Heat surrounds us, not just on our planet, but even in the bleak darkness of space there is a tiny amount of heat. From my early lessons heat is energy, is that wrong? So what would it take to turn the ambient heat that surrounds all of us into electricity?

I know I am not the first person to think of this, the soviets were trying to do this long before I was born. http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=g...ifier=AD0603394

Has anything come of this recently? From my little brain, I'm thinking you could not transfrom heat into electricity without donating some energy to the process. Does that make any sense?

If I was to try and do something like this, I would imagine I would need to create a device that uses the energy from an element to make this happen. So that I could take an element, set my little device in motion and it would transfer heat to electricity by sucking away my added element little by little.

Any physics people out there want to chime in?

Energy transfer results in energy loss. Transfer with heat even more so. But if you can increse efficiency you may still win a great deal of energy. (and seen the fact otherwize the heat would just dissipate, any and all electricity gathered from it can be considered a gain)
Now I am a chemist; and not quite familiar with plasma's or space-radiation so I cannot comment too much on your very brief article.

In my opinion alot of energy can be won from fusion. If the direct way ever works we will be fine for our energy needs for awhile.
If not, the indirect way (Sunlight) is also quite available
See here a nice article about the current state of solar energy research, both in sunlight to electrical and chemical energy and using solar heat in thermoelectric applications (turning heat into electricity as your header stated). These thermonelectric materials conduct heat badly, but electricity very well so they can transform thermal gradients into electricity.

(I hope everyone can open it and it's references - I am on a government network now with access to scientific journals, so I cannot be sure it's open for all)


But anyway; heat to electricity is possible

Razer,

You are right, even in the darkness of space there is a tiny amount of heat. Heat is really just a measure for the average kinetic (motion) energy of atoms in a gas. However, the density of the gas in space is very, very small unless you dig into the outskirts of a planet with an atmosphere (i.e., Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus...) or maybe even the sun. But if you are in space, even if you have [I]the[/] perfect energy transfer device that could convert all the heat within a given part of space, it would have to be rather big simply because of the energy density (not very much energy in any given part of "empty" space - again assuming being away from planets and suns). Exemplified, the density of the Earth atmosphere is ~4x10^19 molecules/cm3, whereas the density is 0.1 - 1000 atoms/cm3 in "empty space" (Link).

Zero loss heat-to-energy conversion is a pretty ambitious goal, as DevaDevil also pointed out in the above post. Also, all heat-to-energy conversion hinges on a heat difference, i.e. the temperature is higher in one part of your conversion gadget compared to other parts. Semiconductor materials are a good example on how this can be accomplished and several interesting papers on that subject has been presented. E.g., see here. The problem has so far been efficiency, but when the efficiency is above that of traditional means for generating electricity, it will be a very interesting area to look at

On a side note, we use the opposite effect a lot with a Peltier element, which is really a piece of piezo material. By applying a current one can transfer heat from one side of the Peltier element to the other, thus cooling something. We typically have one side fixed (glued) to some active component of sorts and the other to a heat sink, thereby transferring the heat from the active device to the heat sink. Unfortunately for us, the current can also be reversed, thereby transferring heat from the heat sink to the active device, which has resulted in a few accidentally "cooked" devices

Just my two cents on the matter.

Best,
Badeskov

Edited for typo.

Thermocouples ftw!

Are you saying atoms have to be in a gaseous form to have heat? a solid can't have kinetic (motion) energy in its atoms? Or are you saying the way to measure the kinetic energy is to put the atom in a gas? I'm confused.



Now I am extra confused, I thought heat was just a measure of energy. I though I could take a cubic meter of gas in my room and say it has a certain amount of heat energy. So heat and energy are two different things? If so, slap me and tell me what book I need to read.

Now if you are saying turning heat into electricity without an addition of some outside "energy source" I can totally wrap my brain around that. That is why I was saying if such a device was to exist... yadda yadda, you read my post.

Nope, I just referred to gaseous simply because I thought of space, where atoms are few and far apart - sorry for the confusion. Atoms in any material will have kinetic energy, which is the measure for the heat The main difference is really that in a gas the atoms will be flying around freely, whereas in a solid material they will be fixed in a lattice and can thus only vibrate.



The last part should have read "Zero loss heat-to-electricity conversion is a pretty ambitious goal". Obviously both heat and electricity are forms of energy, the question is the "cost" of converting from one form to the other! And unfortunately there will be some cost in terms of energy loss.

