An Experiment : A Infrared Photovoltaic Cell In A Cooler Box

[cheatingheart]

Hello everyone:

I like to propose an experiment here.

A Japanese research institute has developed a photovoltaic cell that can generate electricity in a total dark environment. This photovoltaic cell can generate electricity by infrared light that cannot be seen by human eyes, and light a LED lamp.

http://iftl.co.jp/news/n0029/news0029.html  . It's in Japanese, you can translate to English by Google translate.

 

So, I'm thinking an experiment:  a infrared photovoltaic cell is placed in a cooler box  and the wires connecting the positive and negative poles of the infrared photovoltaic cell  connect to a light  outside the cooler box. Then the light should work and consume energy.  Does  the temperature in the cooler box drop? 

 

If the temperature does not decrease, there are two reasons: 1 The infrared battery does not work, 2  the law of conservation of energy has  problems. But as long as the light is on, it means that the infrared photovoltaic cell works. Obviously, the law of conservation of energy is unquestionable.

 

If the temperature  decrease, the energy is transferred to the outside of cooler box. That means  the second law of thermodynamics has problems and needs to be revised. The second kind of perpetual motion machine may work.

 

 

This is a  very seriously question.

 

I'm sure that some of you will give the answer and explanation I understand. 

 

Thanks.

 

Sincerely,

 

Frank

 

 

[OceanBreeze]

I hope your user name does not mean you are cheating on your homework!

 

As you might expect, there are no problems with either the first or second law:

 

If there is enough IR trapped in the box to make the photocell work and light the Led, then energy is converted from inside the box to outside and energy is conserved in accord with the first law.

 

Also remember that the box itself* is not an isolated system; there are wires leading outside to the Led! The total system consists of the cooler box and the Led outside, so even though the temperature may drop inside the box, the Led is hotter than it was before so the entropy of the total system is not decreasing. There is no violation of the second law.

 

Unless the cooler box is very large and has a lot of IR trapped inside it, the detector will not have enough IR to drive it and the Led will soon go out, if it ever lights up at all.

 

*Most misunderstandings involving the second law come about from not carefully defining what the system under consideration consist of.

 

 

 

 

[exchemist]

I hope your user name does not mean you are cheating on your homework!

 

As you might expect, there are no problems with either the first or second law:

 

If there is enough IR trapped in the box to make the photocell work and light the Led, then energy is converted from inside the box to outside and energy is conserved in accord with the first law.

 

Also remember that the box itself* is not an isolated system; there are wires leading outside to the Led! The total system consists of the cooler box and the Led outside, so even though the temperature may drop inside the box, the Led is hotter than it was before so the entropy of the total system is not decreasing. There is no violation of the second law.

 

Unless the cooler box is very large and has a lot of IR trapped inside it, the detector will not have enough IR to drive it and the Led will soon go out, if it ever lights up at all.

 

*Most misunderstandings involving the second law come about from not carefully defining what the system under consideration consist of.

I agree with the OP that there is a seeming paradox here.

 

He or she is effectively proposing a self-powered heat pump, by which the box becomes cooler than its surroundings, while being powered only by the heat it originally contained.

 

This is clearly nonsensical, so we have to identify the source of the error in the analysis. The error, in my opinion, is as follows:

 

The device itself is at the same temperature as the box, i.e. ambient. It is therefore emitting IR photons at the same rate as it absorbs them from the box. It is therefore incapable of any net absorption of energy and will in consequence generate no voltage. 

Edited September 1, 2018 by exchemist

[OceanBreeze]

I agree with the OP that there is a seeming paradox here.

 

He or she is effectively proposing a self-powered heat pump, by which the box becomes cooler than its surroundings, while being powered only by the heat it originally contained.

 

This is clearly nonsensical, so we have to identify the source of the error in the analysis. The error, in my opinion, is as follows:

 

The device itself is at the same temperature as the box, i.e. ambient. It is therefore emitting IR photons at the same rate as it absorbs them from the box. It is therefore incapable of any net absorption of energy and will in consequence generate no voltage. 

