diode there is a depletion region, similar to the one in a common diode. The width of this region (and the built-in potential) is large enough to block the current flow in the reverse direction (with small leakage), and thus act as a diode and rectify current. If the doping concentration is further increased, then the depletion region is getting narrower, the built in potential smaller, and the reverse leakage current larger, until it becomes useless as a diode. By proper doping techniques ohmic contacts are formed at the terminals of common p-n diodes.

However, the answer is principally correct in the sense that even the ohmic contacts between metal and semiconductor have a contact potential, similar to those between two different metals with different work functions. These two contact potentials between the semiconductor and metals coupled in series form a potential difference that exactly opposes the voltage across the p-n depletion region, therefore no net current will be driven by these voltages. This is why we can't measure the built-in voltage by simply making ohmic contacts with the instrument probes when touching the semiconductor surface. But this doesn't mean that we can't measure the built in voltage by other methods, and prove their existence.

This case is analogous to the situation when you want to measure the contact potential difference of a thermocouple without temperature gradient on it. There is a voltage across its terminals, but you can't measure it with a simple voltmeter, and it cant drive a current in a closed loop if you short-circuit its terminals. The reason for this is that when you connect metals to the thermocouple additional contact potential differences will be created at those contacts where two different metals touch. The total sum of all such potential differences in a closed circuit will be zero, they will not drive a net current, and thus a contact potential difference will be unmeasurable by this simple method.

The next answer on the Quora page that is worth discussing was given by Daniel Fernandes, EE PhD Student at Stanford University in 2014, which was upvoted by another notable person, Idham Hafizh, PhD candidate in Electronics, Politecnico Di Milano. It was posted a year later than the top wrong answer of Rehan; apparently Daniel didn't fall for the deception. Actually this answer doesn't originate from Daniel, but instead he simply posted a quote from a textbook:

Quote
The contact potential across W is a built-in potential barrier, in that it is necessary to the maintenance of equilibrium at the junction; it does not imply any external potential. Indeed, the contact potential cannot be measured by placing a voltmeter across the devices, because new contact potentials are formed at each probe, just canceling V0. By definition V0 is a equilibrium quantity, and no net current can result from it.

Solid State Electronic Devices by Streetman and Banerjee, Sixth Edition.

This is actually the best answer on that Quora page, and it supposed to be voted up by consensus to the top. But apparently, the distorted, corrupted, and illusory 'democracy' (voting) doesn't serve the real truth and the interests of the readers, but rather the corrupting corporate interests.

This quote from the textbook is a bit vague (perhaps deliberately so), in order to strike a compromise between giving a totally wrong explanation that supports the disinfo agenda, and a completely correct description with detailed explanations that would imply the possibility to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. At one point in the book the author acknowledges that there is a real potential difference between the p and n regions outside the depletion region, and thus also between the two ends of the semiconductor:

Quote
The electric field appears in some region W about the junction, and there is an equilibrium potential difference V0 across W. In the electrostatic potential diagram of Fig. 5–11b, there is a gradient in potential in the direction opposite to E, in accordance with the fundamental relation 4 E(x) = -dV(x)/dx. We assume the electric field is zero in the neutral regions outside W. Thus there is a constant potential Vn in the neutral n material, a constant Vp in the neutral p material, and a potential difference V0 = Vn-Vp between the two. The region W is called the transition region, and the potential difference V0 is called the contact potential.

But, in the quote posted earlier he is trying to obfuscate the implications of this fact by immediately adding that “The contact potential... does not imply any external potential.” This statement is vague, and it can be interpreted at least in two different ways. One possible interpretation is that by “external potential” he means the external voltage across the metal terminals of a commercial diode. In this case his statement is correct, because there is indeed no net voltage across these terminals due to the opposing contact potentials between the semiconductor and metal terminals that cancel the built-in voltage.

The other possible interpretation is that the “external potential” here means the potential difference between the two external surfaces of the diode semiconductor's ends (the semiconductor surfaces farthest from the p-n junction) when there are no metal terminals attached. In that case this statement is false, because there is a voltage across these external extremities of the semiconductor surfaces, and also an external electric field in the vacuum (or air, or other non-conductive material that surrounds the semiconductor). The author himself has acknowledged this fact in the latest quote.

