Physicists propose a device to capture energy from Earth's infrared emissions to outer space

Mar 03, 2014 by Caroline Perry
Physicists propose a device to capture energy from Earth’s infrared emissions to outer space
Three diode-resistor generator circuits with different temperature inputs. A circuit at thermal equilibrium (A) generates no current; (B) is a conventional rectifier circuit. The Harvard team proposes a twist—shown in (C). Credit: Federico Capasso and PNAS.

(Phys.org) —When the sun sets on a remote desert outpost and solar panels shut down, what energy source will provide power through the night? A battery, perhaps, or an old diesel generator? Perhaps something strange and new.

Physicists at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) envision a device that would harvest energy from Earth's infrared emissions into outer space.

Heated by the sun, our planet is warm compared to the frigid vacuum beyond. Thanks to recent technological advances, the researchers say, that heat imbalance could soon be transformed into direct-current (DC) , taking advantage of a vast and untapped energy source.

Their analysis of the thermodynamics, practical concerns, and technological requirements will be published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"It's not at all obvious, at first, how you would generate DC power by emitting infrared light in free space toward the cold," says principal investigator Federico Capasso, the Robert L. Wallace Professor of Applied Physics and Vinton Hayes Senior Research Fellow in Electrical Engineering at Harvard SEAS. "To generate power by emitting, not by absorbing light, that's weird. It makes sense physically once you think about it, but it's highly counterintuitive. We're talking about the use of physics at the nanoscale for a completely new application."

Challenging convention

Capasso is a world-renowned expert in semiconductor physics, photonics, and solid-state electronics. He co-invented the infrared quantum-cascade laser in 1994, pioneered the field of bandgap engineering, and demonstrated an elusive quantum electrodynamical phenomenon called the repulsive Casimir force—work for which he has received the SPIE Gold Medal, the European Physical Society Prize for Quantum Electronics and Optics, and the Jan Czochralski Award for lifetime achievement. His research team seems to specialize in rigorously questioning dated assumptions about optics and electronics.

"The mid-IR has been, by and large, a neglected part of the spectrum," says Capasso. "Even for spectroscopy, until the quantum cascade laser came about, the mid-IR was considered a very difficult area to work with. People simply had blinders on."

Now, Capasso and his research team are proposing something akin to a photovoltaic solar panel, but instead of capturing incoming visible light, the device would generate electric power by releasing infrared light.

"Sunlight has energy, so photovoltaics make sense; you're just collecting the energy. But it's not really that simple, and capturing energy from emitting is even less intuitive," says lead author Steven J. Byrnes (AB '07), a postdoctoral fellow at SEAS. "It's not obvious how much power you could generate this way, or whether it's worthwhile to pursue, until you sit down and do the calculation."

As it turns out, the power is modest but real.

Harvard physicists Federico Capasso (left), Steven J. Byrnes (right), and Romain Blanchard propose a new way to harvest renewable energy. Credit: Eliza Grinnell, SEAS Communications.

As Byrnes points out, "The device could be coupled with a solar cell, for example, to get extra power at night, without extra installation cost."

Two proposed devices—one macro, one nano

To show the range of possibilities, Capasso's group suggests two different kinds of emissive energy harvesters: one that is analogous to a generator, and one that is analogous to a photovoltaic cell. Both would run in reverse.

The first type of device would consist of a "hot" plate at the temperature of the Earth and air, with a "cold" plate on top of it. The cold plate, facing upward, would be made of a highly emissive material that cools by very efficiently radiating heat to the sky. Based on measurements of infrared emissions in Lamont, Oklahoma (as a case study), the researchers calculate that the heat difference between the plates could generate a few watts per square meter, day and night. Keeping the "cold" plate cooler than the ambient temperature would be difficult, but this device illustrates the general principle: differences in temperature generate work.

"This approach is fairly intuitive because we are combining the familiar principles of heat engines and radiative cooling," says Byrnes.

The second proposed device relies on temperature differences between nanoscale electronic components—diodes and antennas—rather than a temperature that you could feel with your hand.

"If you have two components at the same temperature, obviously you can't extract any work, but if you have two different temperatures you can," says Capasso. "But it's tricky; at the level of the electron behaviors, the explanation is much less intuitive."

"The key is in these beautiful circuit diagrams," he adds (see image at right). "We found they had been considered before for another application—in 1968 by J.B. Gunn, the inventor of the Gunn diode used in police radars—and been completely buried in the literature and forgotten. But to try to explain them qualitatively took a lot of effort."

