# Converting Waste Heat into Electricity Works Better in Two Dimensions (Bob Matulis)

The following post has been submitted by Bob Matulis

This article explains how a using 2D materials can produce a thermoelectric effect that is approximately three times larger than that of the 3D semiconductor. Needless to say, this would be very valuable in utilizing excess LENR heat.

http://phys.org/news/2016-06-electricity-dimensions.html

Excerpt:

“Now in a new study, researchers have confirmed theoretical predictions that two-dimensional (2D) materials—those that are as thin as a single nanometer—exhibit a significantly higher thermoelectric effect than three-dimensional (3D) materials, which are typically used for these applications.

“The study, which is published in a recent issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Sunao Shimizu et al., could provide a way to improve the recycling of waste heat into useful energy

• cashmemorz

There seems to be a co-relation to the power of two as a two dimensional aspect that is seen in several phenomenon such as the conversion of mass to energy via C^2 in Einsteins E=MC^2 and the probability of reflection from “thin surfaces by calculating the surface area” derived by addition of vectors of paths of light.

• Rossi Fan

The problem is the word “quantum”. It is used by other journals in phys.org like this one for example. It’s a buzz word these days.

http://phys.org/news/2016-05-physicists.html

Translated into plain and simple English quantum means we don’t know WTF is going on.

I tried to explain it “the conversion formula” to the Dublin folks and the CalTech String Theory staff and I got an unpleasant response.

Energy is space. Well the conversion formula is slightly more complex but not beyond the comprehension capability of a B engineer (like myself).

http://imaging3.com/Dominion/Technology

“the image at 0-179 degrees is the same exact image as 180-359 degrees”

Well it is and it isn’t. The difference is that it is twice the energy but you would not know it because you are the human audience. The human eye does not see the energy in the image. The human eye sees the energy differences relative to neighbors.

So these Dublin folks discovered a new form of light because half the spin disappeared. No it did not and the notion of a new form of light is ridiculous.

2D seems to be more efficient than 3D according to this article above. No it is not and the notion is ridiculous.

Using an analogy think of it this way. You are at an auction. Everyone has \$1000, You have \$2000. You can buy anything you want because you can beat anyone in the room hands down. Double everyone’s money and nothing has changed. Except the energy level. Everyone now has \$2000 but you can still beat them because you have \$4000. Kapish?

So this 2D is more efficient at something than 3D is quantum as they say:)

• akupaku

Didn’t understand a word of what you are saying but sounds very profound.

• Rossi Fan

I’m saying this: Take the cylinder on top of Crescent Dunes. Stick it out in the Mojave desert. 120F. Does not melt salt. Stick it on top of Crescent Dunes and it reaches 1000C and melts salt which stays hot all night long. Same cylinder folks. No fast one here gentlemen. No ace in my back pocket ladies. Parabola math we learned in high school.

What’s going on here? Energy in 2 dimensions transforms into energy in 0 dimensions. This is a fulcrum/lever type of situation. Energy = space. In the case of crescent dunes the 2D space is 2 miles in diameter of Nevada desert. The 0D space is a cylinder on top of a tower.

• Josh G

You might appreciate this commentary on the Dublin “discovery:” http://milesmathis.com/half.pdf

Miles also has some stinging critiques of the Copenhagen interpretation and the use of quantum “mechanics” as a bunch of hand-waving. Oh, and he can explain why light is quantized they way it is. Plus a bunch of other things. Like why c is the speed “limit” of light.

• cashmemorz

C ties in to observation as part of its 2 dimensional aspect, see my comment above. We see “surfaces”, 2 dimensional aspect of the world, cosmos,. So, “naturally” we see that aspect of energy. Since the cosmos axpresses energy that way and we are part of that cosmos then that is why we are observer of that 2 dimensional aspect. Profound, as Akupaku might say, and a very simple way of viewing energy in 2 dimensional terms.

• cashmemorz

There seems to be a co-relation to the power of two as a two dimensional aspect that is seen in several phenomenon such as the conversion of mass to energy via C^2 in Einsteins E=MC^2 and the probability of reflection from “thin surfaces by calculating the surface area” derived by addition of vectors of paths of light. The first example shows the relation of matter to energy by modifying matter via it’s 2 dimensional relationship with the speed of light and the second example show the probable strength-position in a wave’s energy as it’s sine function.

See minute 58 for details

• Rossi Fan

The problem is the word “quantum”. It is used by other journals in phys.org like this one for example. It’s a buzz word these days.

http://phys.org/news/2016-05-physicists.html

Translated into plain and simple English quantum means we don’t know WTF is going on.

I tried to explain it “the conversion formula” to the Dublin folks and the CalTech String Theory staff and I got an unpleasant response.

Energy is space. Well the conversion formula is slightly more complex but not beyond the comprehension capability of a B engineer (like myself).

http://imaging3.com/Dominion/Technology

“the image at 0-179 degrees is the same exact image as 180-359 degrees”

Well it is and it isn’t. The difference is that it is twice the energy but you would not know it because you are the human audience. The human eye does not see the energy in the image. The human eye sees the energy differences relative to neighbors.

So these Dublin folks discovered a new form of light because half the spin disappeared. No it did not and the notion of a new form of light is ridiculous.

2D seems to be more efficient than 3D according to this article above. No it is not and the notion is ridiculous.

Using an analogy think of it this way. You are at an auction. Everyone has \$1000, You have \$2000. You can buy anything you want because you can beat anyone in the room hands down. Double everyone’s money and nothing has changed. Except the energy level. Everyone now has \$2000 but you can still beat them because you have \$4000. Kapish?

