Maxwell's Demon: An Energy Conversion Experiment

[xyfu]

The Problem of Magnetic Field (1)

Originally posted by Ivan Seekings
If it (the magnetic field) does work, it loses energy. Knocking electrons around is doing work.

We think that the above argument is false.

In whatever cases, a magnetic field exerts on a moving electron only a Lawrence force , which is always perpendicular to the velocity of the electron. So it is impossible for the force to do any work on the electron.

The work of the output current in our experiment is converted from the heat extracted from the surrounding air.

 

[Dburghoff]

You know, I'm not a thermodynamics expert or anything, but I've got an idea. What if we're looking at this in the wrong way? Suppose that these people have created a "Maxwell demon" which creates electrical energy from heat energy. When they measured the current, that energy was most likely being converted back into heat as it passed through the ammeter. However, the heat was actually being dispersed along the entire surface of the wire and the ammeter.

Let me expand this thought. Suppose that this does work well in series, and that a power supply can be made from it. Let us suppose that an entire city is made to run on this kind of power. The electrical energy is being used in all types of appliances: blenders, TV, ham radios, etc. In the blender, the mechanical energy, lost to friction, becomes heat once again. With the TV, the light and sound is absorbed by the room that it's in, becoming heat. With the ham radio, EM waves are being scattered throughout the entire universe. A certain amount of energy which was once localized to the gas molecules in the air around the power plant is now being spread throughout the city, and some of it is actually going into space as radio waves. It seems to me that the entropy would be increasing.

Basically, what I'm saying is that this would kind of be like life. The response to the question, "Doesn't life violate entropy?" is often something like "It seems that way at first, but if you look more closely, life increases entropy." The same thing applies here as well. Though the device may seem to intially decrease entropy, it actually increases it in the long run.

 

[geometer]

I've read all the posts, downloaded and read the referenced paper, and maybe I'm being naive, but this seems pretty simple to me. For this apparatus to produce an electric current, it has to set up a charge difference between the two cathodes. To set up that charge difference, you have to change the paths of at least some of the emitted electrons. Changing an objects state of motion produces a momentum change. Producing a momentum change produces an energy change. This energy has to come from somewhere (the First Law of Thermodynamics). In this case, it comes from the magnetic field. Therefore, "the heat extracted by the electronic tube from the resovoir" is only converted into electric energy after the addition of more energy to the system from an outside source: the magnet. The Second Law remains intact as far as I can see.

 

[xyfu]

The Problem of Magnetic Field (2)

Posted originally by DrChinese
My point being that you assume that the magnet is not changed as work is extracted from it. I believe that the energy output (if any) is offset by matching changes in the magnet (if any).

It takes energy to create a magnet (an ordered system). But there is no way to measure the strength of a magnet to a sufficient degree of precision to detect the
subtle changes in the magnet. If you could, it would show that the magnet loses strength exactly equal to the energy output. Since the net gain is zero (or less than zero), the process obeys the 2nd law.

Posted originally by Krab
I find DrChinese’s suggestion interesting. Remember that the released electrons, in looping from one place to another, create their own magnetic field, which will act back on the permanent magnet and tend to demagnetize it.

We cannot agree with the above points.

First, we think that DrChinese’s point is not true. We hold that in our experiment, nothing is extracted from the magnet. No work, no anything else.

Please let me show our reasons.

In Faraday’s electromagnetic induction, permanent magnets are often used. These magnets are not changed at all. Dear DrChinese, do you really hold that as induced current is produced in the coil, there is something extracted from the magnet? You do think that there are some apparent or subtle changes in the magnet in such processes?

Few physicists or physics teachers and students will agree with you. According to Lenz’s Law, the electric power produced in the experiment is resulted from the mechanical work the experimentalist does. It is well known that for an ideal induction process, or we say, theoretically, according to some major principles of physics, including Faraday’s induction law, Ampere’s electric force law, and the definition of the work done by a force, the work done by the external agent (the experimentalist) equals exactly the electric power produced. So the electric power is apparently not resulted from anything extracted from the magnet.