Simply put, components in an electrical circuit can spontaneously push current in either direction; this is called electrical noise. Gunn's diagrams show that if a valve-like electrical component called a diode is at a higher temperature than a resistor, it will push current in a single direction, producing a positive voltage. Capasso's group suggests that the role of the resistor could be played by a microscopic antenna that very efficiently emits the Earth's infrared radiation toward the sky, cooling the electrons in only that part of the circuit.

The result, says Byrnes, is that "you get an electric current directly from the radiation process, without the intermediate step of cooling a macroscopic object."

According to the paper, a single flat device could be coated in many of these tiny circuits, pointed at the sky, and used to generate power.

Technological challenges—and promise

The optoelectronic approach, while novel, could be feasible in light of recent technological developments—advances in plasmonics, small-scale electronics, new materials like graphene, and nanofabrication. The Harvard team says a strength of their research is that it clarifies the remaining challenges.

"People have been working on infrared diodes for at least 50 years without much progress, but recent advances such as nanofabrication are essential to making them better, more scalable, and more reproducible," says Byrnes.

However, even with the best modern infrared diodes, there is a problem. "The more power that's flowing through a single circuit, the easier it is to get the components to do what you want. If you're harvesting energy from , the voltage will be relatively low," explains Byrnes. "That means it's very difficult to create an infrared diode that will work well."

Engineers and physicists, including Byrnes, are already considering new types of diodes that can handle lower voltages, such as tunnel diodes and ballistic diodes. Another approach would be to increase the impedance of the circuit components, thereby raising the voltage to a more practical level. The solution might require a little of both, Byrnes predicts.

Speed presents another challenge. "Only a select class of diodes can switch on and off 30 trillion times a second, which is what we need for infrared signals," says Byrnes. "We need to deal with the speed requirements at the same time we deal with the voltage and impedance requirements."

"Now that we understand the constraints and specifications," Byrnes adds, "we are in a good position to work on engineering a solution."

Explore further: Team develops compact, high-power terahertz source at room temperature

More information: "Harvesting renewable energy from Earth's mid-infrared emissions," by Steven J. Byrnes, Romain Blanchard, and Federico Capasso. www.pnas.org/content/early/201… /1402036111.abstract

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Recommended for you

50-foot-wide Muon g-2 electromagnet installed at Fermilab

11 hours ago

One year ago, the 50-foot-wide Muon g-2 electromagnet arrived at the U.S. Department of Energy's Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Illinois after traveling 3,200 miles over land and sea from Long Island, ...

Spin-based electronics: New material successfully tested

Jul 30, 2014

Spintronics is an emerging field of electronics, where devices work by manipulating the spin of electrons rather than the current generated by their motion. This field can offer significant advantages to computer technology. ...

User comments : 39

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Benni
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 03, 2014
This is not going to sit well with AGW's..........they want heat escaping the planet, not being trapped on it for any reason even if it went into food production.
Bonia
Mar 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
retrosurf
3.5 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2014
An ATD rectenna for infrared?
Neato.
Bonia
Mar 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nevermark
4.3 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2014
Benni,
Thanks for sharing your ideological biases by having an imaginary argument with someone.

There isn't any big controversy about climate science among scientists, regardless of the controversy's promoted in the media and on comment sites.

However, back to the article, and your very clever idea: It would be great if emitting infrared at a frequency tuned to escape our atmosphere not only captured usable energy, but cooled the planet. Bypassing the insulating effect of our atmosphere would have none of the downsides of other geoengineering proposals.
Dr_toad
5 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2014
Zephyr has many crosses to bear...

Only if you can radiate at a frequency transparent to the atmosphere could you "lose" heat. Good thought, though.
gjbloom
2.8 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2014
What is the potential power density? One watt per square meter? It's fun to think about, but there's no way this will ever be useful.
alfie_null
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2014
there's no way this will ever be useful.

That's an often repeated phrase. I'm glad we don't always listen.
Dunbar
5 / 5 (8) Mar 04, 2014
Don't research the solution, research its cost first...


If we took that attitude we wouldn't have micro electronics, nor, a computer industry. Yes, Silicon valley was built with taxpayers dollars.

Basic research lays the basis for all technology, it is conducted to satisfy scientific curiosity and to push boundaries of what is possible; applications and economies of scale are achieved afterwards.

I'll be honest, ignorant people like you piss me off royally.
Rimino
Mar 04, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Rimino
Mar 04, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 04, 2014
just seeks for maximization of its employment and profit

Your ignorance shows. Scientists don't get paid more (or less) in any case. They are employed by institutions which give them a fixed income.
If the department gets more (or less) funds in a given year then that does not translate into one cent more or less for the researchers' income. It may mean money for additional (or less) PhD students or some additional lab equipment.
There is no 'profit' in science for the scientists. None. If they wanted profits they'd go work for some big company where they get paid triple, easily.

