Jump to content

FragmentedCurve

Members
  • Content Count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About FragmentedCurve

  • Rank
    Lepton

Profile Information

  • Location
    New York
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Mathematics & Physics

Recent Profile Visitors

424 profile views
  1. No apologies are needed. These are exactly the kind of discussions I was hoping to stimulate. Given that I am more rusty than Carrock, I feel like I don't have a lot to contribute. I'm reviewing material and trying to answer my own questions before coming back here and naively pushing them onto you. I know it wouldn't produce a lot of electrical energy. Also, electrical energy isn't a requirement either. The reason I mentioned electrical energy is because its probably the most useful form of energy for practical purposes. But the end result doesn't matter much as long as its somewhat more useful than the input (the hot air). The point behind my post was about structuring a material that would be able to excite an electron on a chlorophyll-like molecule by only the kinetic energy of gaseous particles alone. I just realized why I'm having trouble communicating my response. There's really two parts to my inquiry. The first part is about constructing such a material. The second part is what are the effects of such a material on the temperature of a gaseous body. The thoughts about air conditioning were just the catalyst for thinking about the chemistry and physics of this situation. I attached a poorly drawn conceptual diagram. So the green particles hit A at the same time causing enough energy to be transferred to B and excite B's electron. Which laws of nature stop A from successfully exciting B's electron? I hope I did not come across a someone looking to convert heat with 100% efficiency or worse (someone looking for free energy).
  2. Can you narrow down which part is a violation for me or go into more detail?
  3. I am not a chemist nor a chemistry major. My background is in mathematics and CS. However, when I was majoring in mathematics, I enjoyed chemistry very much and spent a lot of time studying it on the side. Years later I find economics pulling me far away from anything that gave me meaning. Because of this, I've recently been returning to things that gave me a reason to wake up in the morning. The point of me saying all this is to warn you my rhetoric and understanding may be crude when it comes to chemistry. Back in college, when I was taking an inorganic chemistry course, I was daydreaming about gases and air conditioners and wondered why we spend energy to remove energy from the air. Couldn't we convert the kinetic energy in the air to cool down a room? I discussed this with the professor but she didn't have a lot to say about it. Then, I was thinking about chlorophyll and how specific parts of the light spectrum will hit it causing the electron (from the Mg atom I think) to become excited, converting that energy into chemical energy. Why can't a molecule do this for the kinetic energy in the air? From a user point of view, there would be a material on the wall, and the more material that is uncovered and exposed to the air, the more heat in the air would be converted into electrical energy. So the temperature of a room would be controlled by how much of the material is exposed. Extending the crux of the idea a little, maybe the material would consist of layers. So the top layer would be an amplifier, to hit the chlorophyll-like molecule with enough force to excite the electrical energy. So, if 3 gaseous particles hit an amplifying molecule on the top layer, it redirects the impact from all three into a single point. The end goal of the material is to convert the heat in the air to electrical energy and store it somewhere else. Besides the material not existing, is this absurd? Is there any merit in this line of thought? What are your thoughts?
  4. Testing [math]\sum_{i=1}^{n} i = \frac{n(n + 1)}{2}[/math] This is inline [math]f(x) = x^{2}[/math]. The LaTex isn't rendered when previewing a post.
  5. I need to make my first post somewhere, so why not here. I think it would help if you showed your attempt. Before I attempt to explain part B, let me ask you: is 0 in the interval (0, inf) and what's the closest real number to 0?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.