Mr. Krab said that, the hooping of electrons from one place to another will produce their own magnet field in the opposite direction, and this magnet field tends to demagnetize the original magnet.

We do believe that no demagnetization of magnet in our experiment, as well as in the Faraday’s induction experiment.

Why?

The magnet is composed of billions of magnetic domains. The reaction of the moving electrons, or of the induced current, on the magnet, is distributed among all these tiny domains. Each domain will obtain billionth of the reaction, so the effect on each domain is very weak. The alignment of the domains will not be disturbed or destroyed by such weak effects.

A circumstantial evidence: in a common galvanometer, a permanent magnet is also used. Its coil current may range from 10 to 1000μA, which is much greater than the current we obtained in our experiment. Will the magnet be demagnetized by the coil current? Never! Evidence: Any slight demagnetization of the magnet will directly spoil the precision of the galvanometer, and the drop in precision is very easy to be found. In our daily practice, the precision of a common galvanometer is stable, which can last twenty years, fifty years, and even much longer. You may use it (provided properly) every day, having no worry about the destruction of its precision due to “demagnetization”.

In some modern electric generators with a power ranges from tens of watts to thousands of watts, permanent magnets are widely used. The currents produced in these generators are much stronger. Will the currents demagnetize the magnets? Let’s see some more practical examples.

I think both DrChinese and Mr. Krab have their private cars. They can find an electric generator in each of their cars, with an output power of, say, 500 or 1000 watts. Each generator (mostly) consists of a permanent magnet. If the car is used every day, will its magnet be demagnetized in one year? Or in two years? No, a modern magnet in such a case can be used for fifty years without any problem, and even longer.

DrChinese said that even so, there are inevitably some subtle changes in the magnet, only it is very difficult to detect them. I agree there may be such subtle changes in the magnet, several years or decades after it was produced in the magnet factory. But these changes are not resulted from the process of electric generating. Even if you don’t use the magnet at all, just put it on your desk for years or decades, some subtle changes will also happen. For example, caused by air pollution, or the bombardment of the cosmic rays, etc. Nevertheless, you can protect the magnet from these harmful influences. This is possible, and not difficult, at least theoretically this is possible.

In your car generator, the electric energy produced is resulted totally from the mechanical energy supplied by the engine. The magnet used does no work. It keeps unchanged, and it is free. Such ideas have been well accepted by the community of physicists since the nineteen’s century.

Of course, in practice, just as DrChinese said, a magnet cannot really be kept unchanged for one or two million years. But this is another problem. When discussing problems relating to physical principles, we usually speak of physical models, not the practical objects on our desk. There are many such examples in physics, let me present one here.

When Sadi Carnot investigated his famous cycle, and deduced the limit of the efficiency for all heat engines, he was dealing with physical models: an ideal cylinder, an ideal piston, a perfect gas, and so on. What’s the meaning by the word “ideal” when it is describing the cylinder and the piston? No friction between them, no abrasion, and no air leakage. Everyone knows that in practice, when a cylinder and a piston are used in an engine, no friction is impossible, no abrasion is impossible, and no air leakage is also impossible. Such ideal cylinder and piston do not really exist. They also certainly cannot exist for a period of one or two million years. But no one doubts or refuses Carnot’s brilliant conclusion deduced from these ideal models.

We should not confuse physical models with practical objects.

By the way, thanks to the rapid progress of science and technology, modern permanent magnets are of excellent quality. They are extremely close to ideal magnets. The situation is much better than the closeness of the modern cylinders and pistons to their ideal models, to say nothing about the poor and old styled cylinders and pistons available in Carnot’s time.