Scientists are not greedy (like you). They are not like most people in scociety.

So yeah: You're ignorant about the most basic things concerning science and scientists. Go back to school.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2014
there's no way this will ever be useful.

That's an often repeated phrase. I'm glad we don't always listen.


I went on a course to learn about microprocessors as a junior engineer in the mid 70's. My then senior engineer at the time gave me some advice that I will never forget:

"Don't waste your time with microprocessors, they're a flash in the pan, they'll never catch on."
Rimino
Mar 04, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Rimino
Mar 04, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Fleetfoot
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2014
ignorant people like you piss me off royally
I'm not ignorant


Then why have you been repeating complete nonsense for many years despite having those errors pointed out time and time again by a long series of people who DO know what they are talking about. If you aren't ignorant of the subject, the obvious explanation is that you post what you know to be pseudo-scientific rubbish for the sole reason of eliciting a reaction from others, the exact definition of an internet "troll".

Other than that, perhaps you are deliberately trying to discredit this site (not that that needs much help). Given that you are based in Eastern Europe, I guess you could be state-funded or at least politically or idealogically motivated, there seems to be no other credible excuse.
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 04, 2014
The scientists are payed from grants and the number of their postdocs depends on these grants too.

Get this through your infinitely thick skull: Scientists do NOT get paid from grants. If a scientist gets a grant of a trillion dollars then not one cent of that grant ends up on the scientist's bank account. Do you get it? A grant is for research: More PhD students, more equipment.
It does not profit the scientist, personally, one bit.

I'm taking/asking any money from mandatory fees.

It is obvious that you think everyone is like you. Scientists aren't like you. They don't work for profit and, unlike you again, they know what they are talking about.

So go back to school. Learn something. Do some WORK in the science community (no: blathering about theories or 'emergent' rubbish without doing the work is not science.)...but stop acting as if you knew sonmething about science, scientists or the scientific community.

You don't.

Not by a long shot.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2014
There is no 'profit' in science for the scientists. None. If they wanted profits they'd go work for some big company where they get paid triple, easily.
And thats exactly what he's saying. Why should an undergrad consider a position in an underfunded academic field when he could get a pharma job at $150k right out of school? Most scientists and engrs tend to plan their careers around where they can make the best money. This is 'profit'. Why plan on specializing in LENR research if there's no money in it ?
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2014
Most scientists and engrs tend to plan their careers around where they can make the best money.

No, because there are hardly any scientists in big companies. Just look at the articles on physorg. Notice anything? Notice where all the research results are coming from? Universities and research institutions. If you go for the big money chances are you won't be a scientist for long. (And what the hell do engineers have anything to do with this debate?)
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2014
Get this through your infinitely thick skull: Scientists do NOT get paid from grants. If a scientist gets a grant of a trillion dollars then not one cent of that grant ends up on the scientist's bank account
Well that's an extra large pile of shit.

"NIH funds foreign grantees using direct deposits through HHS's Payment Management System (PMS). When the grantee draws funds from PMS... Salary or compensation you pay with grant funds must be reasonable for the position, for example, the education required and the person's experience...."
No, because there are hardly any scientists in big companies
Whoa! Watch your step!

"Science Names DuPont a Top 20 Employer... Developing pharmaceuticals requires huge investments of time, human resources, and capital. The companies identified in the 2013 Science Careers Top Employers Survey ensure a higher return on those investments by catering to the whims of the scientist brain, which they view as their greatest economic driver."
Rimino
Mar 04, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2014
"Bell Laboratories (also known as Bell Labs and formerly known as AT&T Bell Laboratories and Bell Telephone Laboratories) is the research and development subsidiary of Alcatel-Lucent in Berkeley Heights, New Jersey, United States. It previously was a division of the American Telephone & Telegraph Company (AT&T Corporation), half-owned through its Western Electric manufacturing subsidiary.

"Researchers working at Bell Labs are credited with the development of radio astronomy, the transistor, the laser, the charge-coupled device (CCD), information theory, the UNIX operating system, the C programming language, S programming language and the C++ programming language. Seven Nobel Prizes have been awarded for work completed at Bell Laboratories."

