MIT enters the game? Overunity after all?

[atferrari]

Is the MIT people riding the verge after all?   

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-03/09/230-percent-efficient-leds

Recalling loosely what Don Lancaster amongst others used to say, if true, it could be that we will need to:

Redefine what overunity is.
Find a way to measure this more accurately (or should I say in a proper way?).
The Chambers to pass an ammendement to the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Otherwise... Bedini, Kinato or one of the so many out there.

[rollatorwieltje]

It doesn't draw more energy than it's putting out, it's even mentioned in the article. It has a COP of 1+, which is perfectly possible, just like heatpumps for example. It outputs more light than the amount of electrical energy is put in, but it also draws energy from the surroundings. It converts heat to light. Without heat it wouldn't work. The nice thing is that heat is everywhere, so you could consider it free, but it needs to exist before this can work.

[AndyC_772]

Electronic devices are pretty universally warm things, though. If this thing can be scaled up to macroscopic power levels, it's potentially either a fantastic light source, or a fantastic way to cool things down, or both.

[Marco]

The LED is heated to 135 degrees Celsius, but it's connected to unheated circuits ... so the energy comes from that temperature gradient.

[HackedFridgeMagnet]

Article was dated 2012?

Also doesn't that violate some law about entropy must increase?

[Blofeld]

Article was dated 2012?

Also doesn't that violate some law about entropy must increase?

I would think so. Drawing energy from the sorroundings certainly rings some alarm bells for me. Also note the end of the article:

"A previous version of this article suggeted that MIT built the LED. It was actually built by the Ioffe Physico-Technical Institute in St. Petersburg."

So the reputation of MIT remains intact...

[Marco]

The paper is online.

The LED was placed electrically in series with an unheated resistor

The temperature gradient at the device leads is the most likely source for the energy ... they needed to use a modulated signal and a lock in amplifier to even detect the light above the blackbody radiation by the way, the optical power is tiny. With a 100 degree temperature difference you could have visibly lit a LED with a normal peltier element ...

[Artlav]

It was actually built by the Ioffe Physico-Technical Institute in St. Petersburg.

I know these guys. They are serious, and know their stuff well.
However, their stuff is MWIR photodiodes and LEDs - an IR band somewhat above thermal IR.
I got one of their LEDs and a couple of photodiodes of 3.4um wavelength, for a camera project.

Here is an english datasheet - http://www.ioffeled.com/Specifications/LED34.pdf (3.4um, theirs was said to be 2.4um, but i can't find such one).

The interesting thing about that LED is that it runs at very low forward voltage - under 0.2V, and less that 0.1V at the temperature specified.
Also, at 135*C the device itself will be emitting some radiation in it's own wavelength by blackbody heat.
So, it can run on raw output of a termocouple, or there can be some peltier-style effects of the heat gradient being re-absorbed in the LED material itself.

Would be nice to read the full MIT paper.

EDIT: Noticed the link to the paper. 

They did have the problem i mentioned:

Since the photodetector remained unheated (~ 25*C), even without bias the LED’s 135*C active region emits approximately 40 nW of blackbody radiation in this wavelength range; the lock-in technique was necessary to separate the 69 pW of electrically driven optical power from the portion of that blackbody background which was incident on the detector surface.

[IanB]

Article was dated 2012?

Also doesn't that violate some law about entropy must increase?

I would think so. Drawing energy from the sorroundings certainly rings some alarm bells for me.

Drawing energy from the surroundings is mundane. Heat pumps and Peltier coolers do it all the time. A process cannot be said to violate physical laws unless you do the correct thermodynamic analysis using the appropriate equations with the right data and reach an educated conclusion.

[Blofeld]

Article was dated 2012?

Also doesn't that violate some law about entropy must increase?

I would think so. Drawing energy from the sorroundings certainly rings some alarm bells for me.

Drawing energy from the surroundings is mundane. Heat pumps and Peltier coolers do it all the time. A process cannot be said to violate physical laws unless you do the correct thermodynamic analysis using the appropriate equations with the right data and reach an educated conclusion.

You are right, I should not have substituted a proper analysis by gut feeling, shame on me. At the moment the first sentence in the paper makes me think it might be possible:

"The presence of entropy in incoherent electromagnetic radiation permits semiconductor light-emitting diodes (LEDs) to emit more optical power than they consume in electrical power, with the remainder drawn from latticeheat."

I'm a bit confused, only thing I can tell for sure is that it's over my head.

[corrado33]

Also doesn't that violate some law about entropy must increase?

This law is often misstated. It actually says (simply) that the the entropy of the UNIVERSE must increase. That's the entropy of the system AND surroundings.

There are plenty of chemical processes where the entropy of the SYSTEM decreases.

You make ice cubes in your freezer... right? If you consider the water/ice the system, then the entropy is decreasing.

[mtdoc]

Drawing energy from the surroundings is mundane. Heat pumps and Peltier coolers do it all the time.

Not to mention plants and photocells.

There are plenty of chemical processes where the entropy of the SYSTEM decreases.

True for pretty much any biological organism or system..

[dannyf]

Is the MIT people riding the verge after all?

We have discussed about this many times. the key is to have an open mind - at any given point, science is wrong in the sense that sooner or later someone will find a better way to explain the world around us.

Is over unity efficiency possible? Sure.