The other vague statement of the author that more forcefully dissuades people from asking inconvenient questions about this matter is: “By definition V0 is a equilibrium quantity, and no net current can result from it.” Again, one possible interpretation of “no net current” here is to assume that this is a DC current, which is expected to flow in a closed circuit composed of metal conductors, and thus including the pesky contact potential differences that cancel the current. In this case the statement is correct. Most readers interpret it this way, and stop investigating the phenomenon any further as is appears uninteresting and fully explained.

The other possible interpretation is that “no net current” means no instantaneous transient current inside the semiconductor either. With this interpretation the statement is incorrect, because the diffusion current (driven by thermal energy) that builds up the built-in voltage can drive a net current within the semiconductor, whenever the balance between the drift current and the diffusion current is disrupted. This net current will flow until the balance is established again. This is a transient process, but nevertheless a real process, and if it is periodically repeated, it can drive a continuous net current even if it is not a smooth DC. Such a device was proposed by Dr. Sheehan.

Even though the authors of the quoted textbook Ben G. Streetman and Sanjay Kumar Banerjee did their best to dissuade readers from exploring this phenomenon to violate the laws of thermodynamics, this is still one of the clearest and best official explanations. In other official literature there are much more aggressive attempts to conceal the possibility to use this as a Maxwell demon. In my next post I will expose a few samples of such aggressive propaganda.

Offline ZL

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 95
Re: A Solid-State Maxwell Demon
« Reply #36 on: June 05, 2018, 12:00:49 PM »
Continued from my last post.
Now let's take a final look at the chronological order of the answers on that Quora page. The first was posted in sep. 2012 by Abde referring to schottky diodes, which was principally correct. The establishment didn't like this partial truth, therefore they have posted the completely wrong debunking answer of Rehan on Apr 7, 2013, and promoted it to the top as the best explanation, chosen by artificial consensus. Then on Jul 28, 2014 Daniel Fernandes has posted a quote from a textbook that provided the best answer, and it is more authoritative than that of Rehan. This spoiled the initial plan of disinformation, demonstrating that there are still people out there who can think independently and see through the hoax. They needed a plan B to debunk the truth again, thus came Farhad and posted his nonsense on Jan 26, 2016. This pretty much looks like a poker or chess game, where the truth and freedom is at stake.

We have discussed earlier the hair rising redefinition of the word “voltage” in the answer of Rehan. This is a very aggressive attack on scientific truth. It is such a radical assertion that it must have come from higher 'authorities' of disinformation, and in that case it must be present and advertised at other places as well. Googling the expression from Rehan's post : 'A voltage refers to a difference in fermi level between two points on the device' we get a Wikipedia hit about Voltage. Here is a relevant quote from that page that pushes the same aggressive agenda:

Quote
The electric field is not the only factor determining charge flow in a material, and different materials naturally develop electric potential differences at equilibrium (Galvani potentials). The electric potential of a material is not even a well defined quantity, since it varies on the subatomic scale. A more convenient definition of 'voltage' can be found instead in the concept of Fermi level. In this case the voltage between two bodies is the thermodynamic work required to move a unit of charge between them. This definition is practical since a real voltmeter actually measures this work, not a difference in electric potential.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage

It is trivially obvious that the electric field is not the only force that can move the electric charges and create current. Simple mechanical force, like the one driving the belt of a Van de Graaff generator can move electric charges and generate current. In our case of Sheehan's diode the thermal energy can move free charge carriers via the process of diffusion and create the diffusion current. This doesn't provide a legitimate reason to change the definition of voltage. The fact that the electric potential can vary on a subatomic scale, does not mean that the original definition is useless, and therefore it has to be thrown out through the window. If the awkward newly proposed redefinition of voltage supposed to represent the “thermodynamic work required to move a unit of charge” between two points, then it is not electric in nature anymore. But the unit of Volt is purely electric in nature, and therefore voltage supposed to remain such as well, unless of course the 'authorities' want to confuse people by mixing apples with oranges. They are trying to mix up the work done by thermal movement (apples), with the work done by purely electric forces or electric field (oranges) under the term “thermodynamic work”. If a mathematician would want to redefine the arithmetic operation of addition as 2 nails + 2 hammers = 4 nails, then people would be rightfully shocked and we would hear plenty of protests. Why is this not happening in the case of new voltage redefinition attempt?

