This graphene circuit produces energy indefinitely

[eclectron]

So you need a hot source and a cold source ...

No, I don't think so, just a hot spring: room temperature.
The atoms are moving in all directions and that's it.
From time to time but often enough , instead a "wave" in the center of the graphene. it is statistical.
The mechanical deformation must be minimal but sufficient for their system .... and probably only takes place because it is a sheet of thickness 1 atom.
if I got it right .... and not too extrapolated

[Christophe]

Ok good it's Casimir ... if I got it right .... and not too extrapolated

And why would the technique only concern small batteries?

[eclectron]

Ok good it's Casimir ... if I got it right .... and not too extrapolated

And why would the technique only concern small batteries?

Why Casimir?
To my knowledge Casimir exerts a static pressure and tends to bring together and that's it.
I don't see what would make the graphene peel off next.
While thermal agitation, yes.

Whether it is Casimir or the thermal movement of atoms, all this takes place on a really small scale.
Not easy to draw powers that would interest us.

[ABC2019]

As I understand it, this device is a nifty heat pump that converts it directly into electricity.

in this case it is not a heat pump, a heat pump consumes electricity to reverse the natural flow of heat (it transfers some from the cold source to the hot source). What produces electricity is a generator, that is to say the reverse: it uses a part of the natural flow from hot to cold to produce electricity.

It's like a WWTP, when it's used to produce electricity, it's a generator, and when it consumes it to raise water, it's like a heat pump.

[eclectron]

in this case it is not a heat pump

Not really, but without heat it doesn't work.

[ABC2019]

in this case it is not a heat pump

Not really, but without heat it doesn't work.

In fact, a heat pump does not need exchanged heat, on the contrary it causes a transfer of heat where there is not normally any. Whereas a thermal machine on the contrary uses an existing heat flow to "divert" it and transform part of it into work or electricity.

To talk about these things without saying c ... ies, you still have to understand the basic principles.

[eclectron]

To talk about these things without saying c ... ies, you still have to understand the basic principles.

Could you consider 1 second that we stammer before understanding something?

You just had to explain, if you had understood the operation.
Apart from saying that they are c ... ies, and noting that I used an abuse of language at the beginning, we haven't heard much from you.

Yeah, not very constructive coughed

We both love each other!

[Obamot]

Please note that this is not an energy generator but a recuperator ...energy not coming from nowhere ... if ???

a circuit of energy recovery Graphene based that can be embedded in a chip to provide clean, unlimited low voltage power to small devices or sensors

The explanatory video:

It remains interesting ... even if I did not understand everything (or rather understood nothing!)

Since we have a physicist on hand, I suggest that ABC2019 explains to us in detail, all the steps of this video!

(And quickly, before if it was “Simple” tell us that we will be able to propel a TGV with it, thank you )

[phil59]

Well, that's not possible.

Of course if it is ...

Microwaves are a very good energy carrier!

Without counterpart?

[ABC2019]

So you need a hot source and a cold source ...

No, I don't think so, just a hot spring: room temperature.

aheem ....

you need a little thermodynamics course ...
this is precisely what the laws of thermodynamics prohibit, the conversion of a monothermal source into work (or into electricity, it is the same). This amounts to saying that perpetual motion of the second kind is prohibited.

Reminder: perpetual movement of the first kind is a movement maintained from "nothing", ie a creation of energy. It is prohibited by the first principle of thermo (energy is conserved).
The perpetual motion of the second kind is a little more subtle: it does not consist in creating energy, and respects the first principle. on the other hand, it consists in transforming heat into work from a monothermal source.
It sounds innocent, but if we knew how to do that, we wouldn't need a power source anymore. For example, an electric car that brakes produces heat. If we knew how to transform 100% of the heat into electricity, we could recover the braking energy to recharge the battery, and therefore once the first charge has been carried out, no need for recharging. (NB in ​​fact the braking is largely electromagnetic so we recover a part of the energy, which is not prohibited, but not that in the form of heat.)
The second principle states that it is impossible. By a series of subtle and rigorous reasoning, Carnot showed that it was equivalent to saying
a) that a hot source and a cold source were necessarily needed, and that part of the heat had to be transferred to the cold source by being "lost".
b) that there were machines which could be reversible or irreversible, but that all reversible machines had to have exactly the same efficiency, and that all irreversible machines had to have a lower efficiency than reversible machines
c) that it was therefore sufficient to calculate the efficiency of ONE particular reversible machine to know the maximum efficiency of any machine, which he did with the "carnot cycle", which provided him with the maximum value of so-called Carnot 1 yield - Tf / Tc.

If we make Tf = Tc (a single temperature) then the efficiency is zero, hence the impossibility of producing electricity from a single temperature (and in particular from "ambient temperature").

Later Clausius demonstrated that this principle was equivalent to postulating the existence of a fundamental quantity called entropy, and postulating that the entropy of the Universe could only increase (the transformation of monothermal heat into work would make it decrease) .

Even later Boltzmann showed that this law could be interpreted within the framework of statistical physics, and that this amounted to saying that the number of microscopic states accessible to a system could only increase with time.

It has become an absolutely fundamental principle of physics, as important as relativity. So again, it's not a little lab experiment even with graphene or some other "nano object" that will contradict it. And if that had been the case, it would have been such a thunderclap in physics that it would have made all the headlines and won the Nobel Prize to its discoverers, which does not seem to be the case .... It's a bit like saying that we found an alien artifact on the Moon but no one had reported about it in the newspapers.