 

 

I agree when the device inside the box reaches the same temperature as the box there will be no transfer of energy

 

BUT, that was not stated as an initial condition, was it? That is your assumption! :cussing:

 

The device could have been inserted when it was cooler than the box. That was my assumption! :cussing:

 

There is no paradox either way.  As I said "Unless the cooler box is very large and has a lot of IR trapped inside it, ( meaning the box is hotter the the device) the detector will not have enough IR to drive it and the Led will soon go out, if it ever lights up at all"

 

 

[cheatingheart]

this copy from Wikipedia about second law of thermodynamics

 

The Kelvin–Planck statement (or the heat engine statement) of the second law of thermodynamics states that

It is impossible to devise a cyclically operating device, the sole effect of which is to absorb energy in the form of heat from a single thermal reservoir and to deliver an equivalent amount of work    

 

But the energy come from a single thermal reservoir in this experiment.     

 

 

 

As you might expect, there are no problems with either the first or second law:

 

If there is enough IR trapped in the box to make the photocell work and light the Led, then energy is converted from inside the box to outside and energy is conserved in accord with the first law.

 

Also remember that the box itself* is not an isolated system; there are wires leading outside to the Led! The total system consists of the cooler box and the Led outside, so even though the temperature may drop inside the box, the Led is hotter than it was before so the entropy of the total system is not decreasing. There is no violation of the second law.

 

Unless the cooler box is very large and has a lot of IR trapped inside it, the detector will not have enough IR to drive it and the Led will soon go out, if it ever lights up at all.

 

*Most misunderstandings involving the second law come about from not carefully defining what the system under consideration consist of.

Edited September 1, 2018 by cheatingheart

[cheatingheart]

So you mean the infrared photovolitaic cell that Japanese has developed can not work in total dark ? 

 

but it is fact that infrared photovolitaic cell works

 

 

I agree with the OP that there is a seeming paradox here.

 

He or she is effectively proposing a self-powered heat pump, by which the box becomes cooler than its surroundings, while being powered only by the heat it originally contained.

 

This is clearly nonsensical, so we have to identify the source of the error in the analysis. The error, in my opinion, is as follows:

 

The device itself is at the same temperature as the box, i.e. ambient. It is therefore emitting IR photons at the same rate as it absorbs them from the box. It is therefore incapable of any net absorption of energy and will in consequence generate no voltage. 

[exchemist]

So you mean the infrared photovolitaic cell that Japanese has developed can not work in total dark ? 

 

but it is fact that infrared photovolitaic cell works

No, nothing about light or dark. Light and dark are irrelevant to a device that works on infra red radiation. 

 

I'm saying it cannot work if the photovoltaic panel is at the same temperature as the box it is enclosed in. 

 

IR radiation is given off and absorbed, all the time, by all objects at room temperature. When two objects are at the same temperature, they are in thermal equilibrium. This means the rate at which they absorb IR photons is equal to the rate at which they themselves emit. 

 

A photovoltaic panel exposed to the sun is at a far lower temperature than the surface of the sun, so in that case it absorbs more than it emits and it can generate a current. So this device can work, if it is receiving radiation from an object hotter than it is itself.

 

This explanation obviously deals with any supposed breaking of the laws of thermodynamics, which we all know will not happen, don't we? 

Edited September 1, 2018 by exchemist

[exchemist]

this copy from Wikipedia about second law of thermodynamics

 

The Kelvin–Planck statement (or the heat engine statement) of the second law of thermodynamics states that

It is impossible to devise a cyclically operating device, the sole effect of which is to absorb energy in the form of heat from a single thermal reservoir and to deliver an equivalent amount of work    

 

But the energy come from a single thermal reservoir in this experiment.     

Except there is no energy coming out, because it won't work, for the reasons I have given.

[cheatingheart]

No, nothing about light or dark. Light and dark are irrelevant to a device that works on infra red radiation. 

 

I'm saying it cannot work if the photovoltaic panel is at the same temperature as the box it is enclosed in. 

 

IR radiation is given off and absorbed, all the time, by all objects at room temperature. When two objects are at the same temperature, they are in thermal equilibrium. This means the rate at which they absorb IR photons is equal to the rate at which they themselves emit. 

 

A photovoltaic panel exposed to the sun is at a far lower temperature than the surface of the sun, so in that case it absorbs more than it emits and it can generate a current. So this device can work, if it is receiving radiation from an object hotter than it is itself.

 

This explanation obviously deals with any supposed breaking of the laws of thermodynamics, which we all know will not happen, don't we? 

 

read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaic_effect

 

nothing about temperature

[OceanBreeze]

read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaic_effect

 

nothing about temperature

 

 

Yes, we know. 

You might want to read this.

 

Quote:

 

"Infrared light is one of the lights we can see with special cameras. Infrared light shows us how hot things are. It can also show us how cold things are. But it all has to do with heat"

[cheatingheart]

Yes, we know. 

You might want to read this.

 

Quote:

 

"Infrared light is one of the lights we can see with special cameras. Infrared light shows us how hot things are. It can also show us how cold things are. But it all has to do with heat"

 

Infrared photovoltaics cell works because of Photoelectric Effect.  I'm talking about infrared light photoelectric effect not about infrared light and heat.

[exchemist]

read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaic_effect

 

nothing about temperature

It is always the same with perpetual motion cranks. They choose a scenario that is beyond their ability to analyse correctly and then argue, on the basis of their own ignorance, that the laws of thermodynamics can be broken. I have encountered so many on internet forums over the years and it is always the same. It gets very tedious. 

 

Nonetheless, propping my eyelids open with matchsticks, I shall endeavour to explain further:-

 

To drive a current, the device has to create an excess population of electrons in the excited state, i.e. in excess of the normal degree of population of excited states that occurs in the device when it is at equilibrium, not exposed to a radiation source.

 

The flow of current results from this disequilibrium and serves to restore the population of states towards its equilibrium value. 

 

If the device is merely exposed to objects at the same temperature as the device itself, it is obvious that no excess population of excited states is generated. So no disequilibrium is created. And thus no current will flow.

 

That is the reason this idea of yours will not work. You may not like it but, tough. The laws of thermodynamics are not going to be broken merely because somebody does not understand the relevant physics properly.  The problem is you, not physics.

 

I suggest if you cannot take in this explanation that you do some further reading. I can quote for instance this section from the Wiki article on e.m.f. relating to solar cells:-

 

"The diode possesses a "built-in potential" due to the contact potential difference between the two different materials on either side of the junction. This built-in potential is established when the junction is manufactured and that voltage a by-product of thermodynamic equilibrium within the cell. Once established, this potential difference cannot drive a current, however, as connecting a load does not upset this equilibrium.^{[clarification needed]} In contrast, the accumulation of excess electrons in one region and of excess holes in another, due to illumination, results in a photo voltage that does drive a current when a load is attached to the illuminated diode."

 

Good luck, Mr Baker.

Edited September 1, 2018 by exchemist

[cheatingheart]

It is always the same with perpetual motion cranks. They choose a scenario that is beyond their ability to analyse correctly and then argue, on the basis of their own ignorance, that the laws of thermodynamics can be broken. I have encountered so many on internet forums over the years and it is always the same. It gets very tedious. 

 

Nonetheless, propping my eyelids open with matchsticks, I shall endeavour to explain further:-

 

To drive a current, the device has to create an excess population of electrons in the excited state, i.e. in excess of the normal degree of population of excited states that occurs in the device when it is at equilibrium, not exposed to a radiation source.