 

[OscarM]

Let me expand this thought. Suppose that this does work well in series, and that a power supply can be made from it. Let us suppose that an entire city is made to run on this kind of power. The electrical energy is being used in all types of appliances: blenders, TV, ham radios, etc. In the blender, the mechanical energy, lost to friction, becomes heat once again. With the TV, the light and sound is absorbed by the room that it's in, becoming heat. With the ham radio, EM waves are being scattered throughout the entire universe. A certain amount of energy which was once localized to the gas molecules in the air around the power plant is now being spread throughout the city, and some of it is actually going into space as radio waves. It seems to me that the entropy would be increasing.

No, because a central of this type will decreased the entropy to produce the electric energy.

Basically, what I'm saying is that this would kind of be like life. The response to the question, "Doesn't life violate entropy?" is often something like "It seems that way at first, but if you look more closely, life increases entropy." The same thing applies here as well. Though the device may seem to intially decrease entropy, it actually increases it in the long run.

The life don't violate the second law of thermodynamics. Only converts the light of the sun into chemical energy, and transform from one form to other.

The life can be autoorganized because works into an unbalanced system (permanent flux) where the sun irradiates energy and later, the Earth irradiates energy into deep spaces with a permanent flux of energetic conversions.

But, if this experiment is correct, entropy (random movement) could be converted into a flux (like electric current). This effect seems that only occurs with carged particles (electrons in this experiment) into a magnetic field. At so hard and specific conditions is normal that the nature don't replicate this.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Changing an objects state of motion produces a momentum change. Producing a momentum change produces an energy change.

You are confused. The magnetic field changes the direction of the electron's path. It does not add any energy to the electron in doing this.

This energy has to come from somewhere (the First Law of Thermodynamics).

You missed the whole point that the electrons are exited in the first place by thermiotic considerations. This heat is where all the energy in this system is coming from.

The electron, once exited, contains all the energy for the rest of the process. It is, in effect, merely bouncing off the magnetic field at right angles to its own velocity as described in the Lorentz force. Its energy comes exclusively from the heat that produced its thermiotic emission in the first place.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Xyfu,

While the set up is an interesting one in and of itself the matter of your claims about it is a separate issue. You are making claims about the set up which don't hold up to scrutiny. The logic of your claims is unsound. It is not acceptable to substitute electrons for the molcules spoken about by Maxwell. They are much too different in too many important ways.

Since your claim that the second law is violated here is based on that invalid substitution of electrons for air molecules, your claims are without merit.

Since you are expending thermal energy well in excess of the tiny current you are getting it does not even represent an efficient transducer of energy.

It is of theoretical interest, only. It is unusual. It violates no laws of physics, however, and is not a practical means of extracting electrical energy from heat.

 

[OscarM]

Xyfu,

While the set up is an interesting one in and of itself the matter of your claims about it is a separate issue. You are making claims about the set up which don't hold up to scrutiny. The logic of your claims is unsound. It is not acceptable to substitute electrons for the molcules spoken about by Maxwell. They are much too different in too many important ways.

Since your claim that the second law is violated here is based on that invalid substitution of electrons for air molecules, your claims are without merit.

I don't know why. I allways think that magnetic is the only force that could revert (of possible) the heat because make a different force according to the actual direcction of the particle. Necessary condition to convert random motion into non random.

Since you are expending thermal energy well in excess of the tiny current you are getting it does not even represent an efficient transducer of energy.

It is of theoretical interest, only. It is unusual. It violates no laws of physics, however, and is not a practical means of extracting electrical energy from heat.

Well, It is only a first step.
If scientific community recognizes this macroscopic violation, it could be investigated more deeper.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I allways think that magnetic is the only force that could revert (of possible) the heat because make a different force according to the actual direcction of the particle.

This sentence has no meaning. One problem with it is that you are trying to use the verb revert transitively. It is, however, an intransitive verb. Another problem is that the sequence of words "because make a different force" lacks a noun or possibly an article, depending on what you meant it to mean. I think, too, that when you said "(of possible)" you probably meant "(if possible)", but I can't be sure.