Here is another example of obfuscation in the book “Fundamentals of Solid-State Electronics” by Sah, Chih-Tang:

Quote
The fundamental esoteric point is that it is the gradient of the quasi-Fermi potential that drives the diffusion plus the drift current as shown by (331.1) to (331.4A) while the gradient of the electrostatic potential produces only a electric or electrostatic field that drives only a drift current. This drift current is completely canceled by the diffusion current at equilibrium and hence the potential that drives the drift current cannot be measured.

(The emphasis is not mine but present in the book as well). The fact that the drift current cancels the diffusion current in an equilibrium doesn't mean that the potential difference and electric field that drives the drift current doesn't exist for an outside observer, and can not be measured. It can be measured, and it has been measured, just not in the simplistic way of touching the two probes of a common voltmeter to the terminals of the diode. The effort to mix apples with oranges and combine the “diffusion plus drift currents” under the banner of quasy-Fermi potential is present here as well. Why not treat the diffusion current as a separate phenomenon from the drift current as they really are? The diffusion current doesn't need the existence of a built-in voltage (or drift current) because it is driven by the thermal energy combined with the gradient of free charge carrier concentrations (diffusion). The drift current is driven by an electric field. They are completely separate phenomena happening at the same place at the same time.

Did you notice the expression “The fundamental esoteric point” (underscored in the book for emphasis)? Esoteric point? How does esotery become part of science, especially when dealing with relatively simple phenomena that can be verified by accurate measurements? This in itself is a tell-tale sign of shady intentions.

I am sure that if we would continue to search diligently we could find more attempts in literature to hide the truth about the real nature of diffusion current in a diode, and the fact that it can be used as a Maxwell demon. But this much will suffice for now, and in my next post I will start discussing Germano's paper.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A Solid-State Maxwell Demon
« Reply #36 on: June 05, 2018, 12:00:49 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline ZL

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 95
Re: A Solid-State Maxwell Demon
« Reply #37 on: June 06, 2018, 02:10:13 PM »
The proper discussion of Germano's paper requires some illustrations and mathematical equations, which can't be easily implemented in a post on this forum. Therefore, there is no way around writing a paper about it in pdf format. This will take more time than just cobbling up a forum post, and it might require a couple of days.

In mean time if anybody already knows what the errors in Germano's paper are based on our explanations so far, then you are welcome to post your explanations.

Offline not_a_mib

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 83
Re: A Solid-State Maxwell Demon
« Reply #38 on: June 09, 2018, 05:39:08 AM »
There may be an easier way to measure the depletion layer potential that does not involve any expensive atomically-tiny pointy objects.

Suppose we have two plates, one of P-type silicon, another of N-type, one micron apart forming a capacitor, and a separate PN diode made of the same materials.  Initially touch the P and N parts of the diode to the matching plates.   The junction should charge up the capacitor to around 0.6 volts.  Now disconnect the diode, then pull the plates apart to one centimeter.  Faster than you can say V=Q/C, the plates should now have 6000 volts across them, enough to make a tiny spark.  For practical measurement, one could connect a charge amplifier between the plates, then measure the charge transferred as they separate.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_amplifier

This same technique should work to measure almost any contact potential between conductors.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A Solid-State Maxwell Demon
« Reply #38 on: June 09, 2018, 05:39:08 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline ZL

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 95
Re: A Solid-State Maxwell Demon
« Reply #39 on: June 09, 2018, 11:48:40 AM »
Great ideas not_a_mib!

