Paul Thibado's Graphene Energy Harvester project, and what it shows us about the free energy suppression conspiracy

[SuppaCoup]

I was reading through the various discussions here of alleged "overunity" devices and I was reminded of the work being done on something very much akin to these "free-energy machines", but by an actual accredited scientist working through published papers and patents.
Professor Paul Thibado works at the University of Arkansas, here is a link to his faculty page: https://physics.uark.edu/directory/index/uid/thibado/name/Paul+M+Thibado/

Over roughly a decade, Professor Thibado has published a series of papers on his work studying graphene, which is a form of carbon that exists in the form of very thin but strong sheets bonded together in a hexagonal lattice, you can find these papers among his work in general at this link:https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=TT237XUAAAAJ&hl=en

According to Professor Thibado, free-standing sheets of graphene allow the fundamental obstacles that have stood in the way of so-called Brownian ratchets, systems that translate the chaotic motion of particles into a form capable of doing work, to be overcome in conjunction with appropriately structured diodes and capacitors. In his (and his co-authors) own words from the paper "Charging capacitors from thermal fluctuations using diodes" published in "Physical Review E", Issue 108 direct link here:https://journals.aps.org/pre/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevE.108.024130 and a free PDF of the publication here:https://thibado.uark.edu/files/2023/08/nonlinear.pdf he states:

Numerous sources of ambient energy including kinetic,
solar, ambient radiation, acoustic, thermal, etc., are readily
available for energy harvesting. Energy harvesting in a quiet,
dark setting is the most challenging because only thermal en-
ergy is present. In such an environment the Brownian motion
of electrons produces a stochastic alternating current [1,2].
If this signal is rectified, then energy could be harvested by
charging a capacitor. Using a diode to rectify noise in thermal
equilibrium was ruled out by Brillouin because it violates
detailed balance [3]. Gunn added more insight by showing that
diode nonlinearity generates an oppositely flowing current
that cancels out the conventional rectified current [4,5]. Feyn-
man popularized the notion that it is impossible to harvest
thermal energy at a single temperature in his lecture series
"Ratchet and pawl" [6].
Renewed interest in thermal energy harvesting emerged
in the 1990s, when it was discovered that diodes can rectify
stochastic signals provided long-time correlations (non-white
noise) are present [7,8]. More recently, it was discovered that
electrical circuits containing multiple loops can give rise to
unusual correlations with vortex dynamics [9–11]. This fueled
further interest in this problem.
The simplest nonlinear circuit that can potentially store
charge has a diode and a capacitor. The master equation for
this circuit was first derived and studied by van Kampen in
1960 [12]. He showed in equilibrium the capacitor has zero
charge and developed an approximate Fokker-Planck equa-
tion (FPE) that does not satisfy the fluctuation-dissipation
theorem. Later a diode-capacitor-resistor circuit was studied
by Sokolov in the late 1990s [13,14]. He derived a FPE that
satisfies the fluctuation-dissipation theorem. In his study, the
resistor and diode are held at different temperatures and the
steady-state heat engine efficiency is determined. What has
not been studied thus far is the full transient response of
the charge on a storage capacitor for various diode-capacitor
systems held at a single temperature.
In this study, we present a system capable of harvesting
energy from thermal noise at a single temperature without
violating the first or second law. Our system uses a small vari-
able capacitor wired to two diodes and two storage capacitors
using two current loops. Surprisingly, the nonlinearity of the
diodes combined with the multiple current paths charges
the capacitors with an ultraslow convergence to equilibrium.
The harvested energy comes from the thermal baths of the
diodes

Professor Thibado is currently working with a private organization called NTS Innovations, whose website you can view at https://www.ntsinnovations.com/ ,on translating this work into power sources for among other things Internet of Things applications, such as being used as a power source for sensors as outlined on their website here:

This graphene energy harvesting venture was awarded 904k dollars by the WoodNext Foundation early in 2024 https://arkansasresearch.uark.edu/900000-awarded-to-optimize-graphene-energy-harvesting-devices/ :

U of A physics professor Paul Thibado received a commitment of $904,000 from the WoodNext Foundation, administered by the Greater Houston Community Foundation. The five-year grant will support Thibado's development of graphene energy harvesters.