Necessary condition to convert random motion into non random.

This is an incomplete sentence. Under the circumstances, I have no real idea what you are trying to say with it.

Well, It is only a first step.
If scientific community recognizes this macroscopic violation, it could be investigated more deeper.

There is no violation, macroscopic or microscopic.

 

[OscarM]

This sentence has no meaning. One problem with it is that you are trying to use the verb revert transitively. It is, however, an intransitive verb.

I was trying to say that you could reconvert random movement into one way movement.

Another problem is that the sequence of words "because make a different force" lacks a noun or possibly an article, depending on what you meant it to mean. I think, too, that when you said "(of possible)" you probably meant "(if possible)", but I can't be sure.

Ok. I write English very bad. (I'm Spanish)
But you forget my writing.

This is an incomplete sentence. Under the circumstances, I have no real idea what you are trying to say with it.

I'm trying to explain that how could you convert random motion into a flux if the field makes the same effect to all particles?
But, charged particles over a magnetic field has this "magical" effect.
The particles with greater cinetic energy describes a circle motion with greater radius.

There is no violation, macroscopic or microscopic.

[/QUOTE]
No violation?
They are converting heat into electric current. (very low, but it is)

 

[zoobyshoe]

I was trying to say that you could reconvert random movement into one way movement.

Converting one form of motion to another is nothing special at all.

I'm trying to explain that how could you convert random motion into a flux if the field makes the same effect to all particles?

There is no random motion being converted into any flux.

No violation?
They are converting heat into electric current. (very low, but it is)

Converting heat to electric current is not new or unusual in any way. This was the principle used in the old vacuum tubes. It is also demonstrated in the Seebeck Effect:

Thermoelectric Battery
Address:http://physics.kenyon.edu/EarlyAppa...oelectric_Battery/Thermoelectric_Battery.html

 

[OscarM]

Converting one form of motion to another is nothing special at all.

There is no random motion being converted into any flux.

Where do you think that the energy of the experiment come from?

Converting heat to electric current is not new or unusual in any way. This was the principle used in the old vacuum tubes. It is also demonstrated in the Seebeck Effect:

Thermoelectric Battery
Address:http://physics.kenyon.edu/EarlyAppa...oelectric_Battery/Thermoelectric_Battery.html

Thermoelectric effect requires a difference of temperature.
If it wasn't neccesary then it will violate the second law.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Where do you think that the energy of the experiment come from?

It comes from the heat that causes the thermiotic emission of the electrons

Thermoelectric effect requires a difference of temperature. If it wasn't neccesary then it will violate the second law.

I cited the Seebeck effect because you seemed to think it was amazing that heat could be transduced to electricity. The effect by which the electrons are released from the cathodes in Xyfu's set up is The Edison Effect, which you may google yourself to learn more about.

 

[OscarM]

It comes from the heat that causes the thermiotic emission of the electrons

I cited the Seebeck effect because you seemed to think it was amazing that heat could be transduced to electricity. The effect by which the electrons are released from the cathodes in Xyfu's set up is The Edison Effect, which you may google yourself to learn more about.

I know that heat could be converted into electricity. But only when some material is heat and another cooler. The Second Law (and Edison Effect is not an exception) prohibe obtain a electric current from the heat (entropy) without difference of temperature.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I know that heat could be converted into electricity. But only when some material is heat and another cooler. The Second Law (and Edison Effect is not an exception) prohibe obtain a electric current from the heat (entropy) without difference of temperature.

You are correct. In the Edison Effect the flow of energy is from higher energy density to lower. The second law is not violated.

 

[OscarM]

You are correct. In the Edison Effect the flow of energy is from higher energy density to lower. The second law is not violated.

I don't see the difference of temperature in the xyfu's experiment.

 

[geometer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by geometer
Changing an objects state of motion produces a momentum change. Producing a momentum change produces an energy change.

