Version 1
: Received: 26 March 2024 / Approved: 27 March 2024 / Online: 28 March 2024 (13:17:13 CET)
How to cite:
Mustafa, H. Experimental Demonstration of Energy Harvesting by Maxwell's Demon Device. Preprints2024, 2024031698. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202403.1698.v1
Mustafa, H. Experimental Demonstration of Energy Harvesting by Maxwell's Demon Device. Preprints 2024, 2024031698. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202403.1698.v1
Mustafa, H. Experimental Demonstration of Energy Harvesting by Maxwell's Demon Device. Preprints2024, 2024031698. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202403.1698.v1
APA Style
Mustafa, H. (2024). Experimental Demonstration of Energy Harvesting by Maxwell's Demon Device. Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202403.1698.v1
Chicago/Turabian Style
Mustafa, H. 2024 "Experimental Demonstration of Energy Harvesting by Maxwell's Demon Device" Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202403.1698.v1
Abstract
A selective permeable membrane between two different solutions can generate osmotic pressure, Donnan potential, and ion/pH gradients based on various factors such as membrane type, solute concentration and temperature. In this study, we introduce a novel method for extracting energy from ion gradients through an innovative cycle, presenting intriguing experimental findings. Additionally, by leveraging Raoult’s Law, which describes the relationship between vapor pressure and solute presence, in conjunction with osmosis within a closed system, we successfully engineer the simplest iteration of Maxwell’s demon device. This pioneering approach to sustainable energy generation harnesses ambient temperature marking a significant advancement in energy research. Finally this renewable energy source is available all the time and everywhere.
Keywords
Renewable energy, novel cycle, Maxwell's demon
Subject
Chemistry and Materials Science, Physical Chemistry
Copyright:
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Commenter's Conflict of Interests:
I am one of the author
Comment:
After publication of this preprint, While I was searching for my work, I found another researcher who previously reached a similar conclusion but unfortunately he didn't progress his project yet.
Here is the ORCID ID of the researcher. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2045-4494
Commenter's Conflict of Interests:
I am one of the author
Comment:
While I was searching for my own article in Google, I found a similar article under the title:
An Autonomous Mechanical Maxwell's Demon
Aug.2020
By Xiangwei Sun.
Here are the important differences:
1. The preprint by Xiangwei Sun presents a theoretical model termed "Szilard's Fourth Engine," which operates based on principles such as Raoult's law and Van't Hoff's law to create a thermodynamic cycle capable of producing a temperature difference and extracting work. On the other hand, our preprint involves a physical device constructed to directly harvest energy from the surrounding ambient temperature. So X. Sun's preprint focuses on the theoretical analysis and proposal of a novel model, while our preprint provides empirical evidence through the construction and testing of an actual device.
2. His preprint only mentions one subtype of the device, which cannot have practical implications. On the other hand, we presented the second subtype under the name Extended Gibbs Donnan Equilibrium, which acts as a game-changer in boosting the energy output to meet practical requirements.
3. His preprint discusses the potential applications and implications of the proposed model within the framework of thermodynamics, while our preprint showcases the practical feasibility of energy harvesting using Maxwell's Demon-inspired principles.
4. His choice of word mechanical Maxwell's Demon is more descriptive than what I provided.
Commenter's Conflict of Interests:
I am one of the author
Comment:
Here is anotBy mixing first example ( osmosis) with third example ( evaporation) from these three real world examples, a novel cycle hence Maxwell's Demon Turbine can be successfully created.
]alienryderflex[dotcom/maxwells_demon[dot]shtml
Maxwell’s Demon — Three Real-World Examples
1. Osmosis
One of those is osmosis. If you completely surround a body of sugar-water with a water-permiable membrane, then place this sugar-water-filled membrane in a pool of pure water, what happens? The membrane swells up, taking in water from the pool, until it reaches the limit of how far it can stretch, and either stops stretching or ruptures. What made it do that? Why didn’t the water molecules just flow back and forth across the membrane and not make it swell (or shrink, for that matter)?