"We have successfully developed a process for building graphene energy harvesting device structures," Thibado said, "but current structures do not harvest enough power. This proposal will allow us to optimize these structures to harvest nanowatts of power, which is enough energy to run sensors."

Thibado and his colleagues will develop graphene energy harvesting (or GEH) technology for the following sources of power: solar, thermal, acoustic, kinetic, nonlinear and ambient radiation. As each device is developed, his team will then build a full prototype sensor system around that specific power source.

Nancy Chan, executive director of the WoodNext Foundation, said, "We're excited to support Paul's work. We think it's an important step in the development of more clean energy options, as well as a potentially exciting advance in building the internet of things."

Thibado noted that current state-of-the-art sensor technology is powered by batteries that require microwatts (a millionth of a watt) of continuous power. The goal of his project is twofold:

Reduce sensor power demand to nanowatts (a billionth of a watt) and
Power these sensors using energy harvested from the local environment.

Notably, these systems will not include batteries, which have a limited lifespan, allowing them to achieve exceptionally long operational lifetimes — potentially several decades.

"Mass use of this technology will further expand the internet of things," Thibado explained, "which transforms ordinary sensors into smart nodes within an intelligent network. Thus, our systems will impact a wide range of applications."

How wide? Thibado envisions these sensors being used in transportation product tracking, logistic fleet management, livestock tracking, soil sensors, agricultural climate monitoring, environmental flood alerts, disaster planning, atmospheric monitoring, predictive maintenance, manufacturing process monitoring, utility smart meters/grids, city smart parking, traffic control, city lighting, waste management, bike/scooter management, camera systems, building alarm systems, temperature control, lighting, access, wearable fitness monitoring, child tracking and medical tracking. So, pretty wide.

The installation cost of GEHs is expected to be competitive with other forms of energy supply, both large and small scale. However, GEH's operational cost will be near zero with no costs for fuel, charging, replacement or overhaul. For example, a GEH chip could be placed in a remote temperature sensor. This chip, a component of its electronic module, will free the device from the need for external power or batteries. The chip will not require replacement, as it has the same life as other components of the device. With GEH technology, the device can be more compact, portable and safeguarded from power failure.
Additional Collaborators

A subaward of $210,000 will go to David Blaauw, a professor of electrical engineering and computer science at the University of Michigan. An expert in low-power wireless sensors and embedded systems, Blaauw will oversee fabrication of "Michigan Micro-Mote" sensors custom designed for seamless integration with each type of U of A graphene power harvester.

Blaauw will fine tune the power consumption and duty cycle of the various sensors to align with the power supplied by the U of A harvester. He will also implement a capacitive energy averaging method to support brief periods of higher power consumption.

NTS Innovations, a company specializing in nanotechnology, owns the exclusive license to develop GEH into commercial products. The company has provided funding for patenting, creating business plans, finding business partners and customer discovery.

NTS Innovations' role over the course of the grant is to engage with customers on acceptance criteria, such as the minimum power levels needed for inclusion in products. Currently, more than 60 parties have expressed interest in testing the technology and working with Thibado and his colleagues to integrate it into their applications.

Thibado thinks his team, in cooperation with NTS Innovations, will be able to send a first-generation self-powered GEH sensor to interested customers for feedback as early as the second year of the award.
Graphene and GEHs

Discovered in 2004, graphene is a one-atom-thick sheet of graphite. Freestanding graphene has a rippled structure, with each ripple flipping up and down in response to the ambient temperature.

"The thinner something is, the more flexible it is," Thibado said. "And at only one atom thick, there is nothing more flexible. It's like a trampoline, constantly moving up and down. If you want to stop it from moving, you have to cool it down to 20 Kelvin."

GEHs use a negatively charged sheet of graphene suspended between two metal electrodes. When the graphene flips up, it induces a positive charge in the top electrode. When it flips down, it positively charges the bottom electrode, creating an alternating current. With diodes wired in opposition, allowing the current to flow both ways, separate paths are provided through the circuit, producing a pulsing DC current that performs work on a load resistor.

