|
|
Autymn D. C. wrote:
> Paul wrote:
> > Edward Green wrote:
> > > Paul wrote:
> > > > It seems you are referring to the resistor and LED experiment. I am
> > > > working on something far more productive. Of what use would it be to
> > > > prove a LED could indeed generate photons caused by thermal noise?
> > >
> > > Black bodies are rumored to do this too.
> >
> > All atoms on Earth emit and absorb black body radiation. The LED can be
> > toggled on/off. Furthermore the red so-called photons from the LED can
> > be focused on the resistor or coated to absorb its own radiation. Yes,
> > you can also focus T-rays, but such a lens is a two way street unless
> > you are talking about more advanced technology other than a simple
> > T-ray lens. The amount of black body radiation entering the LED remains
> > the same regardless if the LED is emitting so-called photons or not.
>
> Mm, no, if the LED emits or is about to emit, its charges are byssy or
> sticked and will growan weeer emittance in that band and stint and
> violare Planck's law. Fotonic crustals do this too. One of my edits
> yester my ban from Wikipedia was that lasers could work by suppressed
> transitions without a population's inversion.
Thanks for the info! Very interesting, but I don't see how that's
related to what I said. I was referring to the actual amount of black
body radiation *entering* the LED. It's interesting the LED
*absorption* rate changes slightly when emitting photons. Although the
LED is a far better transmitter than receiver. Lets say V volts across
a particular LED generates P photons per second. Then by no means will
P photons that may *enter* the LED per second generate V volts across
the LED. The LED is appreciably efficient at converting energy from a
battery into photons, but terrible at performing the opposite.
Furthermore, photons emitted from the LED can be focused on say the
resistor, but black body radiation from the resistor on average is
normally not focused on the LED.
Regards,
Paul
|
|