I think I was a bit too busy here when I typed it up, but hopefully this clears those mistakes up!

Best,
Badeskov

Could the nanocrystals float on Mercury or float/immerse in a kind of liquid conductor?

Is there anyway to use "nothing" and a gateway for energy conjuring or channeling.


and whatabout emotions?

If put x amount of energy into writing a poem, and you spend x10 ammount of energy crying about it. whats that mean?

I doubt that would be possible, but I do not know. I would look more towards nano carbon tube interconnects, all connecting to a single electrical pad to which a larger electrical wire can be connected. However, some obvious improvements of nano technology are required before that is feasible.

Best,
Badeskov

I can't agree more with that. Do you think it would be possible to convert heat into electicity and have the "cost" come at the expense of losing matter?

Would it be possible for one to build a device that converts heat into electricity and use the energy from the loss of a certain element or compound to perpetuate the reaction? Given that you kick start the reaction with some outside energy source?

My mind says it is possible, not that I have any ideas for the device that could do what I'm asking, just the idea of such a device is interesting to me.

Admittedly, no I do not think that is possible since you can argue that matter is energy through E=MC^2, so even if you lose matter it'll still be an energy loss. So I honestly do not see how that is possible with the pure heat to electricity conversion, but I might be wrong and maybe someone else can chip in on this. What you describe sounds more like a fusion reactor, where the initial fusion is initiated by an outside source and when the fusion process reaches a certain level give out more power than is pumped into it. And the heat-to-electricity transfer would be perfect to actually convert the heat energy generated by the fusion

But I'll ponder it a little bit and get back to you

Best,
Badeskov

Badeskov is right in that the technology leant towards fullerene-type carbon nanotubes. A conducting liquid is impossible as that would also shortcut the dots; ending energy conversion effectively.

And as with all technology, the design itself may not be the issue; making is cheaper (through efficient bulk production) and (because of a cheaper price) marketable is.

Indeed so, in the end it all boils down to making it cheap to manufacture

Best,
Badeskov

I posted this in another thread... but it's relevant here....

geothermal heating.... an excellent natural source for power...

Forget nuclear power... we know that it is ridiculous..... harmful to the environment....

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/01...t-20070123.html


"
Geothermal energy could be major U.S. power source: report
Last Updated: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 | 12:38 PM ET
CBC News

A new in-depth study by U.S. researchers has found that much of that country's electricity needs could be supplied by harnessing geothermal energy.

The 400-page study â€â€� the first of its kind in 30 years â€â€� led by scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Mass., found that the heat energy stored in the Earth's rocky crust could likely be exploited cheaply and with little environmental impact.

The researchers examined the feasibility, possible ecological impact and economic potential of using so-called enhanced geothermal system (EGS) technology to give a major boost to the proportion of geothermal energy that could be used commercially. The study was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy.

"We've determined that heat mining can be economical in the short term, based on a global analysis of existing geothermal systems, an assessment of the total U.S. resource and continuing improvements in deep-drilling and reservoir stimulation technology," panel head Jefferson W. Tester of MIT said in a written statement.

The panel's recommendations in The Future of Geothermal Energy report include assessing potential sites in greater detail and seeing the federal government make a multi-year pledge to back a commercial-scale demonstration of the technologies.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power



earth warming tubes (also known as ground-coupled heat exchangers) utilize the earth's near constant subterranean temperature to warm or cool air for residential, farm or industrial uses. They are often a viable and economical alternative to conventional heating, cooling or heat pump systems since there are no compressors, chemicals or burners and only blowers are required to move the air.

Earth tubes are regularly used in Europe to pre-heat (or pre-cool) air for the whole-building heat recovery ventilation systems that are used in buildings designed to the German Passive House standard.





How it works

Hot rocks underground heat water to produce steam.
We drill holes down to the hot region, steam comes up, is purified and used to drive turbines, which drive electric generators.

There may be natural "groundwater" in the hot rocks anyway, or we may need to drill more holes and pump water down to them.
a geothermal power station

The first geothermal power station was built at Landrello, in Italy, and the second was at Wairekei in New Zealand. Others are in Iceland, Japan, the Philippines and the United States.

In Iceland, geothermal heat is used to heat houses as well as for generating electricity.

