Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 6 7 [8]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: The Physics of Digital Cameras  (Read 35021 times)
dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #140 on: January 27, 2010, 04:02:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Jonathan Wienke
I did exactly that in slide 22, and came up with 288 mW/cm^3 of device volume at 300K as a rough estimate of achievable power density using currently available thermocouples and other "off the shelf" components. This could possibly be improved on considerably, perhaps by a factor of 10 or 20, by refining the device design. 288 mW/cm^3 is within the realm of practicality for powering cars and other ground vehicles, but probably too heavy/bulky for aircraft. It's certainly within the practical size/weight range for powering laptops, cellphones, wireless security sensors, etc. And for fixed applications (powering a building, etc) it would be just fine--a refrigerator-sized box outside your house could perform all the necessary heating and cooling you'd need, and supply all the electricity you'd need to run your TV, washer/dryer, lights, etc.

Why don't you just build it Jonathan? I want one. And you better shut your mouth. Corporate fascists will assassinate you. Best way to do it is to make the machine, patent your findings, and spread it all over the world via the internet. Then, even if somehow the patent is bought, it can no way be eliminated.

How much would you need to build the machine? If yuor idea is that revolutionary, then I'm sure if it isn't millions, the community would help. I mean this could change everything in all people's lives all over the globe. It would be the energy equivalent of the Emancipation Proclamation. This is no small thing here.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2010, 04:16:42 AM by dwdallam » Logged

Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #141 on: January 27, 2010, 10:52:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dwdallam
Why don't you just build it Jonathan? I want one. And you better shut your mouth. Corporate fascists will assassinate you. Best way to do it is to make the machine, patent your findings, and spread it all over the world via the internet. Then, even if somehow the patent is bought, it can no way be eliminated.

I've done what experimenting and testing of the idea I can within my shoestring budget; to really test the idea properly, I'd need access to a reasonably well-stocked optics lab containing the type of equipment used to manufacture lenses, as well as thermometers accurate down to the mK range.

One of the reasons I posted the idea here is to have a dated, verifiable record of my theory via Google and other search engines' web caches, and as a means to get it circulating among people who are recognized experts in optics and physics for some meaningful peer review (hopefully sparking some interest within the scientific community, and eventually from corporations capable of building the device). The other is that I figure my odds of "surviving the assassins" are better if I'm widely known to be associated with the project than if I'm one of only a small number of people who know of it. Public figures are harder to dispose of without anyone noticing...

Quote
How much would you need to build the machine? If yuor idea is that revolutionary, then I'm sure if it isn't millions, the community would help. I mean this could change everything in all people's lives all over the globe. It would be the energy equivalent of the Emancipation Proclamation. This is no small thing here.

Given access to a decent optics lab, I could conclusively prove or disprove the validity of my theory for less than the cost of a MFDB, perhaps as little as a thousand dollars. The trick is finding someone in charge of such a lab who would be willing to let me use the equipment, or have lab staff conduct experiments to my specifications. If you know of anyone, please feel free to send them the link to the presentation (http://www.visual-vacations.com/physics/) and/or email me at jonwienke(at)yahoo.com.

If my theory is conclusively validated, devices could probably be manufactured in quantity fairly cheaply, but I don't know enough about what is possible with current manufacturing methods to intelligently estimate how cheaply. And even if the devices were very expensive at first (say $100/watt of output power), there are plenty of commercial applications for wireless devices where such a price premium would be acceptable: watches, PDAs, MP3 players, Bluetooth headsets, GPS navigation devices, satellite phones, emergency distress beacons, any electronic device operating in remote areas where AC power is not available and battery resupply is inconvenient, etc. And like I asked before, would you pay an extra 25% premium for your next car if you never had to visit a gas station again?
Logged

dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #142 on: January 27, 2010, 05:13:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Jonathan Wienke
If my theory is conclusively validated, devices could probably be manufactured in quantity fairly cheaply, but I don't know enough about what is possible with current manufacturing methods to intelligently estimate how cheaply. And even if the devices were very expensive at first (say $100/watt of output power), there are plenty of commercial applications for wireless devices where such a price premium would be acceptable: watches, PDAs, MP3 players, Bluetooth headsets, GPS navigation devices, satellite phones, emergency distress beacons, any electronic device operating in remote areas where AC power is not available and battery resupply is inconvenient, etc. And like I asked before, would you pay an extra 25% premium for your next car if you never had to visit a gas station again?