This video provides a little more background.
Support from the U of A

Thibado is quick to acknowledge the significance of the U of A's support for his work. Over the years, he has received $350,000 from the Chancellor's Innovation and Collaboration Fund in $50,000 increments. After the university issued a press release on a paper he published in 2016, NTS Innovations contacted him about licensing his discovery. A more recent paper published in 2023, also publicized by the U of A Office of University Relations, helped bring his work to the attention of the WoodNext Foundation.

NTS Innovations is as of Feburary 2 2025 in the process of holding a fundraising round on a crowdfunding website called StartEngine, which you can view here: https://www.startengine.com/offering/nts-innovations
Notably on this page they state they have"secured $7.1 million in prior funding" through "investors such as Meyer Enterprises", and give a valuation to NTS Innovations of "$60.65M(illion dollars)".

I would like to argue that, notwithstanding wherether this venture actually successful demonstrates the reality of this alleged power harvesting scheme (validating whether this is or is not pathological or unsound science is beyond me, I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on this), it does falsify the idea that projects to harvest ambient or free enerrgy would be suppressed or strangled through the nefarious interference of the government, academia or fossil fuel interests in the form of so-called free energy suppression, which is succinctly outlined in the wikipedia article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_energy_suppression_conspiracy_theory :

Free energy suppression (or new energy suppression) is a conspiracy theory that technologically viable, pollution-free, no-cost energy sources are being suppressed by governments, corporations, or advocacy groups.

Professor Thibado's work, which if realized would result in what are functionally small-scale free energy harvesters, has not only not been suppressed, it's been actively supported at every step by academia and business. It's a very strong counter-example to the myth of free energy suppression, which is pretty obviously a defensive tactic used by people engaging in fringe research to explain the paucity of positive results or commercially successful products from any of the free energy researchers past and present.
If there is any interest form any of you in Professor Thibado visiting this forum and answering questinos about his work I would be happy to send him an email, or perhaps Mick could do it since he's a bit of a better known person? I think it would be quite interesting to pick his brain a little about all of this and see his thoughts on the free energy suppression conspiracy.

 

[Charlesinsandiego]

This does not seem to be a free energy scheme in the same sense as a perpetual motion machine or cold fusion. It merely claims to harvest actual existing energy that would otherwise be wasted, no?

 

[Mendel]

"technologically viable, pollution-free, no-cost energy sources" such as solar, wind, hydro, geothermal? who even thinks these are "suppressed"?

it's fairly clear from your sources (thank you!) that the nanoWatts harvested by Thibado's device don't scale up well, and may only ever be useful for niche applications.

 

[jarlrmai]

"technologically viable, pollution-free, no-cost energy sources" such as solar, wind, hydro, geothermal? who even thinks these are "suppressed"?

The suppression would take the form of potential subsidies to other competing areas such as nuclear/coal/oil/gas to make them able to compete, for political reasons such as a country/state/region being very involved in those industries.

Or laws preventing installation of solar panels on homes or grid feedback etc.

 

[Mendel]

The suppression would take the form of potential subsidies to other competing areas such as nuclear/coal/oil/gas to make them able to compete, for political reasons such as a country/state/region being very involved in those industries.

• the subsidies are real, not potential.
• in the conspiracy theory sense, "suppression" refers to suppressing knowledge or development of a technology.

Or laws preventing installation of solar panels on homes or grid feedback etc.

what you're allowed to do for your own use, and what you're allowed to do to the power grid, are different issues.

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

Professor Thibado is currently working with a private organization called NTS Innovations, whose website you can view at https://www.ntsinnovations.com/ ,on translating this work into power sources for among other things Internet of Things applications, such as being used as a power source for sensors as outlined on their website here:

Will they be free?

 

[jarlrmai]

what you're allowed to do for your own use, and what you're allowed to do to the power grid, are different issues.

Well of course, but you can see how laws that prevent grid feeding might suppress take up of solar.

 

[Mendel]

Will they be free?

you won't have to pay for the thermal energy that fuels these devices

 

[jarlrmai]

This seems to be taking heat and turning it into small amounts of electrical energy to power low energy devices such as sensors that would otherwise require local solar, battery or mains connection.

Of course this heat comes from somewhere so in areas that require heating (buildings in winter) some would come from the heating systems but these devices would presumably then just emit the heat again and the energy lost to non heat generating processes in the operation of electrical devices is infinitesimal.