If the rocks aren't hot enough to produce steam we can sometimes still use the energy - the Town Hall in Southampton, England, is partly heated this way.

http://home.clara.net/darvill/altenerg/geothermal.htm

well from what i understand, in nuclear electric plants, graphite rods are placed against uranium, which creates a reaction of heat. this boils water into steam which drives a turbine which makes electricity, so yes, you are right, there is a way to turn heat into electricity. as for the "harmful" waste, check this out: they turn it into glass. http://redlandsapps.redlands.edu/news/archive/101700.htm so it cant seep into the ground, and can be stored elsewhere.

In nuclear plants the control rods are control rods: they are inserted into the reaction chamber to absorb radiated particles, slowing the reaction: they do NOT cause the reaction, they control it. Lose them, have a meltdown. See Chernobyl. See Three Mile Island.
The heat generated in a fission reaction is extreme. The steam is superheated. It's easy to use superheated steam to generate electric power.
The waste is harmful. It is radioactive. The fission elements are quite heavy. Since we have no knowledge of alchemy, those elements cannot be converted into other lighter non-radioactive elements such as glass. The half life of those wastes is usually greater than 25,000 years, and that's why they are stored deep underground (to come back and haunt humans far in the future).
Nuclear energy is not now, never has been, and in present technology never will be safe. So get off the nuclear bit, it is NOT the saviour of mankind's energy problems.

Technology to directly convert heat to electricity has been around a long while. Generally it just doesn't work very well. When someone comes up with something that does, the derision comes out of the closet and the technology goes underground. People watch such nonsense as Mythbusters and take their antics as gospel, seemingly not knowing that they are pure amateurs. People take the words of conventional scientists and conventional pseudo-scientists and make them into the words of gods: they are not. Conventional scientists seem to desire the status quo: if something is extraordinary and defies Maxwell or Einstein or Feynmann, then it must be wrong, and yet they haven't explained many of the mysteries surrounding physics. Nor will they, so long as egotism exists.
Hundreds of inventions have been patented that could help us in the energy crisis. Just look at the patents. But where do they go? Into the "bit bucket" of physics, because some jerks have stupid ideology.

But the use of ambient heat will require minds that are hugely more creative than the current ones. It will also require that those minds dig around and find some of the existing technology, such as heat diodes, and use the stuff in more creative ways.
Personally, I'll stick with more conventional researches that for me yield better results.

Thanks Badeskov, DevaDevil.
What if a voltage is applied?
For example, in this case

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolyte

add dots into it, then, what will happen? more H2?

Or if adding dots into car battery, then will the battery be reinforced?

Or you use dot cell as battery for nano robots, so they can build nano tube in low cost? The new battery sounds like sand paper.

Hope you find an easy way to pile dot cells up and put it to market as early as possible.

No, that is unfortunately not going to help you. First of all, applying an external voltage sort of defeats the purpose of having the dots generating electricity. Secondly, you still have the issue of shorting all the energy generating nodes out.



In the current context, stuffing dots in a battery is not going to help you either, I am afraid. Having these dots in a material provides some electricity conducting properties, but it will not help you store energy like what is required in a battery.

Best,
Badeskov

Thank you for making things clear.

These dots are not like battery, but more like solar cell, in nano scale.

You can think of it that way; in stead of transforming fotons into electrical energy it changes temperature gradients into electric energy (which you then have to store somewhere, just as in solar cells)


PS your wiki link describes the electrolysis of water decently well, this reaction can for example be used to transform the generated electrical energy of solar cells into storable chemical energy (hydrogen)

So it's more like thermocouple. Inside the car engine compartment and its exhaust pipe, there is lots of heat. It may find temperature gradients easily.

Hybrid car: hydrogen + heat to electric, is it possible in low cost?

PS just couldn't imagine how the "short circuit" happen when nanocrystals (without pins- nano carbon tube interconnects) submerge in the salty water applied a voltage? You need nano carbon tube to collect the electrons from tiny dots. Without nanotube, electrons are still inside nanocrystals, how could they be "short circuited"? Prvovided temperature gradients to saline water, nanocrystals could produce electrons. "Lone electrons normally cannot pass through the electrolyte; instead, a chemical reaction occurs". When "short circuited", a chemical reaction must occur, right? Can you draw some scripts to help my stuck mind? What does nanocrystal look like? Does it have p-n node like diode?

I see where you are coming from. However, I do not believe the creation of more energy is the question. Instead, ask how you can convert that energy into work; now that's the hard part.