So this 2D is more efficient at something than 3D is quantum as they say:)

• akupaku

Didn’t understand a word of what you are saying but sounds very profound.

• Rossi Fan

I’m saying this: Take the cylinder on top of Crescent Dunes. Stick it out in the Mojave desert. 120F. Does not melt salt. Stick it on top of Crescent Dunes and it reaches 1000C and melts salt which stays hot all night long. Same cylinder folks. No fast one here gentlemen. No ace in my back pocket ladies. Parabola math we learned in high school.

What’s going on here? Energy in 2 dimensions transforms into energy in 0 dimensions. This is a fulcrum/lever type of situation. Energy = space. In the case of crescent dunes the 2D space is 2 miles in diameter of Nevada desert. The 0D space is a cylinder on top of a tower.

• Josh G

You might appreciate this commentary on the Dublin “discovery:” http://milesmathis.com/half.pdf

Miles also has some stinging critiques of the Copenhagen interpretation and the use of quantum “mechanics” as a bunch of hand-waving. Oh, and he can explain why light is quantized they way it is. Plus a bunch of other things. Like why c is the speed “limit” of light.

• cashmemorz

C ties in to observation as part of its 2 dimensional aspect, see my comment above. We see “surfaces”, 2 dimensional aspect of the world, cosmos,. So, “naturally” we see that aspect of energy. Since the cosmos expresses energy that way and we are part of that cosmos then that is why we are observers of that 2 dimensional aspect. Profound, as Akupaku might say, and a very simple way of viewing energy in 2 dimensional terms.

• invient

Vanishing dimensions theory predicts that high energy particles will reduce to 2 dimension travel …. which was observed in cosmic rays in the atmosphere. It’s been a while since I read about it, but I can dig up a source if needed.

• Bob Matulis

I find cosmic rays very interesting. I heard it estimated that ONE cosmic ray particle is traveling so close to the speed of light that it has the same kinetic energy as a Nolan Ryan fastball! (In his prime of course 🙂

• Rossi Fan

Why stop at 2 dimensions? Google “Crescent Dunes”. One can redirect and focus all light at a single point = 1 dimension and produce molten salt for energy storage to power 100,000 homes.

• Rossi Fan

Oops sorry. That’s still 2 dimensions. 1 dimension = single point and 1 dimension = time. The homes can be supplied with power from Crescent Dunes overnight.

• Rossi Fan

Silly me. Correction. A single point is 0 dimensions. 1 dimension = line. 2 dimension = plane and so on.

• Stefenski

But a plane is still 3 dimensions.

it’s pretty impossible to visualize 2 dimensions , let alone 1.

I believe that when they say 2d they are really meaning a single atom plane. (which is still 3d)

It’s confusing language imo

• Allan Shura

Thought transference become difficult with mixed terms and terminology. I
sometime see that half of what is new is simply a new word for old.

• cashmemorz

Confirming my observation that energy, to us humans, has 2 dimensional ties in the natural scheme of things as they pertain to advantage, similar to the work done on a lever in relation to the position of its fulcrum to give a certain calculable power advantage to move a weight at some position on the lever.

• Bob Matulis

I find cosmic rays very interesting. I heard it estimated that ONE cosmic ray particle is traveling so close to the speed of light that it has the same kinetic energy as a Nolan Ryan fastball! (In his prime of course 🙂

• cashmemorz

Despite my “profound “statement about 2D re energy and examples thereof below, the article in this blog is about ease of energy moving thru material that is essentially 3-D. As the material gets thinner and tends towards being 2-D the mass of inner material “inside” bulk object material interferes less and less in the transport of material towards its surface. My examples in the other comment is less on topic and more about my ideas about my supposed insights into how the quantum world works. Take for what its worth….

• cashmemorz

Despite my “profound “statement about 2D re energy and examples thereof below, the article in this blog is about ease of energy moving thru material that is essentially 3-D. As the material gets thinner and tends towards being 2-D the mass of inner material “inside” bulk object material interferes less and less in the transport of energy towards its surface. My examples in the other comment is less on topic and more about my ideas about my supposed insights into how the quantum world works. Take for what its worth….

• Albert D. Kallal

Certainly LENR will fuel investment into converting heat energy into electricity. However, Rossi has stated he is not using the seebeck effect, but is producing electricity by a different means then what is being discussed in this article.

We can only speculate these “other” means. Perhaps Rossi is using a fluid that is magnetic and moves due to the heat, and thus electricity can be produced.

Or the control systems is similar to a vacuum tube, and the LENR effect produces a potential difference that can be tapped.

So most interesting is Rossi’s claim that this is not a traditional thermo-electric effect. It not clear if the electricity is produced by the LENR effect, or as noted by using the heat in a novel way to
produce electricity. There not a lot of ways to achieve this unless as noted the LENR effect is producing current in some un-known way

If the effect Rossi is using for electricity is not a known method, then this breakthrough could be nearly as significant as the breakthroughs Rossi claims he achieved with LENR.

Regards,
Albert D. Kallal

• Paul Pagano

.

NASA’s take on LENR…. http://goo.gl/QJW68

.

• Rossi Fan

To distinguish between hot and cold fusion is a huge mistake in my opinion.

Hammer a nail into a piece of wood. Try to take it out with your fingers. That’s hot fusion. Try to take it out with a crowbar. That’s cold fusion.

Cold fusion is just working smarter not harder. Same force is needed to squeeze the suckers together to get the juice. Only one involves using a massive amount of power to do the squeezing. The other must use a fulcrum/lever of some sort.

The concept or idea that there is a different kind of fusion taking place is ridiculous.

• Allan Shura

Thought transference become difficult with mixed terms and terminology. I
sometime see that half of what is new is simply a new word for old.