Is faster than light possible? Ask a physist about transmission speed of quantum entanglement,

...

Keep an open mind and don't rule out things just because it is not compatible with today's "scientific understanding".

[max666]

We have discussed about this many times. the key is to have an open mind - at any given point, science is wrong in the sense that sooner or later someone will find a better way to explain the world around us.

Is over unity efficiency possible? Sure.

Is faster than light possible? Ask a physist about transmission speed of quantum entanglement,

...

Keep an open mind and don't rule out things just because it is not compatible with today's "scientific understanding".

"If you open your mind too much, your brain will fall out..."

[Artlav]

Is faster than light possible? Ask a physist about transmission speed of quantum entanglement,

He will facepalm and proceed to explain what "quantum entanglement" actually means.

[mtdoc]

We have discussed about this many times. the key is to have an open mind - at any given point, science is wrong in the sense that sooner or later someone will find a better way to explain the world around us.

Common misconception by those who don't understand science. 

New information and understanding that comes from science rarely means previous science was "wrong".   Quantum physics does not make Newtonian mechanics "wrong". It just adds a further level of understanding just as Molecular biology does make Mendelian genetics "wrong" but gives us a more complete understanding of genetics.  Just two well known examples...

Scientific theories are wrong all the time but Science itself is the process of proving or disproving theories and what is learned through that process, if done correctly, is rarely wrong - just often incomplete.

[donotdespisethesnake]

The funny thing about overunity and the laws of physics. The Law of Conservation of Energy was drawn up only after thousands of practical attempts to create perpetual motion machines, or free energy machines. Thousands of experiments showed that energy is conserved. Scientists didn't necessarily know why, but practical experimentation showed that to be the case.

The observation of what appears to be a fundamental property of the universe was written as a law. It is an observed law of nature, it is not something physicists decided should be a law simply because it is intellectually appealing. (Unlike the Greek theories of nature). Subsequently the law is used in millions of applications and never found to be wrong.

But now, free energy types turn it round and say that the physics is dogma, "yes, physics may say it is a law, but that does not make it true, you have to have an open mind".  It is considered true because of practical observation - millions of experiments have shown it to be true. Each time someone tries to create another overunity machine and fails, it adds another data point to the already large pile in favor of the law of conservation of energy.

[dannyf]

It is considered true because of practical observation - millions of experiments have shown it to be true.

"Earth is the center of the universe" also had gazillion observations that shown it to be true. The same with Newtonian and Einstein physics - they are all observed to be true until they are shown to be untrue.

Unlike religion, science is evolving and not absolute.

Each time someone tries to create another overunity machine and fails, it adds another data point to the already large pile in favor of the law of conservation of energy.

Until someone somewhere someday somehow shows it to be untrue.

[dannyf]

BTW, here is an article on the speed of quantum entanglement.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.0614

[John Coloccia]

FWIW, the conservation laws are deeply intertwined...very deeply intertwined....with quantum mechanics, specifically various symmetries. 

Anyhow, enough about this science crap.  Let's go make some LED roadways!

[mtdoc]

The same with Newtonian and Einstein physics - they are all observed to be true until they are shown to be untrue.

Uh oh, someone forgot to tell that to the civil and mechanical engineers, architects, weapons builders, aerospace engineers, nuclear engineers, etc....

 

[miguelvp]

The same with Newtonian and Einstein physics - they are all observed to be true until they are shown to be untrue.

Uh oh, someone forgot to tell that to the civil and mechanical engineers, architects, weapons builders, aerospace engineers, nuclear engineers, etc....

 

And that's fine since engineering is all about tolerances and approximations, based on science (maybe since engineering predates science) but not science, just the practical application of science.

[mtdoc]

The same with Newtonian and Einstein physics - they are all observed to be true until they are shown to be untrue.

Uh oh, someone forgot to tell that to the civil and mechanical engineers, architects, weapons builders, aerospace engineers, nuclear engineers, etc....

 

And that's fine since engineering is all about tolerances and approximations, based on science (maybe since engineering predates science) but not science, just the practical application of science.

Yes.  But the point is that there is nothing "untrue" about classical mechanics or quantum mechanics ( I can only assume that is what he meant by "Newtonian and Einsteins physics") They are both just incomplete.

[Galenbo]

Is the MIT people riding the verge after all?

- at any given point, science is wrong in the sense that sooner or later someone will find a better way to explain the world around us.

In science, there is evolution every day, finding new techniques or explanations doesn't make the 'previous' science wrong, even if dilettantes might think so.
 

Is over unity efficiency possible? Sure.

So prove how and where and the assumptions and the exceptions, that's the way how science works.
With the proper units and methods please.

Keep an open mind and don't rule out things just because it is not compatible with today's "scientific understanding".

What is exactly your level of understanding science?

[corrado33]

I hate the "well nothing in science is known for sure" argument. Yes, science is evolving. Yes, things change (slightly) over time. Does that mean some nobody is his garage is going to disprove the laws of thermodynamics?

NO.

Stop fooling yourself people. You're not that smart. If you honestly believe these claims of broken laws of science, or that we will discover another "primary force" of physics, or find a reaction that breaks any of the well known laws and theories, then you obviously have not read about any of the history surrounding any of those laws, or any of the attempts to break them. Or even WHY THEY WORK IN THE FIRST PLACE.