The basic principle of your first suggestion to increase the potential difference by separating the plates of charged capacitor was actually mentioned in Germano's debunking paper “A Note on Solid-State Maxwell Demon” and he also referred to two other papers that have discussed this method. One of them is “The discovery of the electric current” by Piero Cotti and here is a relevant quote from it:

Quote
After 1792, Volta searched for the contact voltage between different metals. In 1795, he succeeded in building a sensitive static electrometer, in which he made use of a variable capacity (Fig. 1). Thus, he had a very sophisticated measuring device at his disposal, with which voltages of around one volt could be measured. In 1799, he carried out the first measurements of contact voltage between metals, a phenomenon which is only measurable when the contact is broken (Fig. 2).
https://kundoc.com/pdf-the-discovery-of-the-electric-current-.html
(it is wise to download everything connected to this research as long as you can…)

But here is the “magic” claim that Germano uses as a weapon “...contact voltage between metals, a phenomenon which is only measurable when the contact is broken”. This has been weaponized by Germano and others in his mentioned paper as:

Quote
Far from the depletion region there is no free charge accumulation. A simple laboratory experiment with Cu and Zn plates and a gold-leaf electroscope can confirm such a behavior [6,7]. Only when the two metals are removed apart the charges, initially localized within the depletion layer, are free to spread across the surfaces of the metallic plates [6,7,8], satisfying electrostatic equi-potentiality, see Fig. 4.

It is trivially simple to realize why the actually existing free charge accumulation at the ends of the diode can't be measured with a simple gold-leaf electroscope. Its sensitivity is not good enough for this. It can't measure a voltage as low as 1V. If it could do this, then Volta would not have needed to design a special variable capacity electroscope for the purpose, but he could have measured it with a common metal leaf electroscope. Separating the two dissimilar metals from each other is necessary only in order to amplify the voltage and make it measurable with a metal leaf electroscope. But the contact voltage is there even when the two metals are in contact. This voltage is measurable with today's very sensitive high input impedance electronic electroscopes even without separating the two metals (by electrostatic induction; without touching the terminals).

Harper has invested a lot of effort and science into measuring the contact potential accurately and reliably using the principle of variable capacitance (to amplify the voltage). There is quite a bit of unexpected difficulty in doing this in practice. The difficulty is that while the metals are being separated, there can be several points of contact to be broken, and much of the charge can get discharged in this process (flow back to the other metal) while the plates are in very close proximity, but not touching anymore. Here is the paper of Harper:

The Volta Effect as a Cause of Static Electrification by Harper
https://www.jstor.org/stable/98725?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
(if you sign up for a free account at jstor, you can download this paper for free)

Even though your version of this measurement still requires separating charged plates to amplify voltage, it can still debunk Germano's argument. If it were true that there is no free charge accumulation far from the depletion region (and thus no voltage across the diode semiconductor terminals) as Germano claims, then the two attached semiconductor capacitor plates could not pick up any charges at all. Then one could not measure any voltage across the separated plates either.

The only difficulty is the fabrication of the external semiconductor plates that have the exact same material properties and doping concentrations as those of the diode terminals. Another difficulty is to do the measurement in conditions where the contamination of the plates can be prevented, otherwise the doping can be altered. The best option would be to make the plates and the diode from scratch, from the same material using the same doping. I am not sure though if this can be practically accomplished at home without access to clean room etc. If you don't want to actually measure the charge and voltage, but you are satisfied with simply detecting if there is any charge at all, then I suppose one could attempt such an experiment at home as well.

But even if you would detect a charge by this method, Germano and his debunker fellows could still argue that the charges did not originate from the diode p-n depletion region, but from the contacts between the diode terminals and capacitor plates when they were separated. This way their claim that the charges appear only when the plates are separated could remain vindicated.

However, if you make use of his analogy between the diode's built-in voltage, and two dissimilar metal-metal contact potential difference, then you are in much better position to disprove the disputed claim. If instead of a diode, you use a thermocouple (or just connect two dissimilar metals with high work function differences), and instead of the semiconductor plates, you use capacitor plates made of the same two metals as those of the thermocouple, then that can definitely disprove Germano's argument. It can do that, because there can't be a contact potential difference between the capacitor plate and thermocouple terminal if they are made of the same metal. Therefore, if there is any charge and voltage on the capacitor plates after the separation/amplification, then that could have originated only from the contact potential of the junction (which has not been separated). These charges must have been present at the terminals of the thermocouple far away from the junction, which debunks Germano's claim that there could not be any free charge accumulation outside the depletion region, while the dissimilar metals are in contact. Therefore this is an experiment that is worth performing at home, to put this argument to rest once and for all.