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

you won't have to pay for the thermal energy that fuels these devices

I think I got a bit confused by the title.

I dunno why this is being linked to free energy suppression conspiracy and probably does Professor Thibado a disservice in doing so.

Big Power's not gonna go out of business if we shift a few IoT devices off the grid.

 

[FatPhil]

I'm not sure I trust any scientist that can say with a straight face "What was thought to be not possible was harvesting energy just from the heat of the earth." to be a reliable communicator of scientific facts. --
Source: https://www.youtube.com/embed/ADtHfn3bAaM

(The "This video provides a little more background." link in the UARK quote above.)
Also notice that in his graphics of harvesting energy a few seconds later his two switches magically switch - that would require energy input which is unaccounted for.

I'm also somewhat perturbed that in the paper: https://bpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/wordpressua.uark.edu/dist/3/316/files/2023/08/nonlinear.pdf , which I've only skimmed briefly, none of his graphs have any units. His first reference makes mention of of brownian motion of electrons being able to provide 10^-16 W of power - if his research is playing with similar orders of magnitude (units on his graphs would have helped ascertain whether that's the case!), it is utterly pointless, he mentions "A series of these units may be built on an integrated circuit with each using a space of less than 0.1 square microns, with the potential to produce a significant power density (see Appendix F) [24]", but that's only 10^7 /mm^2, and 7 orders of magnitude doesn't cancel out 16 negative ones.

"Thibado thinks his team, in cooperation with NTS Innovations, will be able to send a first-generation self-powered GEH sensor to interested customers for feedback as early as the second year of the award." - Someone lazy might suggest we ignore this story for 11 months, and then revisit it when other people can get their hands on the technology. Or it reveals itself as vapourware. When it comes to technological claims, I'm a big believer that demonstrations trump equations.

 

[Mendel]

and 7 orders of magnitude doesn't cancel out 16 negative ones.

10^-9W is the claimed nanoWatt.

 

[FatPhil]

10^-9W is the claimed nanoWatt.

OK, so he's exactly where the theory was in the 1920s. Doing things that Feynman showed were impossible in the '60s. I don't know about you, but when there are two horses in a race, and one of them's Feynman, I always back Feynman. (Although, he seems to be trying to violate the second law of thermodynamics, he's created a "demon", so that was proved impossible nearly a century earlier, Feynman just brought it into the quantum age.)

 

[Mendel]

Although, he seems to be trying to violate the second law of thermodynamics,

well, he claims he does not. From the OP:

In this study, we present a system capable of harvesting
energy from thermal noise at a single temperature without
violating the first or second law.

The problem is that, at the 10^-16W stage, there is really not much one can measure.

 

[FatPhil]

well, he claims he does not. From the OP:

In this study, we present a system capable of harvesting
energy from thermal noise at a single temperature without
violating the first or second law.

The problem is that, at the 10^-16W stage, there is really not much one can measure.

I'd almost say "harvesting energy from thermal noise at a single temperature" could be used as the definition of violating the second law!

However, I'm prepared to wait for the protos.

 

[Ravi]

Very interesting. It is however currently not easy to produce graphene layers ("sheet") from which then the "harvesting devices" could be produced. The process of growing it is rather easy, using liquid metals as base material. But to transfer this layer -intact- to somewhere else is ... rather tricky. It likely requires some significant development time for this to be solved. And this is just one tech issue to overcome, amongst presumably many more.
Not being "negative Nancy" here, but just trying to be a bit realistic as compared to all the fancy theoretical possibilities.

 

[SuppaCoup]

I think I got a bit confused by the title.

I dunno why this is being linked to free energy suppression conspiracy and probably does Professor Thibado a disservice in doing so.

Big Power's not gonna go out of business if we shift a few IoT devices off the grid.

I apologize, when I was making this post I had intended to include a section going over their future use cases for the technology as described on the NTS Innovation website, which includes powering lights:

and providing power to wearable devices:

They seem to think this tech can be scaled into macroscale applications, and although it's not explicitly listed here, if you can make a system that powers a strip of lights or a watch, there's no technical reason you can't scale that up to power a house or an entire city.
Again, to be absolutely clear, I think it's absolutely essential to regard such claims with intense skepticism, my point is that this endeavor gaining absolutely zero pushback from allegedly nefarious entrenched interests is very strong evidence against the free energy suppression rhetoric so often bandied about by various people doing fringe overunity/cold fusion projects.