Ahaahaaaaa.
Your ignorance shows.
And your crap makes my eyes water.
Rimino
Mar 04, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2014
"Heidelberg University scientists report 50 inventions per year on average, with approximately 10 ultimately submitted for patent application... The author is entitled to royalties, the inventor to remuneration. According to the German Law on Employee Inventions, this is split between the employer and the employee. The university receives a portion for providing the space, equipment and organisation that make the invention possible. The inventor or inventors receive 30% of all earnings – without deduction of costs."

"Patents do not impede publication; inventors need only first disclose the invention so the university can apply for the patent. Publication can then follow. All employees (researchers, professors, technicians, but not students) are obligated to report their inventions to their employer."
Rimino
Mar 04, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
dedereu
not rated yet Mar 04, 2014
Extremely complex by a specialist of infrared .
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 04, 2014
Ahaahaaaaa.

I said 'hardly'. Yes, there was(!) Bell, yes there is Sony, yes there is IBM...but do you honestly think they measure up in quantity compared to universities and research institutions?

(And FYI: Bell Labs, now owned by Alcatel, pulled out of basic research in 2008. Bell lab - as it was, effectively doesn't exist anymore. Only the name remains. Quote from Wikipedia: "As of July 2008, however, only four scientists remained in physics research, according to a report by the scientific journal Nature.")

If you're gonna google - at least read till the end.
dedereu
4.8 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2014
A more simple working and quite more efficient use of this night cooling by infrared radiation to the interplanetary sky, is to use this cold of a plate in the night (often observed on cars with water condensation, or moisture ) to climatize in the day by conserving this cold inside heat storage (water or some concrete, clay, sand in a desert or the earth ) to cool the houses in the day.
It is more efficient, simple and working easily, with no heat conversion to electricity, ( very inefficient by Carnot principle ) with a cooling power more than 50W/m2 if the sky is clear .
The earth cools in the night with the same strength as it heats with the sun on the average.
Humidity and CO2 are decreasing this cooling and heating quite more the earth.
In the Sahara or deserts, with a very low humidity and no winds, you can freeze in the night and have above 40°C under the sun.
Rimino
Mar 04, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2014
"Heidelberg University scientists report 50 inventions per year on average, with approximately 10 ultimately submitted for patent application... The author is entitled to royalties, the inventor to remuneration. According to the German Law on Employee Inventions, this is split between the employer and the employee. The university receives a portion for providing the space, equipment and organisation that make the invention possible. The inventor or inventors receive 30% of all earnings – without deduction of costs."

"Patents do not impede publication; inventors need only first disclose the invention so the university can apply for the patent. Publication can then follow. All employees (researchers, professors, technicians, but not students) are obligated to report their inventions to their employer."

So what's your point, infantile blowhard? To make money from an invention, it actually has to work. LENR has not been shown that it does. Why aren't crying about that?
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2014
Ahaahaaaaa.
Your ignorance shows.
And your crap makes my eyes water.
No, your eyes are watering because you are an infantile blowhard with a chip on his shoulder who posts meandering slander on a science site to reduce his infantile need for self aggrandizement. Should get yourself a box of Kleenex as you'll be crying a lot as people realize what you're all about.
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2014
Well that's an extra large pile of shit.

"NIH funds foreign grantees using direct deposits through HHS's Payment Management System (PMS). When the grantee draws funds from PMS... Salary or compensation you pay with grant funds must be reasonable for the position, for example, the education required and the person's experience...."
Well look at you, all posturing and playing the big man on campus! What's the matter little boy, having trouble getting men to listen to your whiny wrong opinions? That chip on your shoulder must be heavy for you to cry on so many different threads.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2014
If you're gonna google - at least read till the end
I did. I think you ought to as well.

"How do top employers rise above these considerable hurdles? Above all, by placing science squarely at the center of their organizations and scientists at the top rungs of leadership. At these workplaces, the data drive decisions and project directions, which largely puts scientists in the drivers' seats... Neil Stahl, senior vp of r&d sciences at Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which is #1 on the 2013 Science Careers Top Employers Survey for a second year in a row."
do you honestly think they measure up in quantity compared to universities and research institutions?
-This is so embarrassing... check out the NSF report, table 4... upwards of 61% of all scientists are employed in the private sector.
http://www.nsf.go...sf04316/

-and all you had to do was LOOK IT UP. Did you assume the statistic wasnt readily available? How sad for you.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2014
Well look at you, all posturing and playing the big man on campus! What's the matter little boy, having trouble getting men to listen to your whiny wrong opinions? That chip on your shoulder must be heavy for you to cry on so many different threads.
The thing is magnus, and the reason that antialias, gswift, mike masson et al rarely return to engage me in debate, is because Im usually RIGHT. I was certainly right about the info above. I was certainly right about the nonsense you were trying to sew in the other threads.