The other option you mentioned to use modern semiconductors and opamps to built sensitive electroscopes that can measure even 1V with extremely low leakage current is another, perhaps even better option to experimentally disprove the disputed argument. For those with deep pockets this should be a piece of cake by using one of the high end electroscopes of Tektronix, like the “Keithley Electrometers for Ultra-High Resistance/Ultra-Low Current Measurements” which has got these characteristics:

Quote
The 5½-digit Model 6514 and Model 6517B Electrometers offer 1fA sensitivity, >200TΩ input impedance on voltage measurements, and charge measurements down to 10fC. The 6½-digit Model 6430 Sub-Femtoamp Remote SourceMeter SMU Instrument can measure current with 1aA sensitivity. Its low noise and drift performance make it ideal for research on single electron devices, highly resistive nanowires and nanotubes, polymers, and electrochemical applications.
https://www.tek.com/keithley-low-level-sensitive-and-specialty-instruments/keithley-high-resistance-low-current-electrom
(or similar like PASCO Model ES-9078).


I suppose the readers of this forum can't afford such instrument, but with some extra elbow grease they can design and build their own electrometers using schematics like those on the wiki page. Or perhaps even a primitive circuit like the one used by Bill Beaty could be used to at least detect (even if its measurement accuracy would not be good enough) the existence of free charge at the terminals of the thermocouple. As long as the whole device is kept at the same temperature it should provide an acceptable practical proof.

Ridiculously Sensitive Electric Charge Detector
http://amasci.com/emotor/chargdet.html

Regarding the paper I am working on that explains the errors in Germano's arguments in great detail; it takes longer to prepare than I thought, but it is coming. The reason for the delay is this claim of his:

Quote
...This behavior does not match what happens in laboratory experiments and in the real world.
It is already well known that this is not what really happens (see the Volta effect [8]). When two metals with different work functions (and similarly, when an n- and a p-semiconductor) are joined, the charge drift is only local and the charge displacement remains localized within the thin depletion layer, in equilibrium. Far from the depletion region there is no free charge accumulation. A simple laboratory experiment with Cu and Zn plates and a gold-leaf electroscope can confirm such a behavior [6,7]. Only when the two metals are removed apart the charges, initially localized within the depletion layer, are free to spread across the surfaces of the metallic plates [6,7,8], satisfying electrostatic equi-potentiality, see Fig. 4.

He talks about this nonsense “...It is already well known that this is not what really happens...” as if it would be a well established non-controversial fact that everybody supposed to know (and accept), and which has been already proven in the papers he referred to here. Well, to give it justice, I have had to find and read these reference papers, and see what kind of proof they can offer to support this false claim. Then since I was forced to put so much time and effort into this, then let me make the disproof even more accurate and convincing by arranging some FEM simulations of a diode's electrostatic field that surrounds it, and include such images. He hasn't got a single argument that can stand a scientific scrutiny, based on well established laws of electrostatics and semiconductor physics. Hopefully it will be ready in a few more days.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2018, 06:28:38 PM by ZL »

Offline not_a_mib

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 83
Re: A Solid-State Maxwell Demon
« Reply #40 on: June 09, 2018, 06:20:13 PM »
The Germano paper states that there are no diffusion forces across the JII (vacuum) gap, but neglects the Van der Waals forces at the JII plate surfaces.  If one tries to move an electron across the gap from the N plate to the P plate, a short range attraction should be seen between the electron and plate, related to the work function of the N material, as well as the expected repulsion due to the electric field.  A similar attraction would be seen as the electron nears the P plate.  What one will probably find is that these additional forces will prevent discharging the capacitor.  Any conductor that bridges the plates will produce additional junctions with their own potentials, all of which inconveniently sum to zero.  Use dielectric materials to carry the charge could be explored, such a tiny glass bead moving back and forth between the P and N surfaces, picking up and carrying a small amount of charge each time.  These might still be limited by the above short-range forces.