 

[SuppaCoup]

I'd almost say "harvesting energy from thermal noise at a single temperature" could be used as the definition of violating the second law!

However, I'm prepared to wait for the protos.

100%. If I walk through how the GEH is supposed to work the process seems sensible, it's not reliant on hydrinos or zero-point energy drawn from the radiant mandela of Melchizadek and the group give no signs of engaging in deliberate fraud, but I think we have to consider the possibility of sloppy methodology, power leaking into the system from unaccounted sources, etc. If they had pulled together a prototype and sent it off to say, MIT or Harvard for a round of intense investigation with positive results I'd be very happy.

 

[FatPhil]

View attachment 76895
They seem to think this tech can be scaled into macroscale applications, and although it's not explicitly listed here, if you can make a system that powers a strip of lights or a watch, there's no technical reason you can't scale that up to power a house or an entire city.
Again, to be absolutely clear, I think it's absolutely essential to regard such claims with intense skepticism, my point is that this endeavor gaining absolutely zero pushback from allegedly nefarious entrenched interests is very strong evidence against the free energy suppression rhetoric so often bandied about by various people doing fringe overunity/cold fusion projects.

ultra-low-power implantable devices run at milliwatts (just a few, actually quite impressive), but their energy source is only claiming nanowatts. You'd need a literal full-length cloak of the things just to power the tiniest of devices. As I said in my first post - this is going *nowhere*.

 

[JMartJr]

Again, to be absolutely clear, I think it's absolutely essential to regard such claims with intense skepticism, my point is that this endeavor gaining absolutely zero pushback from allegedly nefarious entrenched interests is very strong evidence against the free energy suppression rhetoric so often bandied about by various people doing fringe overunity/cold fusion projects.

I'd agree, but were I a conspiracy theorist I can see a fairly easy way around it.

Spoiler

"This is just a fake project that will never work to discredit the whole free energy concept, and they are not opposing it because they are BEHIND it and want to use it as negative evidence against the idea that they are suppressing all the other free energy garbage innovation."

 

[SuppaCoup]

I'd agree, but were I a conspiracy theorist I can see a fairly easy way around it.

Spoiler

"This is just a fake project that will never work to discredit the whole free energy concept, and they are not opposing it because they are BEHIND it and want to use it as negative evidence against the idea that they are suppressing all the other free energy garbage innovation."

Tragically I think you are right...

 

[SuppaCoup]

ultra-low-power implantable devices run at milliwatts (just a few, actually quite impressive), but their energy source is only claiming nanowatts. You'd need a literal full-length cloak of the things just to power the tiniest of devices. As I said in my first post - this is going *nowhere*.

At 12:09 in this video:

Professor Thibado shows a slide claiming that their current prototypes have a power density of around one watt per meter square

These systems could (I presume) be stacked with small gaps between to allow particle exchange, and depending on how many layers you could pack into a give volume you could conceivably have low power systems that fit into a reasonably sized box-if you wanted a 1 watt trickle charger you could plug your devices into in your backpack with a total energy harvester surface area of 1 square meter and managed say, 40 layers into 3 centimeters you'd be able to fit this into a box about 16 centimeters per side.

 

[FatPhil]

Professor Thibado shows a slide claiming that their current prototypes have a power density of around one watt per meter square
View attachment 76900

Bullshit much? (Him, not you, but if you reproduce his bullshit without checking, perhaps you are part of the problem?)

Rando web search....

https://www.quora.com/How-much-electricity-do-we-get-from-a-unit-area-of-a-solar-panel
How much electricity do we get from a unit area of a solar panel?

Jan 22, 2015 ... Typically, you would get 50 - 200 Watt of power per square metre of the solar panel.

-- no URL possible, my search engine uses POST requests, not GETs - do your own research. Please.