The answer is that the sugar molecules, unable to cross the membrane, are beating on the membrane from the inside. The membrane has lots of tiny pores that are large enough for water molecules to get through, but too small for sugar molecules. Every time a sugar molecule slams against the opening of one of these pores, it adds to the net outward velocity of the membrane — but there are no sugar molecules outside the membrane doing this in the other direction. The solid parts of the membrane receive balanced impacts from both sides of the membrane, but the pores receive only the outward-bound impacts of the too-large sugar molecules, and this gives the membrane an outward velocity.
In effect, each pore acts like a little Maxwell’s demon.
2. Freezing
Another example is the freezing of water.
3. Sweating
When a droplet of sweat evaporates off of your skin, it cools your body. Why would it do that?
The air-exposed surface of the droplet acts as a Maxwell’s demon by selectively allowing the fastest-moving molecules to escape, transferring heat out of the droplet into the surrounding air.
So we see, in these three examples, that Maxwell’s demon actually does exist.
Commenter's Conflict of Interests:
I am one of the author
Comment:
Corrected typos: Here is a note , by mixing first example ( osmosis) with third example ( evaporation) from these three real world examples, a novel cycle hence Maxwell's Demon Turbine can be successfully created.
Commenter's Conflict of Interests:
I am one of the author
Comment:
Claude AI answer regarding boosting energy of our device:
consider the scenario with just 5% solutions of protamine and heparin in water.
Given:
- Initial CO2 pressure: 1 bar
- Standard conditions (25°C, 1 atm)
- Two separate containers:
1. 5% Protamine solution in water
2. 5% Heparin solution in water
Analysis:
1. Solution composition:
- 5% protamine in water
- 5% heparin in water
2. CO2 interaction:
- CO2 + H2O ⇌ H2CO3 ⇌ HCO3- + H+
3. Effects of 5% protamine vs 5% heparin:
- Protamine: Strongly positively charged at this concentration. Will interact significantly with bicarbonate ions, increasing CO2 solubility.
- Heparin: Strongly negatively charged at this concentration. Will repel bicarbonate ions, decreasing CO2 solubility.
4. Pressure difference:
- The 5% concentration will create a substantial difference in CO2 solubility between the two solutions.
- Protamine solution will likely dissolve more CO2, leading to lower gas pressure above it.
- Heparin solution will likely dissolve less CO2, leading to higher gas pressure above it.
5. Result:
- There will be a significant final pressure difference of CO2 above the two solutions.
- The CO2 pressure above the protamine solution is expected to be notably lower than above the heparin solution.
- The difference could be in the range of several centibars, potentially up to 0.1-0.2 bar, but exact values would require experimental verification.
6. Considerations:
- Without the buffering effects of an isotonic solution, the pH changes in these solutions will be more pronounced.
- The protamine solution may become more acidic as it absorbs more CO2.
- The heparin solution may resist pH changes more effectively.
In conclusion, we expect a substantial and measurable difference in CO2 pressure between the 5% protamine and 5% heparin solutions in water. The pressure above the protamine solution should be significantly lower than above the heparin solution. However, precise quantification would require experimental data due to the complex interactions in these concentrated solutions.
Commenter:
Commenter's Conflict of Interests: I am one of the author
Commenter:
Commenter's Conflict of Interests: I am one of the author
Here is the ORCID ID of the researcher.
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2045-4494
Commenter:
Commenter's Conflict of Interests: I am one of the author
An Autonomous Mechanical Maxwell's Demon
Aug.2020
By Xiangwei Sun.
Here are the important differences:
1. The preprint by Xiangwei Sun presents a theoretical model termed "Szilard's Fourth Engine," which operates based on principles such as Raoult's law and Van't Hoff's law to create a thermodynamic cycle capable of producing a temperature difference and extracting work. On the other hand, our preprint involves a physical device constructed to directly harvest energy from the surrounding ambient temperature. So X. Sun's preprint focuses on the theoretical analysis and proposal of a novel model, while our preprint provides empirical evidence through the construction and testing of an actual device.
2. His preprint only mentions one subtype of the device, which cannot have practical implications. On the other hand, we presented the second subtype under the name Extended Gibbs Donnan Equilibrium, which acts as a game-changer in boosting the energy output to meet practical requirements.
