Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Energy from atmospheric heat

  1. Dec 17, 2011 #1
    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.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 18, 2011 #2

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    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?
     
  4. Dec 18, 2011 #3
    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.
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2011
  5. Dec 18, 2011 #4

    RonL

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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
     
  6. Dec 18, 2011 #5

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  7. Dec 18, 2011 #6
    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".
     
  8. Dec 18, 2011 #7

    RonL

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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 ?)
     
  9. Dec 18, 2011 #8

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    .....A sterling engine stuck to the inside of the windshield of my car tonight would extract energy from the atmosphere...
     
  10. Dec 19, 2011 #9

    Drakkith

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  11. Dec 19, 2011 #10
    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.
     
  12. Dec 19, 2011 #11
    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.
     
  13. Dec 19, 2011 #12
    Question is how effectively? In fact, the Sterling wouldn't extract atmospheric heat but rather the excess heat of your car engine.
     
  14. Dec 19, 2011 #13
    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".
     
  15. Dec 19, 2011 #14

    AlephZero

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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.
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2011
  16. Dec 19, 2011 #15

    RonL

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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
     
  17. Dec 19, 2011 #16

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    No, at night the passenger compartment is colder than outside.
     
  18. Dec 19, 2011 #17

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    You have both the burden of proof and "the audacity of ignorance" (I actually love that phrase!) backwards.
     
  19. Dec 19, 2011 #18

    Drakkith

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    How have I misunderstood it?
     
  20. Dec 20, 2011 #19
    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.
     
  21. Dec 20, 2011 #20
    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.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Energy from atmospheric heat
  1. Heat in atmosphere (Replies: 10)

Loading...