And the next hit in the results:

https://www.viridiansolar.co.uk/resources-4-4-performance-of-pv-solar-panels.html
4.4 PV Panel Performance - Viridian Solar

Under these conditions a typical output from a typical silicon panel is currently around 260-275 watts-peak (Wp) or around 180Wp per square metre of panel

more?

around 1.6 square metres (m2) in size · rated to produce roughly 265 watts (W) of power

The input rate for a solar panel is about 1000 watts per square meter. Most of the available solar panels work on 15-20 percent efficiently.

Heck, that's only a couple of orders of magnitude disparity, when's that ever been important in science?

(The physics-literate will hopefully recognise the existence of a 120-orders-of-magnitude disparity, and snigger appropriately.)

 

[SuppaCoup]

Bullshit much? (Him, not you, but if you reproduce his bullshit without checking, perhaps you are part of the problem?)

I did note that this was a CLAIM of his. I've been very careful not to say that this is anywhere near the status of robustly evidenced, and that intense skepticism is absolutely warranted.
I believe in regards to his solar and wind power density numbers he is referencing this study, "Observation-based solar and wind power capacity factors and power
densities" which was published in Environmental Research Letters, a PDF is available at
:https://keith.seas.harvard.edu/files/tkg/files/miller_2018_environ._res._lett._13_104008.pdf
in the abstract on page 1 this study states:

Power density is the rate of energy generation per unit of land surface area occupied by an energy
system. The power density of low-carbon energy sources will play an important role in mediating the
environmental consequences of energy system decarbonization as the world transitions away from
high power-density fossil fuels. All else equal, lower power densities mean larger land and
environmental footprints. The power density of solar and wind power remain surprisingly uncertain:
estimates of realizable generation rates per unit area for wind and solar power span 0.3–47 We m−2 and
10–120 We m−2 respectively. We refine this range using US data from 1990–2016. We estimate wind
power density from primary data, and solar power density from primary plant-level data and prior
datasets on capacity density. The mean power density of 411 onshore wind power plants in 2016 was
0.50 We m−2. Wind plants with the largest areas have the lowest power densities. Wind power capacity
factors are increasing, but that increase is associated with a decrease in capacity densities, so power
densities are stable or declining. If wind power expands away from the best locations and the areas of
wind power plants keep increasing, it seems likely that wind's power density will decrease as total wind
generation increases. The mean 2016 power density of 1150 solar power plants was 5.4 We m−2. Solar
capacity factors and (likely) power densities are increasing with time driven, in part, by improved
panel efficiencies. Wind power has a 10-fold lower power density than solar, but wind power
installations directly occupy much less of the land within their boundaries. The environmental and
social consequences of these divergent land occupancy patterns need further study.

it gives the method used to find solar plant's energy density on page 4:

on page 7 it states:

Solar's mean power density in 2016 was 5.4 We m−2.
Our approach for estimating the area of solar farms is
not fully bottom-up so this estimate is subject to
systematic error. It is possible, for example, that
capacity densities have changed significantly given that
the data used in our analysis is about 5 years old. That
said, the assumption by (Jacobson et al 2018) that
urban rooftops can be retrofitted with a capacity
density 4.5-times higher than the commercial-scale
solar plants measured by (Ong et al 2013) seems highly
unlikely, as does the resulting 24–27 We m−2 power
density (Jacobson et al 2018). It is also possible that
capacity densities vary strongly with larger size instal-
lations (see figure 2(A)). However, given that our
analysis finds only a very weak relationship between
module efficiency or installation size and capacity
density, we expect the errors are small, likely less
than 20%.

(This is not how I would have presented this information, I understand the point he was making about how when considering the entirety of the solar/wind plant area including land for buildings and utilities, roads, and pathways/empty zones in between the panels/turbines and the limited capacity factor together solar and wind installations do have fairly low overall power density, and if these GEH work they have the rather large advantage of having a 100% capacity factor and being stackable in form factors that avoid this level of overall sprawl. I'd have fairly shown the average power production of a solar cell next to this, and THEN what that number is in the context of overall capacity factor and in the context of all the non-solar panel space in solar power plants.)

 

[FatPhil]

This does not seem to be a free energy scheme in the same sense as a perpetual motion machine or cold fusion. It merely claims to harvest actual existing energy that would otherwise be wasted, no?

So does Maxwell's Demon.