Quote:
Originally posted by zoobyshoe:
You are confused. The magnetic field changes the direction of the electron's path. It does not add any energy to the electron in doing this.


Wait a minute, isn't a change in an object's direction of motion an acceleration? And, if so, this implies a force was applied (Newton's 2nd Law), which implies work was done on the electron, which implies an energy change.

 

[xyfu]

Originally posted by Oscarm
I was trying to say that you could reconvert random movement into one way movement.

Thermoelectric effect requires a difference of temperature.
If it wasn't neccesary then it will violate the second law.

I know that heat could be converted into electricity. But only when some material is heat and another cooler. The Second Law (and Edison Effect is not an exception) prohibe obtain a electric current from the heat (entropy) without difference of temperature.

I don't see the difference of temperature in xyfu's experiment.

Oscarm, you understand our ideas and the experiment very precisely. Thank you.

Originally posted by Oscarm
But, if this experiment is correct, entropy (random movement) could be converted into a flux (like electric current). This effect seems that only occurs with charged particles (electrons in this experiment) into a magnetic field. At so hard and specific conditions is normal that the nature don't replicate this.

We agree with you. The structure of our elecronic tube (FX1) is special. There is no similar material structure in nature. We hold that nature has its own way to re-aggregate and renew the energy lost in the vast cosmic space in the form of light and thermal radiation. This way of nature is totally different from the way of the cathodes-magnetic field apparatus. If you are interested, please read our another arxiv paper: The Origin of Energy for the Big Bang, http://www.arxiv.org/list/ astro-ph/0311472

 

[OscarM]

Oscarm, you understand our ideas and the experiment very precisely. Thank you.

Not at all.

We agree with you. The structure of our elecronic tube (FX1) is special. There is no similar material structure in nature. We hold that nature has its own way to re-aggregate and renew the energy lost in the vast cosmic space in the form of light and thermal radiation. This way of nature is totally different from the way of the cathodes-magnetic field apparatus. If you are interested, please read our another arxiv paper: The Origin of Energy for the Big Bang, http://www.arxiv.org/list/ astro-ph/0311472

Well. We don't know a lot of things about the universe. And facts was against your model.
If we lived into a closed universe, how is possible that the universe is accelerating?
And we don't know how a singularity could be broken and generate a Big Bang (although it must be exists or we don't be here)

But you have indicated an important point. Black Holes capture entropy and this is important to avoid a overheating of the universe.

 

[LENIN]

I have a few questinons abut the cathodes in the tube.

If I understand them corectly they eject elecrons becouse of heat. But in vacuum tube thereis no air and the only way heat can be trensferd from the outside of the tube on to the cathodes is by infrared light. So it seams that they act a bit like the photoefect. So if I understan it the cathodes should slovley wear out and that would explein where the missing enthropy is.

Pleas corect me if I'm wrong.

 

[ZapperZ]

I have a few questinons abut the cathodes in the tube.

If I understand them corectly they eject elecrons becouse of heat. But in vacuum tube thereis no air and the only way heat can be trensferd from the outside of the tube on to the cathodes is by infrared light. So it seams that they act a bit like the photoefect. So if I understan it the cathodes should slovley wear out and that would explein where the missing enthropy is.

Pleas corect me if I'm wrong.

I'll answer this for a generic cathode and not specificially for this particular experiment.

A thermionic cathode emit electrons via heating the cathode. You heat the cathode by passing current through it. So the fact that it is in vacuum is of no concern. In fact, in all of these cathodes, you want them to be in a vacuum or else electron transport is hindered.

A photocathode works using the photoelectric effect phenomena. There's no heating here. All you need are photons with energy larger than the cathode work function.

The cathodes in both setup do not exactly "wear out", because they are connected to ground i.e. they are typically grounded or connected in a closed circuit, so the electrons that left the surface are continually replenished. In a photocathode, especially, you definitely want it grounded because if you don't, you will have a build up of charges (charging effect) that will significantly alter the work function of the cathode.

Zz.

 

[LENIN]

Thanks for the explination, Zz.

I have qouit a hard time with this thing. It's hard to believe that the second law of thermodynamics is wrong.

 

[pervect]

Thanks for the explination, Zz.

I have qouit a hard time with this thing. It's hard to believe that the second law of thermodynamics is wrong.

Extremely hard. That's why I don't believe the claims that it is wrong.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Wait a minute, isn't a change in an object's direction of motion an acceleration? And, if so, this implies a force was applied (Newton's 2nd Law), which implies work was done on the electron, which implies an energy change.

I don't know how to analyse this situation with terminological rigor. The point I was trying to make, however clumsily, I think is still accurate, and that is that no energy is lost by the magnetic field and added to the electron during this interaction. The term "acceleration, I know, encompases deceleration, and a "change in energy" can refer to a drop in energy, as well as an increase. The electron can technically "accelerate" and experience a "change in energy" because of its interaction with the magnetic field and still end up with less than it started with.

My primary goal was to counter the notion a couple people seemed to have that a magnetic field represents "stored" energy that is depleted with each use, like a capacitor or battery. A magnetic field can't be used as a "power source" in that way at all.

If work is done on the electron in a technical sense it is only because the electron first did work on the magnetic field. I think this is like a hard ball bouncing off an elastic surface: the ball gives its energy to the surface which then gives it back to the ball.

If the magnetic field suffers an energy loss from this interaction, say at some quantum level (I have no idea if it does) then this is quite different from the phenomenon by which magnets lose their magnetism over time. A couple people seemed to think magnets lose their field strength by getting "used up" so to speak, with continued use, as if they contained a finite amount of energy that was withdrawn with each use, like money from a bank account. They thought this finite amount of energy was being put into them when they were magnetised. But magnets aren't analagous to storage batteries or capacitors.

 

[LENIN]

I just got tjis idea but I don't know if it's any good.
When I looked over tha plans I didn't find any grounding. So it seams that there is no new electorns in the curcit. The ones that are alredy in are trtensfering all the energy. But I think that some of them exit the sistem and that this electrons are the missing enthropy

 

[xyfu]

Originally posted by Lenin

I have quite a hard time with the thing. It's hard to believe that the second law of thermodynamics is wrong.

So far as mankind is informed, all practical processes result in the degeneration of energy. It is most common in everyday life that useful energy, once used, will be transformed into waste one. The reverse transformation, i.e., waste energy converts into useful one, has never been found till now. Hence, though energy is surely conserved in quantity, for every piece of energy that the nature granted us, we can use it once only. It cannot be used repeatedly.That is the second law of thermodynamics.

There were two opposite opinions about this law in the world of physics:

On one side, the representative is the prominent German physicist Rudolf Clausius who put forth in 1850 the second law of thermodynamics, and introduced in later the concept of entropy, declaring that the universe is doomed to go forward step by step to a final destination, the Heat Death. Then, no any useful energy left, only waste ones at a uniform low temperature.

Then we have James Clerk Maxwell, the most outstanding physicist of the nineteenth century, as the giant on the other side. He proposed that if we can see and interfere (or control) the motion of the individual molecules of a gas, which is initially at a uniform temperature and a uniform pressure, we will be able to renew the waste energy to useful one again, in contradiction to the second law of thermodynamics.

This is a major dispute in the history of physics. Which of the two opinions will win eventually?

Oh, we see that the dispute is still going on. Nevertheless, Maxwell’s molecules in a vessel (at certain temperature) are now replaced by thermal electrons in a vacuum tube.

Realization of Maxwell's Hypothesis http://www.arxiv.org/list/physics/0311104

 

[LENIN]

I have a question xyfu, that my not be of any importance but I'm wondering. For how long did you leave your tube in runing (aprox.)?

