Electric neutrino generator

[Exnihiloest]

...
See here from May 2020 https://neutrino-wiki.com/physicists-ju ... ss-energy/

For me he is a scientist who goes astray.

Why?
Do you have skills in neutrino physics and are you going to be able to explain to us the impossibility that we would have to recover their energy?

[Exnihiloest]

Like L'ami Raoult, they prefer to publish by youtube than by scientific publications ...

It's wrong.
On youtube, it's not a communication from the company or the researchers, it's a report from a channel devoted to science, which I just provided as an entry point for curious minds. Then the mind, when it has its foot in the stirrup and if it is curious, will look further.

I had no trouble from the video, finding a more scientific link explaining the principle:
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-release ... 88769.html
lessdewatt found this one equally valid:
https://neutrino-wiki.com/physicists-ju ... ss-energy/

I then went to look for their patent which I found on Google, unfortunately in German, and since it is a pdf, not practical to use the machine translators (if anyone knows any online that comes out a pdf from of a pdf, I am taker).

Then I went to their site ( https://neutrino-energy.com/scientific-advisory-board/ ). I found the list of scientists involved. I only spotted a funny guy (Konstantin Meyl), the others I don't know them. All teachers or engineers apparently, and there are many of them.

I also noted that the University of Kansas is involved.

Of course all this does not prove anything, but it is the minimum of effort to be made before criticizing a subject. Your allusion to Raoult, the story of speaking in order to say nothing, is quite distressing.

For my part, I do not yet have a clear opinion. I have already seen German companies present perpetual energy machines, including with a demonstration at a fair of large machines (like a 6-meter-high tower with a water bath at the base, gears, chains and floats supposed to draw energy of the force of Archimedes, and which we never heard of again). So a high level scam, or a crash like we had with the Irish company Steorn, can never be ruled out.
The energy of the neutrinos is low but there are a lot of neutrinos, so I will have to find out about the fluxes that can be expected and calculate the theoretical energy that we could extract. If it is sufficient, then we will have to take a closer look at their process, and ask ourselves whether the energy really comes from the neutrinos and not from an experimental artefact.
That's why I wrote "I can't believe it". But we cannot condemn everything a priori either.
"To doubt everything or to believe everything, these are two equally convenient solutions, which both exempt us from thinking"
H Poincaré

[ABC2019]

Not that long ago, how long did it take to "recognize" "radio waves".

How was it received, without a real A to Z explanation of why and how ...?

you know very little about the history of science. Radio waves have been predicted theoretically by Maxwell's equations, and Hertz did his experiment to verify their existence, and we did detect them - so we knew very well what it was when we discovered them, the explanation already existed!
If you wanted to give an example of a discovery that took a long time to be explained, take radioactivity instead. But neutrinos are the same, their existence was predicted by Pauli BEFORE their existence was confirmed, and we know their properties well enough to know how to build detectors and analyze their energy with these detectors - except that their interactions are extremely rare and therefore they can deposit only a tiny energy in matter. And again, you can't extract more electrical energy than the source can produce as maximum heat. It's just elementary thermo-again.

[ABC2019]

I had no trouble from the video, finding a more scientific link explaining the principle:
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-release ... 88769.html

this is just incomprehensible gibberish - try to find a single peer-reviewed article published in a real journal (such a discovery is worth AT LEAST an article in Nature or in Physical Review Letters, right?), the discovery is supposed to date from 2015 !!

the history of the mass of neutrinos is a complete blank, I repeat that a particle does not need mass to have energy, the proof is the photon. And we already know very well how to use it, thank you!

[Exnihiloest]

Well I watched the video, I confirm: it's big bullshit from A to Z.
The guy interviewed in the middle of the video is Paul Thibaudo, the same signer as the famous article on the conversion of thermal energy by graphene. Looks like he's not talking about converting monothermal thermal energy anymore, we finally explained to him that it couldn't work, so he went back to neutrinos? In any case, I put him in the list of fucked up scientists.
Then the video gets excited about the fact that we have shown that neutrinos have mass, and THEREFORE they have kinetic energy! eh coco, that's basic relativity, all particles have energy, EVEN THOSE WHICH HAVE NO MASS! some are called photons, and plants have been using them for energy for just 4 billion years, and they can even make electric currents!
who cares about mass, what matters is energy, and then what's called the interaction cross section, and the neutrino cross section is ridiculously small, billions of billions of times smaller than that of photons !

