is anyone out there savvy enough in physics to ponder my invention, i call it an inverse heating element which is exactly what it sounds like a band of material that converts intense heat and light into electrical wattage?
Since you don't tell us how it works, it is difficult to comment. Such devices do exist:
- solar cells
- boiler / steam turbine / generator
Does yours offer any advantages?
my hypothesis is a circuit that starts with a 9volt battery to the inverse element band which rests in a campfire; while in the campfire increases the amperage proceding out of the campfire into a thicker cable to a transformer delivering its power to a load (which requires more than 9volts) then returning to the 9volt at a depleted wattage.the advantage being that we don't have to be a primative steam based civilization anymore and can go to space with less dificulty.
You see it is direct current but you can power a dc motor to an ac generator. i'm just an out of work sci-fi illustrator but i got this idea and thought maybe it would work if i goteither the right person or maybe alot of people thinking about this. it might happen.
You see the device is beyond my understanding of physics hence i say is there anyone out there savvy enough in physics to ponder this. Thats what makes it a question because i don't know the answer. i do believe the definition of a question is one that gets an answer or comment/s and not another question.
i want this thread erased. the same way you keep erasing everything else i post on your site. all my answers and my questions you seem intent to erase, whell, erase this one now!
There's a group that will answer your question fairly quickly if you repost in the Science section (it's 11 sections down from here). It's like Big Bang Theory in there sometimes... A lot of people only look at one or two topics sections on this page so the people who can answer you may have missed your question.
Such devices already exist. They're called ''fuel cells''. They generate electricity from heat, often using propane gas, for example, and they don't even need the 9v battery (unless you want the ''push-button start'' kind).
heathfield - it can't be a fuel cell that schonovic is describing. In a fuel cell the energy is converted directly from chemical energy to electrical energy. It does not use heat energy as an intermediate step. Don't get me wrong, they are a brilliant way of getting energy from a fuel, they just do not fit schonovic's description.
Thermopiles are very inefficient, but useful where you have an abundant heat energy source and a high capacity heat sink. Some spacecraft use them, with a nuclear reactor as the energy source and space itself as the heat sink.
At the time of my previous post I thought thermopiles had efficiencies of a few percent. Then I found a tantalising reference to a nanotech conference in Houston next month where there is mention of "carbon tube thermopiles which conversion efficiency is currently estimated as about 40%". Unfortunately the abstract is not available when you follow the link.
(if you are interested, google "efficiency of thermopiles" and go to the www.ntsi.org link.)
Back in the late '60s I was using electrical generators in remote parts of the world to supply charging power for battery-operated radio-location transmitters. These generators comprised 6 cells, each with a propane gas burner under them. These heat-to-electricity generating units were called ''fuel cells''.
All the latest literature on fuel cells only makes mention of flameless chemical conversions. The fact that the term was also applied to the older combustion fuel cells seems to have been forgotten by a later generation. The upshot is that Schonovic's idea is not new, and such a means of generating electricity has been used in the past.