Would HE light applied to mercury vapor produce electricity?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the feasibility of generating electricity through the interaction of high-energy (HE) light and mercury vapor. Participants clarify that while passing an electric current through mercury vapor can produce light via ionization, the reverse process—using light to generate electricity—is not straightforward and typically requires specific conditions, such as those found in solar panels. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding the principles of ionization and the limitations of using mercury vapor in energy generation, particularly in comparison to other technologies like Geiger-Muller tubes and photovoltaic cells.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of ionization processes in gases
  • Familiarity with the principles of electricity and light interaction
  • Knowledge of photovoltaic technology and its applications
  • Basic grasp of thermodynamics, particularly energy conservation laws
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the ionization process in mercury vapor and its applications
  • Explore the design and function of Geiger-Muller tubes
  • Study photovoltaic cell technology and its efficiency in energy conversion
  • Investigate the principles of thermodynamics as they relate to energy generation
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, electrical engineers, and anyone interested in the principles of energy conversion and the applications of mercury vapor in technology.

davidsirmons
Messages
9
Reaction score
1
I'm likely going to have a ton of questions in the following weeks about a wide range of particle physics etc.
If (electricity X mercury vapor) = light, then multiplication being transitive, (light X mercury vapor) = electricity.
Can someone inform? I've found only mercury vapor as a metallic gas, and I'm specifically looking to create a model using sustained HE light as a basis for high voltage output.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
davidsirmons said:
If (electricity X mercury vapor) = light, then multiplication being transitive, (light X mercury vapor) = electricity.

Electricity X mercury vapor is not multiplication, so that particular rule does not apply. Note that running an electric current through nearly any material can generate light by virtue of simply heating the material up. The reverse (light X some material = electricity) isn't true except in very specific situations, such as solar panels.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters
If it would be a multiplication, then you would have electricity = (light)/(mercury vapor). But it is not a multiplication.
 
davidsirmons said:
If (electricity X mercury vapor) = light, then multiplication being transitive, (light X mercury vapor) = electricity.
In addition to being irrelevant, multiplication is not "transitive". Even if you did the algebra correctly, you would have ##electricity=\frac{light}{mercury\ vapor}##

Transitive: If a=b and b=c then a=c. Equality is transitive.
Commutative: ##a \times b = b \times a##. Multiplication is commutative.
Associative: ##a \times (b \times c) = (a \times b) \times c##. Multiplication is associative.
 
We should give the OP a break here. He is "guilty" of using inappropriate terminology, agreed, but his Physics is not misplaced. He just needs a 'symbol' which means "combined with in some way". I don't know of one :smile: so he should have just used a verbal description.
If you pass a current though Mercury Vapour it will ionise some molecules. When the electrons recombine there will be Photons emitted. The direction of the current to excite this is defined by an external power supply and the ionisation is sustained by the fast electrons that are supplied at the electrodes.
However, although a beam of incident high energy EM (photons) will ionise some of the mercury atoms, the ions will have no preferred direction to go so you can't expect the system to produce an 'electric current' (i.e. to be a generator). The ions will just recombine and emit a range of EM frequencies.
But you could imagine a detector of X Rays, which consisted of a container with mercury vapour in it and a low voltage across it; not high enough to produce ionisation so it would be 'off'. When sufficient flux of X Rays hits the tube, enough ions will be produced for a measurable current to flow. It would strike an arc which could go on for ever unless the supply voltage is removed and the ions would recombine.
A Geiger Muller tube works in this way but doesn't use Mercury Vapour, which needs to be heated to keep it from condensing. Low pressure Argon gas is commonly used. Also,the design of a GM tube allows very low energy particles through, to ionise the enclosed gas. But it's the same principle.
PS You need some form of 'diode' or one-way device for EM to generate a current in one direction. PV cells and phototransistors do this but not (afaik) ever with mercury.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters
sophiecentaur said:
We should give the OP a break here. He is "guilty" of using inappropriate terminology, agreed, but his Physics is not misplaced.

It may be if it's based on trying to apply mathematical rules to non-mathematical situations.
 
Drakkith said:
It may be if it's based on trying to apply mathematical rules to non-mathematical situations.
I didn't have any problem with understanding his question though and I think he was only using the Maths notation in order to 'fit in' with the way many threads converse.
It would be nice to hear from him again on this thread.
 
sophiecentaur said:
I didn't have any problem with understanding his question...
Nor did I.
Drakkith said:
It may be if it's based on trying to apply mathematical rules to non-mathematical situations.
Not if it is a literary usage, like a metaphor.
 
sophiecentaur said:
I didn't have any problem with understanding his question though and I think he was only using the Maths notation in order to 'fit in' with the way many threads converse.

russ_watters said:
Not if it is a literary usage, like a metaphor.

That certainly might be the case, but I have no way of knowing. The OP might literally think you can apply math rules directly to non-math situations.

sophiecentaur said:
It would be nice to hear from him again on this thread.

Agreed. Clarification would be helpful.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters
  • #10
So . . . . . about the Physics?
 
  • #11
sophiecentaur said:
So . . . . . about the Physics?
Well, to point out the obvious... The first law of thermodynamics (energy conservation) is OK with the reverse operation. The second law of thermodynamics says that it will not be a 100% efficient reversal.

However, observation shows very little evidence of Mercury vapor lamps being used in the daytime to pump electrical energy into the mains and quite a lot of evidence of other techniques being used to convert sunlight to electrical energy. This suggests that as a matter of engineering practice, a Mercury vapor lamp is not the best technology for the purpose.
 
  • #12
Yes, math is my one true heartbreak. I love science, astronomy, and a host of both artistic and cerebral interests, but math...alas.
Yes, I was using the transient property of math, and applying it to a physics problem. And to me, it seems like they're one and the same. Seems not.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
18
Views
5K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 152 ·
6
Replies
152
Views
11K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
5K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K