All particles have energy, even "massless particles", yes. But a "massless particle" is not really a particle, or is, but only if we stick to the old particle concept. A photon, for example, is above all a bundle of electromagnetic energy, whose topology of fields in space and time is not trivial and depends on the photon. It is not a "grain". No boson is.
As long as we didn't know that the neutrino had mass, how could we have recovered its energy? Unlike the photon, no electric or magnetic field with which the charges interact easily, accompanies it. I therefore understand that the discovery that it has a mass, even almost zero, changed the situation concerning the idea of ​​recovering its energy, because then we had access, as for any mass moving in relation to the observer, to its kinetic energy.

... so: in your opinion: what order of magnitude is the thermal power released by neutrinos interacting with a sheet of metal, or even with the whole Earth?

This is not the point. We know that neutrinos interact little with ordinary matter because of their near-zero mass, so even the thermal energy of all neutrinos passing through the earth and recovered by it must be minimal.
Let’s draw a parallel with electromagnetism: the radio electromagnetic waves passing through the air hardly interact with it, so the thermal energy dissipated in the air will be very small too. Now if you put an antenna in their path, you get a signal well, and even the effective "cross-section" of the antenna on the electromagnetic flux is much greater than the "geometric" cross-section of the antenna (I does not go into details but I can if necessary). Here with our neutrinos, I'm playing devil's advocate, one can imagine that their graphene presents the same type of "obstacle" to neutrinos (a plasmon? Exploiting their oscillations? ...).
For me the theoretical impossibility can only be demonstrated if the energy of the neutrino fluxes passing through their equipment is considerably less than what they claim to recover.

[Exnihiloest]

Not that long ago, how long did it take to "recognize" "radio waves".

How was it received, without a real A to Z explanation of why and how ...?

you know very little about the history of science. Radio waves have been predicted theoretically by Maxwell's equations, and Hertz did his experiment to verify their existence, and we did detect them - so we knew very well what it was when we discovered them, the explanation already existed!

Yes, and it's pretty fun because there is no recipe. Sometimes the theory predicts the existence of what has never been detected before, such as the electromagnetic waves that are highlighted later, Maxwell / Hertz affair, and sometimes it is the opposite, such as the photoelectric effect whose theory, the photon, is produced later (Becquerel / Einstein case).

[eclectron]

your argument would be entirely admissible if you gave a precise and concrete example of what you call one of my "personal delusions".

You just have to reread your initial comments here about me.
But we shouldn't expect too much from people whose business is denial (your friend too )

Delirium = Psychic disorder of a person who has lost contact with reality, who perceives and says things that do not agree with reality or evidence, regardless of their internal consistency.

What then "obviously inconsistent with reality" would I argue?

There you go, that's it, you're right in it and your boyfriend too
... you shouldn't expect too much from people whose business is denial (your friend too )

[ABC2019]

All particles have energy, even "massless particles", yes. But a "massless particle" is not really a particle, or is, but only if we stick to the old particle concept. A photon, for example, is above all a bundle of electromagnetic energy, whose topology of fields in space and time is not trivial and depends on the photon. It is not a "grain". No boson is.

Of course, but that in no way prevents it from collecting its energy or transforming it into electric current, all PV panels prove it .

As long as we didn't know that the neutrino had mass, how could we have recovered its energy?

well like photons by making them interact with detectors, moreover the detection of neutrinos was done long before their mass was determined! their mass allows them a particular phenomenon, the oscillation between several "flavors", which was therefore discovered by Kamiokande and gave them the Nobel Prize (amusingly Kamiokande was not built to study neutrinos but the decay of the proton, but the neutrinos were a background noise that had to be subtracted, and it was by studying it that they discovered the oscillation, already suspected before because of the deficit of solar neutrinos - and finally they did not never detected proton decay and won the Nobel Prize thanks to neutrinos).