One word, but not limited to this one word, expresses the economic viability of such a device: Military. There's a 1 Trillion dollar a year industry.
Logged

Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #143 on: January 27, 2010, 08:29:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dwdallam
One word, but not limited to this one word, expresses the economic viability of such a device: Military. There's a 1 Trillion dollar a year industry.

Having not-so-long-ago been a participant in that industry, I haven't forgotten about it. There's all kinds of stuff that grunts need to carry around that use electricity, and dealing with carrying spare batteries is a huge PITA. If a battery replacement can be built into a GPS, red-dot scope, or radio that eliminates the need for carrying spare batteries (a HUGE deal on longer missions where resupply is not feasible or subject to enemy action), that can be a literal life-saver.

And then there's the notion of energy weapons that have their own power supply, allowing them to be fired indefinitely without requiring ammo resupply...
Logged

bg2b
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


« Reply #144 on: January 28, 2010, 05:55:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Jonathan Wienke
By creating an asymmetric boundary, the system naturally gravitates to a state where energy concentration is unequal, and that variance in energy concentration can then be exploited in any number of conventional ways.
It sounds to me like you've made (or at least you think you've made) Maxwell's demon.  To be convincing, I think you need to show how current arguments for the impossibility of the demon are flawed.
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #145 on: January 28, 2010, 09:33:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: bg2b
It sounds to me like you've made (or at least you think you've made) Maxwell's demon.  To be convincing, I think you need to show how current arguments for the impossibility of the demon are flawed.

I cover this in my presentation explaining the theory in detail. The arguments against Maxwell's demon are valid, as long as you assume that thermodynamic boundaries must always be symmetrical, and the only way to create a disequilibrium in the concentration of energetic particles on opposite sides of the boundary is to engage some sort of active interference (such as opening and closing the demon's trap door) with the natural behavior of the particles. Any such active interference of course requires energy, which cancels out any gains you get from the interference.

What I'm theorizing is completely different from Maxwell's demon; instead of trying to force the particles to move to one side of the boundary via energy-consuming active interference in their natural behavior, I've devised a boundary that exploits the innate properties of the particles (photons) to passively concentrate themselves on one side of the boundary without any active energy-consuming external interference via principles of refraction and total internal reflection.

It's sort of like a yellowjacket trap for IR photons; designed to be easy for them to enter, but difficult to exit. And like the yellowjacket trap, it doesn't require any external power source to operate, other than a supply of IR photons to be trapped. There's no need for any energy-consuming "demon" or "trap door"--the intrinsic natures of the trap and the things being trapped ensure the trap operates effectively without needing active external intervention.
Logged

JoeThibodeau
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #146 on: February 14, 2010, 11:52:40 AM »
ReplyReply

I think there is a future for more innovation in digital imaging. Some folks at Xerox Parc have produced a imaging cell which encapsulates blue, red, and green filters in a stack rather than the Bayer approach which naturally generates chroma aliasing by introducing a lower frequency color component to the signal. As sensor density increases these different aliasing artifacts will become invisible to the naked eye in print. Granted there are limitations relating to the source of energy and the means of acquiring that energy but I think there is some room for continual improvement over the next 10 years minimum. I am also wondering out loud about high density sensor arrays with sensor cells shaped more like amoeba and dispersed in a chaotic pattern like film grain.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2010, 12:09:37 PM by JoeThibodeau » Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #147 on: February 14, 2010, 02:59:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Hey, I see that there is no one woman's post on this topic!    

Fred.
Logged
Theresa
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51


« Reply #148 on: February 19, 2010, 04:44:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
Hey, I see that there is no one woman's post on this topic!    

Fred.

I've read some of this and am just wondering if there's some sort of reality check that could be used.
Logged
bg2b
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


« Reply #149 on: February 26, 2010, 07:17:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Jonathan Wienke
I've devised a boundary that exploits the innate properties of the particles (photons) to passively concentrate themselves on one side of the boundary without any active energy-consuming external interference via principles of refraction and total internal reflection.
I saw a puzzle at the NY Times along a similar lines here.  It proposes a "papaya battery" with a certain shape that supposedly will cause one electrode to heat up and another to cool down with no energy input.  Then the temperature difference can be used to produce power.  The challenge to the readers is to figure out what (if anything) is wrong with it.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2010, 07:18:07 PM by bg2b » Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 6 7 [8]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad