Is It Possible to Generate Electricity from Atmospheric Heat?

[pranj5]

While searching net, I recently have come in touch with two very interesting patents. Both applications were patent granted. Both claim to produce electricity by using atmospheric heat. Here they are:
1)http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...50&s1=6938422.PN.&OS=PN/6938422&RS=PN/6938422
2)http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2008/0061559.html
The general notion regarding this matter is "atmospheric heat" can't be extracted and any machine or technology that claims to extract that actually violate 2nd law of thermodynamics and thus cannot be made in reality. But, those two above are patent granted and I don't think that the patent examiners are that idiot not to know about 2nd law of thermodynamics. Moreover, the description too is available. Therefore, all readers are requested to go through the description before making remarks.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Your assumption is not correct. The patent office does not make sure the device actually works, or even makes sense. If it doesn't work, the patent is worthless, because who is going to infringe on it?

 

[pranj5]

Well, I hope you have gone through the description, now can you find any flaw in the mechanisms? After all, as far as I know, nothing that violates any law of science can not be patented and it's almost same for nearly every country.
Moreover, I hope you know about the drinking duck toy, which is real example of conversion of atmospheric heat into motion and nobody can deny that.

 

[RonL]

Well, I hope you have gone through the description, now can you find any flaw in the mechanisms? After all, as far as I know, nothing that violates any law of science can not be patented and it's almost same for nearly every country.
Moreover, I hope you know about the drinking duck toy, which is real example of conversion of atmospheric heat into motion and nobody can deny that.

Hi pranj5,
Based on your post count, I would think you are somewhat new to PF, I have been around for awhile, but likely am hanging by a thin thread (just hope it is carbon fiber or kevlar) I do put a strong effort into staying within PF rules and guidelines. With that said, I did a quick scan of both patents.

My take on the first, the drawing, and final assembly of components, should be different from what can be seen, I did not look at the details of discription.

The second looks as if it might have evolved from a couple of my post (just a little vanity on my part) my basic flash thoughts, it seems to be somewhat over complicated in regard to mechanical function. I do believe it appears to be a workable design, but I can't say more as I tend to spin into states of confused thought presentation.

Take care to stay in good standing, PF is a great tool to have at your disposal.

RonL

 

[russ_watters]

Well, I hope you have gone through the description, now can you find any flaw in the mechanisms? After all, as far as I know, nothing that violates any law of science can not be patented and it's almost same for nearly every country.

The USPTO will decline to review a patent that makes a straightforward claim of a violation of the laws of physics, but it won't attempt to determine if devices work, so if it isn't obvious, they will often not see the violation. We've had a couple of guys with crackpot perpetual motion machines come here and ask us to figure out if they work (and get very angry when we tell them they don't). Either way, V50 is right: that's not the purpose of a patent, so it isn't necessarily true.

In any case, without looking at the patents, I can think of a large number of different ways to extract atmospheric heat to generate electricity. At face value, the concept doesn't have to be crackpottery.

 

[pranj5]

The second looks as if it might have evolved from a couple of my post (just a little vanity on my part) my basic flash thoughts, it seems to be somewhat over complicated in regard to mechanical function. I do believe it appears to be a workable design, but I can't say more as I tend to spin into states of confused thought presentation.
Take care to stay in good standing, PF is a great tool to have at your disposal.
RonL

It's not just a design. It exists in reality and functions. I have seen it with my own eyes. You too can get some information by searching net with "drinking duck".

 

[RonL]

It's not just a design. It exists in reality and functions. I have seen it with my own eyes. You too can get some information by searching net with "drinking duck".

I did look up the drinking duck toy, just to be sure it was what I thought you were talking about. I hesitate to say how many years I have known about these.
As for the two patents you implied that you had just found on an internet search, I was about to be real proud that you confirmed the second ones function, as I had quickly looked at them and made my comment on strictly visual examination. Now I'm confused about what you have seen with your own eyes. (apparently not the second patent ?)

 

[russ_watters]

...A sterling engine stuck to the inside of the windshield of my car tonight would extract energy from the atmosphere...

 

[Drakkith]

The general notion regarding this matter is "atmospheric heat" can't be extracted and any machine or technology that claims to extract that actually violate 2nd law of thermodynamics and thus cannot be made in reality.

The atmosphere can easily be used as a thermal reservoir. As Russ said you can use a sterling engine if you have a cooler place to put the heat sink for the cold side.
The 2nd patent says in the description that natural Airflow can be used as a source of power for it, which is also true if the device works. Windmills use natural airflow as well.

 

[pranj5]

I did look up the drinking duck toy, just to be sure it was what I thought you were talking about. I hesitate to say how many years I have known about these.
As for the two patents you implied that you had just found on an internet search, I was about to be real proud that you confirmed the second ones function, as I had quickly looked at them and made my comment on strictly visual examination. Now I'm confused about what you have seen with your own eyes. (apparently not the second patent ?)

NO CONFUSION! It exists and works in reality following the same principle of extracting atmospheric heat and converting it into motion. Kindly do some wiki with this toy and I hope you can understand.

 

[pranj5]

The atmosphere can easily be used as a thermal reservoir. As Russ said you can use a sterling engine if you have a cooler place to put the heat sink for the cold side.
The 2nd patent says in the description that natural Airflow can be used as a source of power for it, which is also true if the device works. Windmills use natural airflow as well.

Sorry to say, you haven't understood the 2nd patent. It actually claims to convert internal energy i.e. heat of air into electricity by just using a convergent nozzle. As per the patent owner, when air or any kind of compressible fluids go through a convergent nozzle, it's speed increases as it approaches the "throat" i.e. the narrow outlet and it comes out of the nozzle with speed higher than that of the initial speed. As per the inventor, this increased speed means increased kinetic energy and that comes at a price of the internal energy of air/compressible fluid. The inventor claims that after rotating the turbine, the temperature of air will drop and thus moisture will be collected at the other end of the turbine.
After reading that, I have read some papers on convergent nozzle and found that "convergent nozzles can convert enthalpy (including U i.e. internal energy) into velocity" and that velocity can be used to rotate turbine for electricity generation.

 

[pranj5]

...A sterling engine stuck to the inside of the windshield of my car tonight would extract energy from the atmosphere...

Question is how effectively? In fact, the Sterling wouldn't extract atmospheric heat but rather the excess heat of your car engine.

 

[pranj5]

The USPTO will decline to review a patent that makes a straightforward claim of a violation of the laws of physics, but it won't attempt to determine if devices work, so if it isn't obvious, they will often not see the violation. We've had a couple of guys with crackpot perpetual motion machines come here and ask us to figure out if they work (and get very angry when we tell them they don't). Either way, V50 is right: that's not the purpose of a patent, so it isn't necessarily true.

In any case, without looking at the patents, I can think of a large number of different ways to extract atmospheric heat to generate electricity. At face value, the concept doesn't have to be crackpottery.

Problem is that people like you end everything up with "NOT POSSIBLE". Nothing more and actually no proper explanation and not even the hardship to prove that it actually violated any law at all.
What I want to call as "audacity of ignorance".

 

[AlephZero]

As per the patent owner, when air or any kind of compressible fluids go through a convergent nozzle, it's speed increases as it approaches the "throat" i.e. the narrow outlet and it comes out of the nozzle with speed higher than that of the initial speed. As per the inventor, this increased speed means increased kinetic energy and that comes at a price of the internal energy of air/compressible fluid. The inventor claims that after rotating the turbine, the temperature of air will drop and thus moisture will be collected at the other end of the turbine.

Sure. You can find all that explained hundreds of elementary textbooks.

Now explain what magic makes the air flow through the nozzle. If there isn't an energy source apart from the "internal energy of the air", then "magic" is the right word to describe it IMO.

This is just an over-complicated and very inefficient way to make a windmill.

 

[RonL]

NO CONFUSION! It exists and works in reality following the same principle of extracting atmospheric heat and converting it into motion. Kindly do some wiki with this toy and I hope you can understand.

I really have a strong need to filter what I write here,

I am a bit older than this invention, I have seen it in many different mechanically designed forms. I do not think there is any misunderstanding on my part. (the drinking duck toy, just to be clear).

As to the second patent above, I made my decision of it's function, in less time than the time required to download the software needed to view the images. It seems that you are a little confused about what different people in this thread understand and what things are granted patents in different country's around the world.

I think I can sense your enthusiastic feelings about what you have found, I do not want to stifle that in any amount.
My intuition says you are young, go back to my first post in this thread...Read and understand what I said about PF as a tool.

Please continue to seek out things that will be new and exciting to you, I think you will find, as I have, almost anything you can dream up, has already been done. In my case it seems everything I think of, was tried and discarded or pushed to the side a 100 years ago.

Always remember, it might be you that puts a slightly new twist on something new or old.

Ron

 

[russ_watters]

In fact, the Sterling wouldn't extract atmospheric heat but rather the excess heat of your car engine.

No, at night the passenger compartment is colder than outside.

 

[russ_watters]

Problem is that people like you end everything up with "NOT POSSIBLE". Nothing more and actually no proper explanation and not even the hardship to prove that it actually violated any law at all.
What I want to call as "audacity of ignorance".

You have both the burden of proof and "the audacity of ignorance" (I actually love that phrase!) backwards.

 

[Drakkith]

Sorry to say, you haven't understood the 2nd patent.

How have I misunderstood it?

 

[pranj5]

Sure. You can find all that explained hundreds of elementary textbooks.

Now explain what magic makes the air flow through the nozzle. If there isn't an energy source apart from the "internal energy of the air", then "magic" is the right word to describe it IMO.

This is just an over-complicated and very inefficient way to make a windmill.

Well, if you have gone through the description, then you can understand that it's not magic. Yes, the inventor want to use normal wind flow to kick start the process. In absence of any kind of wind. a mechanical fan would be enough. But, as per the claim of the inventor, the output would be much more than the input.
To understand the magic, I suggest you better contact the inventor and ask him.

 

[pranj5]

You have both the burden of proof and "the audacity of ignorance" (I actually love that phrase!) backwards.

This invention has passed the scrutiny of patent examiners. Now, it's upto you to prove that the patent examiners had done some mistake. Not foolish "patent examiners are human being and they can make mistake" like logic, but sharply point out what mistake the patent examiners have made.
IN SHORT, POINT IT OUT. DON'T JUST MAKE REMARKS. As per the worldwide honored "natural law of justice" you have to find the flaw in the process and patent. Me or the inventor doesn't need to do that.

 

[Drakkith]

I'm not sure what the issue here is. Russ and the other PF guys simply pointed out that the patent office doesn't do a super thorough review of the patent. If it doesn't obviously break the laws of physics, they approve it. Furthermore I don't think anyone has even claimed that the devices work or don't work, merely pointed out that AT FACE VALUE they appear to be fine.

 

[pranj5]

The issue here is whether such devices violate 2nd law of Thermodynamics or not. Any device, that claim to extract atmospheric heat and converting it into electricity, has, in general, termed as violating 2nd law of thermodynamics. I just want to challenge the notion or that version of explanation of 2nd law of thermodynamics.
I simple want to tell that this (the explanation above) is 2nd law of Thermodynamics itself but a rather wrong version.

 

[Drakkith]

You are saying that the 2nd law of thermodynamics says you can't get electricity from atmospheric heat? That isn't what the 2nd law says at all.

 

[russ_watters]

Any device, that claim to extract atmospheric heat and converting it into electricity, has, in general, termed as violating 2nd law of thermodynamics.

As already explained, this is not correct.

And Drakkith is right about the other thing too: I haven't been able to view the patents (that plugin is killing me) so the only thing I'm commenting on is your interpretation of the secobd law as applied to the rough concept of extracting heat energy from the atmosphere.

 

[russ_watters]

Arright, so I finally got the plugin to work...

The first application is for a device that uses the following cycle:

1. Evaporator absorbs heat from atmosphere
2. Compressor compresses working fluid
3. "Flow control valve" -- throttles?
4. Turbine extracts energy from working fluid

Clearly, this cycle displays a misunderstanding of thermodynamics and won't work as intended. As described, it doesn't have a thermal gradient from which to extract energy. So the compressor adds energy to the working fluid and the evaporator will actually be a condenser, rejecting waste heat to the atmosphere. The filer of the patent says it will produce a COP of 1.05, but in reality it won't: It won't extract energy from the atmosphere. So yes - that claim is a violation of the 2nd law.

But that analysis is outside the scope of a patent, so the examiner probably didn't care to evaluate the concept and awarded the patent anyway.

The second patent is an overly complicated wind turbine, as someone already said. Some of the science in the explanation is wrong, but again, the patent reviewer isn't really looking at that anyway.

 

[pranj5]

Arright, so I finally got the plugin to work...

The first application is for a device that uses the following cycle:

1. Evaporator absorbs heat from atmosphere
2. Compressor compresses working fluid
3. "Flow control valve" -- throttles?
4. Turbine extracts energy from working fluid

Clearly, this cycle displays a misunderstanding of thermodynamics and won't work as intended. As described, it doesn't have a thermal gradient from which to extract energy. So the compressor adds energy to the working fluid and the evaporator will actually be a condenser, rejecting waste heat to the atmosphere. The filer of the patent says it will produce a COP of 1.05, but in reality it won't: It won't extract energy from the atmosphere. So yes - that claim is a violation of the 2nd law.

But that analysis is outside the scope of a patent, so the examiner probably didn't care to evaluate the concept and awarded the patent anyway.

The drinking duck creates its own thermal gradient by evaporation. That too. as per this explanation violates 2nd law of thermodynamics. But, in reality it works on the same principle of extraction of atmospheric heat by evaporation. How can you explain that?

The second patent is an overly complicated wind turbine, as someone already said. Some of the science in the explanation is wrong, but again, the patent reviewer isn't really looking at that anyway.

Which science? If the patent reviewer can make mistake, you too.

 

[pranj5]

You are saying that the 2nd law of thermodynamics says you can't get electricity from atmospheric heat? That isn't what the 2nd law says at all.

I know that but many thinks in that way.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Which science? If the patent reviewer can make mistake, you too.

And this thread is done.