 

[Mendel]

Professor Thibado shows a slide claiming that their current prototypes have a power density of around one watt per meter square

would be interesting to put that 5W/m² number for solar in context

I'd also expect that solar can maybe do 1W/m² in a well-lit room, which is how I'd fake a demonstration of this "free energy" tech if I had to (and hope nobody hits the light switch).

If they're really harvesting what they say they're harvesting, the devices need not be flat, and they should give the efficiency as power/volume, not power/area.

 

[Mechanik]

To be fair, he does say that the "The harvested energy comes from the thermal baths of the diodes". Without further information, this tells me that the diodes need to be at diffferent temperatures, so no magic is involved. He believes they've come up with a way to extract and exploit tiny temperature differences for potential commercial purposes.

I find this interesting, but I don't currently have any nanowatt devices in need of a power source. It reminds me of those Chinese nuclear batteries. Interesting idea, but commercial exploitation remains to be seen.

 

[Stryder]

Paul Thibado's Graphene Energy Harvester project, and what it shows us about the free energy suppression conspiracy

As your title suggests, but your early posts gloss over, this is evidence that there is not a conspiracy to suppress far-out ideas (correct or not). I don't believe many of the members of this site harbored much doubt about this though.

What Thibado's effort demonstrates better is that someone with relevant credentials, a stable employment position (better yet a significant sized company), clean visage, etc. has a much better chance of raising startup funding for an idea that has little support from others. It does not in and of itself say that much about the feasibility of the effort itself. We have seen countless other cases where similar things have started and failed, either because the science was flawed, or the economic viability wasn't there. I'm definitely not saying these efforts were fraudulent (necessarily), but rather they were "shots in the dark that missed" in most cases. Unfortunately, there are a large number of outright fraudulent efforts and even maybe well intentioned efforts that turned fraudulent as the results didn't pan out. Theranos is an example where it is somewhat hard to determine, even after the fact when fraud started.

As an engineer and science nerd, I find the fundamental findings of Thibado very interesting. I would definitely like to see further research completed so that we could understand more completely the phenomenon that is occurring and I sincerely hope it isn't yet another case of measurement error and confirmation bias. I would absolutely not invest in something this speculative at this point.

If the effect can be shown to scale, that would eliminate much of the concern about error or fraud, but even then, the tech would remain extremely speculative economically. Since the best framing of this makes it "comparable" (only a 5x disadvantage) to solar on a land use basis, I don't see economic feasibility at this point. How expensive would it be to manufacture multiple m^2 panels and stack hundreds of them together? Compared to a few layers in a solar panel, this sounds like it would be much more expensive. How many could be stacked? Clearly this is not "free" energy, so as energy is converted to electricity it will cool the stack and make it increasingly less efficient. At the low levels of energy produced, using a fan to pull warmer air into the stack would use much of the energy produced. I think you might get much better efficiency from using two sides of a panel at different temperatures, (sun side and shade side), but then you coudn't stack.

Any comparisons to solar are certainly currently far in favor of solar. Yes, there is a limit to how much space there is for solar, but we are far from utilizing all of the available, non-conflicting space. Solar shares very well with other uses. My 50 panels (385w each) don't impact the use of the shop they sit upon. Even though they only produce energy during daylight hours, they are plenty to (on average) power all of my electric use including EVs. Even if you look at larger scale installations, many of the newer community scale solar farms are combined with agricultural use (agrivoltaics). So the economics for large scale electricity production from Thibado's approach depend on (there are others):
1) Scaling up to very large sheets of devices
2) Being able to stack many layers together
3) Manufacturing all of this at similar costs to solar (which has a HUGE head start)
4) Space available for solar or wind (or other?) has been used up.

All 4 of these are completely speculative at this point. AND this sets aside whether or not this is a real effect that can be scaled at all.

As to powering small devices, it may be more interesting than large scale electric, but even then I wouldn't hold my breath. There are other much more plentiful energy sources available for many small devices such as nuclear batteries, chemical batteries, kinetic energization, etc. I still have an old wrist watch that powers itself beautifully if I merely wear it and move my wrist a little. Most of the micro-power applications looking for a better source of energy don't scream out for a source that may provide 1 w/m^2.