3. His preprint discusses the potential applications and implications of the proposed model within the framework of thermodynamics, while our preprint showcases the practical feasibility of energy harvesting using Maxwell's Demon-inspired principles.
4. His choice of word mechanical Maxwell's Demon is more descriptive than what I provided.
Commenter:
Commenter's Conflict of Interests: I am one of the author
https://youtube.com/shorts/Enco4Nl617w?si=oZeIdEAZSOuWC1la
Commenter:
Commenter's Conflict of Interests: I am one of the author
https://youtu.be/zl6KYMDKNok?si=tiKt2bVKGoUDXYoT
Commenter:
Commenter's Conflict of Interests: I am one of the author
]alienryderflex[dotcom/maxwells_demon[dot]shtml
Maxwell’s Demon — Three Real-World Examples
1. Osmosis
One of those is osmosis. If you completely surround a body of sugar-water with a water-permiable membrane, then place this sugar-water-filled membrane in a pool of pure water, what happens? The membrane swells up, taking in water from the pool, until it reaches the limit of how far it can stretch, and either stops stretching or ruptures. What made it do that? Why didn’t the water molecules just flow back and forth across the membrane and not make it swell (or shrink, for that matter)?
The answer is that the sugar molecules, unable to cross the membrane, are beating on the membrane from the inside. The membrane has lots of tiny pores that are large enough for water molecules to get through, but too small for sugar molecules. Every time a sugar molecule slams against the opening of one of these pores, it adds to the net outward velocity of the membrane — but there are no sugar molecules outside the membrane doing this in the other direction. The solid parts of the membrane receive balanced impacts from both sides of the membrane, but the pores receive only the outward-bound impacts of the too-large sugar molecules, and this gives the membrane an outward velocity.
In effect, each pore acts like a little Maxwell’s demon.
2. Freezing
Another example is the freezing of water.
3. Sweating
When a droplet of sweat evaporates off of your skin, it cools your body. Why would it do that?
The air-exposed surface of the droplet acts as a Maxwell’s demon by selectively allowing the fastest-moving molecules to escape, transferring heat out of the droplet into the surrounding air.
So we see, in these three examples, that Maxwell’s demon actually does exist.
Commenter:
Commenter's Conflict of Interests: I am one of the author
Maxwell’s Demon — Three Real-World Examples
https://alienryderflex.com/maxwells_demon.shtml
Commenter:
Commenter's Conflict of Interests: I am one of the author
consider the scenario with just 5% solutions of protamine and heparin in water.
Given:
- Initial CO2 pressure: 1 bar
- Standard conditions (25°C, 1 atm)
- Two separate containers:
1. 5% Protamine solution in water
2. 5% Heparin solution in water
Analysis:
1. Solution composition:
- 5% protamine in water
- 5% heparin in water
2. CO2 interaction:
- CO2 + H2O ⇌ H2CO3 ⇌ HCO3- + H+
3. Effects of 5% protamine vs 5% heparin:
- Protamine: Strongly positively charged at this concentration. Will interact significantly with bicarbonate ions, increasing CO2 solubility.
- Heparin: Strongly negatively charged at this concentration. Will repel bicarbonate ions, decreasing CO2 solubility.
4. Pressure difference:
- The 5% concentration will create a substantial difference in CO2 solubility between the two solutions.
- Protamine solution will likely dissolve more CO2, leading to lower gas pressure above it.
- Heparin solution will likely dissolve less CO2, leading to higher gas pressure above it.
5. Result:
- There will be a significant final pressure difference of CO2 above the two solutions.
- The CO2 pressure above the protamine solution is expected to be notably lower than above the heparin solution.
- The difference could be in the range of several centibars, potentially up to 0.1-0.2 bar, but exact values would require experimental verification.
6. Considerations:
- Without the buffering effects of an isotonic solution, the pH changes in these solutions will be more pronounced.
- The protamine solution may become more acidic as it absorbs more CO2.
- The heparin solution may resist pH changes more effectively.
In conclusion, we expect a substantial and measurable difference in CO2 pressure between the 5% protamine and 5% heparin solutions in water. The pressure above the protamine solution should be significantly lower than above the heparin solution. However, precise quantification would require experimental data due to the complex interactions in these concentrated solutions.