The PN junction and plate system is similar to a piston and cylinder isothermally compressing and expanding a gas.  This suggests a classic Carnot-like heat engine cycle.  Consider two PN junctions, one kept at a higher temperature than the other, and the variable capacitor made from the same P and N material plates.  Start with the plates separated, connect them to the hot PN junction, then move the plates closer.  The junction potential should charge the plates, absorbing heat from the junction, and doing mechanical work on the plates.  Now move the plates to the cold junction, then pull them back apart.  Mechanical work is required, and is converted to heat in the cold junction.  Repeat.  The cold junction has a lower potential than the hot, so net mechanical work is done, but some heat is dumped, still Carnot-limited.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: A Solid-State Maxwell Demon
« Reply #40 on: June 09, 2018, 06:20:13 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Nonlinear

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: A Solid-State Maxwell Demon
« Reply #41 on: June 11, 2018, 12:01:49 PM »
not_a_mib, Germano wrote that there is no electric field between the JII plate surfaces, and therefore it makes no sense to worry about any other forces there. The Van der Waals forces are not strong enough to be observed if the interatomic distance of two atoms is greater than 0.6 nm. I think that the gap of JII is much greater than 1 nm, and these forces can be neglected.

The other idea requires a temperature gradient and that is not very practical at micro scale. The whole purpose of this invention is to covert thermal energy without needing a temperature gradient. The anvil and hammer MEMS resonator nicely overcomes all these problems.

Offline conradelektro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1655
Re: A Solid-State Maxwell Demon
« Reply #42 on: June 13, 2018, 04:53:34 PM »
May be you want to consider this explanation:

https://www.quora.com/Will-Daniel-Sheehans-second-law-violating-device-which-is-a-modified-P-N-junction-diode-save-the-planet-from-global-warming

Sometimes people in mainstream science make errors, some might be frauds, some might be idiots and some might understand less or more than others. But one thing is certain, there is no big conspiracy. The conspiracy would have to be worldwide and it would cost way to much to involve tenthousands in every country.

And another thing is certain: Amongst the people who attack mainstream science there is an overwhelming majority who are stupid, who are frauds and who are delusional.

You might want to take this into consideration.

Greetings, Conrad

Offline vasik041

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 160
    • FE R&D
Re: A Solid-State Maxwell Demon
« Reply #43 on: June 13, 2018, 06:13:04 PM »
Hi Conrad,
ok, I don't want to argue with you, but just out of curiosity... Let's assume for a moment that there is no "conspiracy" and everything fine. How than you explain bunch of very strange facts e.g. dead inventors of FE devices ?

Regards,-V.



Offline conradelektro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1655
Re: A Solid-State Maxwell Demon
« Reply #44 on: June 13, 2018, 11:51:56 PM »
Hi Conrad,
ok, I don't want to argue with you, but just out of curiosity... Let's assume for a moment that there is no "conspiracy" and everything fine. How than you explain bunch of very strange facts e.g. dead inventors of FE devices ?

I am not arguing for or against something, I just want you to think. Like you, I know nothing and I have no proof for anything. But I do not want to stop my brain functioning when I read obvious nonsense.

Nothing is fine on this world. But you do not need a conspiracy to explain stupidity, aggression and greed. This is how people are. Usually everything gets messed up, also conspiracies. So, the biggest argument against conspiracies is that they are too good to be true. Nothing works as well as the conspiracy lovers want it to function.

There are conspiracies, but they are not long term, not over decades. No political system or power structure survives long term. Strategic alliances or financial agreements change rather rapidly. Every situation changes over time, also at universities, in enterprises, in clubs and in clandestines institutions. And today everything is more short lived than ever.

Conspiracy lovers expect too much from the people whom they imagine to organise conspiracies. Conspirators fuck up like everybody else therefore elaborate conspiracies would not work even if they were attempted as the steep stories tell. It is wishful thinking in a strange sense.

Conspiracy theories do not explain the world. Fortunately the world is much more complicated and richer than conspiracy theories make you believe. And the people and even you yourself are much less predictable or governable than conspiracy theories allege.

Everybody dies one day, also FE inventors. Whatever I saw from FE inventors was never worth killing for. It just did not work and therefore one needs a conspiracy to hide the fact that it is nonsense.

Greetings, Conrad

 

OneLink