Unlike the photon, no electric or magnetic field with which the charges interact easily, accompanies it. I therefore understand that the discovery that it has a mass, even almost zero, changed the situation concerning the idea of ​​recovering its energy, because then we had access, as for any mass moving in relation to the observer, to its kinetic energy.

no it has nothing to do with the mass, the detection is done by the weak interaction, indeed, but it was known before we knew if they had a mass or not. If they hadn't had mass, they would have moved at the speed of light, that's all.

... so: in your opinion: what order of magnitude is the thermal power released by neutrinos interacting with a sheet of metal, or even with the whole Earth?

This is not the point.

well if that's the question!

We know that neutrinos interact little with ordinary matter because of their almost zero mass,

not at all, that has nothing to do, the hypothetical particles of dark matter also interact very little with the matter because we have not yet detected any, on the other hand their mass is much greater than the known particles (of around 100 times that of the proton), and photons have zero mass but interact much more than neutrinos!

the strength of the interaction has nothing to do with the mass. Another example, protons are 1000 times heavier than e- and have the same electric charge.

therefore even the thermal energy of all neutrinos passing through the earth and recovered by it must be tiny.

and well you can not recover more energy than this thermal energy.

Let us draw a parallel with electromagnetism: the radio electromagnetic waves passing through the air hardly interact with it, so the thermal energy dissipated in the air will also be tiny. Now if you put an antenna in their path, you get a signal well, and even the effective "cross-section" of the antenna on the electromagnetic flux is much greater than the "geometric" cross-section of the antenna (I does not go into details but I can if necessary).

Of course, but neutrinos interact with matter and they already interact very little with the whole Earth, so I'm not telling you with a sheet of copper.

And the radio is the same, you will not recover a higher electric power in your antenna with the heat released by the interaction if you did not put a circuit behind. It is tiny, and on the contrary you have to SUPPLY electrical energy to amplify it.

On the other hand if you want to transport energy you can use an intense beam of microwaves, but similarly, you will not recover more power than the heat that you would produce by absorbing it - besides you can roast a bird. in a radar beam.

There with our neutrinos, I am playing the devil's advocate, we can imagine that their graphene presents the same type of "obstacle" to neutrinos (a plasmon? Exploiting their oscillations? ...).
For me the theoretical impossibility can only be demonstrated if the energy of the neutrino fluxes passing through their equipment is considerably less than what they claim to recover.

nah, neutrinos are not sensitive to electromagnetic radiation so to "plasmons", that the weak interaction - maybe possibly a special nuclear structure could amplify their detection a little but it has absolutely nothing to do with graphene.

FYI, when we want to detect very high energy neutrinos, we use km ^ 3 of ice in Antarctica, and yet we detect very little.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/IceCube

so their thing is just stew in sauce, that's all.

[ABC2019]

your argument would be entirely admissible if you gave a precise and concrete example of what you call one of my "personal delusions".

You just have to reread your initial comments here about me.
But we shouldn't expect too much from people whose business is denial (your friend too )

usual JOE method: you launch accusations and when you are asked to justify them, you don't give anything behind, just "you just have to read it again".
You're lucky not to be dragged into court for defamation!

[Exnihiloest]

As long as we didn't know that the neutrino had mass, how could we have recovered its energy?

well like photons by making them interact with detectors ...

The neutrino is not a boson but a fermion. You cut off just before my indication that we cannot, unlike photons, make them interact similarly.
If you read before answering, we would save time.

And the radio is the same, you will not recover a higher electric power in your antenna with the heat released by the interaction if you did not put a circuit behind.

Of course. I never said the opposite and it has nothing to do with what I was saying, but if that makes you happy ...

FYI, when we want to detect very high energy neutrinos, we use km ^ 3 of ice in Antarctica, and yet we detect very little.

Your info is trivial. I started the 1st post with "We are already having trouble detecting them ...".
The whole question is precisely whether their process allows them to interact more efficiently with neutrinos.. An argument that since an old method to detect them is bulky, then km ^ 3 will always be needed to do so, is not an argument, except to deny scientific progress.