 

The flow of current results from this disequilibrium and serves to restore the population of states towards its equilibrium value. 

 

If the device is merely exposed to objects at the same temperature as the device itself, it is obvious that no excess population of excited states is generated. So no disequilibrium is created. And thus no current will flow.

 

That is the reason this idea of yours will not work. You may not like it but, tough. The laws of thermodynamics are not going to be broken merely because somebody does not understand the relevant physics properly.  The problem is you, not physics.

 

I suggest if you cannot take in this explanation that you do some further reading. I can quote for instance this section from the Wiki article on e.m.f. relating to solar cells:-

 

"The diode possesses a "built-in potential" due to the contact potential difference between the two different materials on either side of the junction. This built-in potential is established when the junction is manufactured and that voltage a by-product of thermodynamic equilibrium within the cell. Once established, this potential difference cannot drive a current, however, as connecting a load does not upset this equilibrium.^{[clarification needed]} In contrast, the accumulation of excess electrons in one region and of excess holes in another, due to illumination, results in a photo voltage that does drive a current when a load is attached to the illuminated diode."

 

Good luck, Mr Baker.

Thank you for your explanation. Can you prove it by experiment? Physics is based on experiment. I really hope someone can do this experiment.

[exchemist]

Thank you for your explanation. Can you prove it by experiment? Physics is based on experiment. I really hope someone can do this experiment.

Physics is based on experiment? Gosh, really? 

 

Well, the way it actually works is like this:

 

Physics says: These are the laws of thermodynamics and all experiments and engineering applications over the last 150 years obey them. 

 

You say: I disagree. I've got this thought experiment, involving a technology I don't understand, which I think says these laws can be broken.

 

Physics says: Well, I've made my point amply by experiment over the last 150 years. If you think differently, you show me.

 

Basically, nobody who understands physics will waste time doing this experiment, because the outcome is totally predictable. You are the one saying physics is wrong, so it is up to you to do the experiment, not anyone else, if you feel so strongly about it.

 

But this problem has been more fun than exploding thymus glands, at least.     

[cheatingheart]

Physics is based on experiment? Gosh, really? 

 

Well, the way it actually works is like this:

 

Physics says: These are the laws of thermodynamics and all experiments and engineering applications over the last 150 years obey them. 

 

You say: I disagree. I've got this thought experiment, involving a technology I don't understand, which I think says these laws can be broken.

 

Physics says: Well, I've made my point amply by experiment over the last 150 years. If you think differently, you show me.

 

Basically, nobody who understands physics will waste time doing this experiment, because the outcome is totally predictable. You are the one saying physics is wrong, so it is up to you to do the experiment, not anyone else, if you feel so strongly about it.

 

But this problem has been more fun than exploding thymus glands, at least.     

 

This experiment can be done.  Have anyone done this experiment before?

Proof of a law must be in all circumstances. Break a law just need one counterexample.

So I'm asking anyone can do this experiment.

[exchemist]

This experiment can be done.  Have anyone done this experiment before?

Proof of a law must be in all circumstances. Break a law just need one counterexample.

So I'm asking anyone can do this experiment.

I am not omniscient, but I very much doubt it, for the reasons I have given you. I certainly would not waste my time trying it.

 

There is no proof of any laws in science. Science does not deal in "proof" of its models. 

 

I repeat: it is up to you to show well established laws of physics are wrong, if that is what you contend.

 

No one else.

 

You.   

Edited September 1, 2018 by exchemist

[cheatingheart]

I am not omniscient, but I very much doubt it, for the reasons I have given you. I certainly would not waste my time trying it.

 

There is no proof of any laws in science. Science does not deal in "proof" of its models. 

 

I repeat: it is up to you to show well established laws of physics are wrong, if that is what you contend.

 

No one else.

 

You.   

Thanks anyway. Someone may do the experiment.  I don't believe i'm alone.

Edited September 2, 2018 by cheatingheart