 

[xyfu]

An answer to Lenin


The instrument we used to measure the current, electrometer ZC43, was not of a very ideal quality. In most times, it can be kept in a stable state for about thirty minutes. During the stable peoriod, the current produced in our test could flow continuosly.

We know there is some better instrument, for example, KEITHLEY Model 6517. But it is too expensive, and we cannot afford for it.

We have failed many times in making the electronic tubes. and most of the money (our own money) was spent in making the tubes. So far, there is no financial support from any institute for the experiment.

But this is not a real problem. We can progress, though rather slowly.

 

[LENIN]

I hope you get some suport becouse this seams to be quit an iteresting experiment and alldo it may not work in contrdiction to the secon law I still believe it could be very useful. You should definately try to improve your tubes. I would love to see progres in this area.

 

[xyfu]

Dear Lenin,

Thank you for your kindness.

xyfu and ztfu

 

[what_are_electrons]

A couple of ideas that might help.

In my suggestions below, I am assuming that the flow of electricity in the device occurs while the fixed magnet is at rest and is not subject to any sort of vibration or motion.

Have you had a chance to perform this experiment in total darkness with no chance of any UV or visible light? This would probably eliminate most of the thoughts that there are photoelectric type effects at work.

Once the device is inside this light-free container, have you had the chance to change the temperature around just the device? Hopefully, all the other electronics can be maintained at a near constant temperature. Assuming you get a response to the heat only change, this would demonstrate that heat is the cause.

Since Heat is still an infrared type of photon energy, it might then be interesting to devise a cheap system to stop infrared photons from reaching the device while allowing various wavelengths of other light to reach the device, if such a system is possible.

Odd notes:
Alkali metals, such as Cs, are well known to drop the work function such that electrons can be freed. When Cs is made into an oxide, it probably is a better emitter. The Ag is interesting because Ag is well know for its sensitivity to light (eg photography and Surface Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy). Cs is also used in SIMS to enhance the production of fragments that might not otherwise be observed.

I'm just now wondering about Cu and its oxides because they are just above Ag in the periodic table and they are used as self-regenerating catalysts, but this may be true only in the presence of air.

These odd notes are just some thoughts that might stimulate your efforts to improve the output of the single unit if that's possible.

Good luck!

 

[xyfu]

Originally posted by Vince

Have you had a chance to perform this experiment in total darkness with no chance of any UV or visible light? This would probably eliminate most of the thoughts that there are photoelectric type effects at work.

Once the device is inside this light-free container, have you had the chance to change the temperature around just the device? Hopefully, all the other electronics can be maintained at a near constant temperature. Assuming you get a response to the heat only change, this would demonstrate that heat is the cause.

Our experiment was performed in total darkness. The electronic tube FX1 was enclosed in a copper box whose walls and top and bottom are all made of copper plates six millimeter in thickness. No any light or UV could enter the box and reach the tube.

We dared not to change the room temperature by an air conditioner, etc. Air conditioner will cause serious difference in temperature along the whole testing circuit, i.e., the circuit composed of tube FX1, the cable and the input resistance of the electrometer ZC43 (which is a load in the test). Such a difference in temperature along the circuit will result in Seebeck electric motive force and so on, which is terrible to our test. Ideal or very high quality constant-temperature box or constant-temperature room is very expensive for us. Common constant-temperature box or constant-temperature room is not qualified for the experiment.

Maybe we can do an experiment in the warm afternoon, and repeat the experiment in the cool midnight. The difference in temperature between day and night may be up to five or even ten degrees. In either case the temperature along the circuit can be kept constant finely.

Nevertheless, may be, the change in current due to such a change in temperature is not very obvious, and the sensibility of the electrometer ZC43 might also change slightly, and so on.

We have considered doing the test at different temperatures. Nevertheless, there were difficulties, and we stopped the effort. Anyway, just as you said, to get for the current a response to heat is very convincible. It is worth making efforts to try.

Thanks for your suggestion.