And when I choose to take issue with anything you all post in the future, its because I know what Im talking about, and I know that you all dont; and whats more I can PROVE it. Which is after all why youre so upset now isnt it?

Please do keep this in mind in the future. The only way to avoid looking stupid is to exercise a little due diligence and research before you spout. Scientists do this all the time yes?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2014
So what's your point, infantile blowhard? To make money from an invention, it actually has to work. LENR has not been shown that it does. Why aren't crying about that?
Well obviously zephyrs argument was that if universities and govt gave LENR researchers the proper resources, they might already have generated many patents and much money.

As it is, the private sector seems to be stepping up.

"Mitsubishi Granted Patent for 'Nuclide Transmutation' Process... The patent application was filed in 2001 and was granted on December 3 2013... don't find a reference to LENR itself in the patent application, but the description of the device clearly shows that an LENR process is involved."

"Industrial Heat, LLC's announcement via a press release that the company had acquired the rights to Andrea Rossi's E-Cat technology 27 January 2014... fully convinced that Rossi's technology works. The press release mentions their satisfaction with independent E-Cat testing reports..."
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2014
]The thing is magnus, and the reason that antialias, gswift, mike masson et al rarely return to engage me in debate, is because Im usually RIGHT.
No, infantile posturer, they get tired of countering your juvenile tantrums. I happen to have the time,
I was certainly right about the info above. I was certainly right about the nonsense you were trying to sew in the other threads.
You wouldn't know "right" if it grabbed you, threw you on the ground and licked your face! You're just a childish blowhard.

And when I choose to take issue with anything you all post in the future, its because I know what Im talking about, and I know that you all dont; and whats more I can PROVE it. Which is after all why youre so upset now isnt it?
I'll look forward to it. The only thing you're able to prove is your lack of intellect. You should try using proper punctuation, and maybe learn the difference between your, you're and yore. I look forward to our further conversations!
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2014
You wouldn't know "right" if it grabbed you
I know you like to pretend the world is the way you think it ought to be. But how did you miss this?

AA - 'do you honestly think [scientists] measure up in quantity compared to universities and research institutions?'

otto - 'check out the NSF report, table 4... upwards of 61% of all scientists are employed in the private sector'

-I mean, thats pretty obvious, pretty clear-cut, pretty straightforward, even for you, dont you think? Magnus? Magnuts? Magamuffin? Muffy?? heehee
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2014
he thing is magnus, and the reason that antialias, gswift, mike masson et al rarely return to engage me in debate, is because Im usually RIGHT

Hint: The reason (at least I) rarely engage you in debate is:

1) I scroll past your ramblings to read stuff from people who actually have something to say.
2) When I don't: The stuff you write is so hilariously wrong that it would be a total waste of my time to comment on it. The stuff you write just makes the point of your incoherence so clearly that there's really no reason to pick it apart again. You do that perfectly yourself.

That you don't even see the inherent contradictions you continually post makes it just sad to watch. But those mental facepalms, when I do care to read what you write, are the extent of my engagement with your ramblings.

Magnus has it completely right: You wouldn't know "right" if it hit you over the head with a steel girder.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2014

The stuff you write is so hilariously wrong that it would be a total waste of my time to comment on it
Uh huh. So I guess this was the only time then.

AA - 'do you honestly think [scientists] measure up in quantity compared to universities and research institutions?'

otto - 'check out the NSF report, table 4... upwards of 61% of all scientists are employed in the private sector'
Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2014
Uh huh. So I guess this was the only time then.
No, you pretty much make a habit of being wrong. Sometimes you're stupidly wrong, often you're just wrong and stupid, and you're always a posturing blowhard.

Gswify7 and Mike Massen you say? I'll have to go and upgrade all the comments they've made; if they don't like you they must be ok people. I see you like to carry a spectacular run of 1 and 2's. About what your comments are worth, so I'm not surprised.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2014
Let it rest. He's (yet again) throwing a hissy fit and going through all old postings to downvote them...in a vain attempt to make his own postings seem somehow more...what?...compareable in quality?

The guy is a s far gone in terms of being out of touch between what he claims to stand for and how he acts as it's possible to be.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2014
The guy is a s far gone in terms of being out of touch between what he claims to stand for and how he acts as it's possible to be.
I see... so instead of having to admit that your guess about the majority of scientists being in academia, when the REALITY is that only 16% of them are per the NSF, you're willing to declare me 'far gone' and out of touch.

I suppose if this was a unique incident we could ascribe it to lack of sleep or something; but we both know it's not.

Aa speculates some nonsense; otto proves him wrong; aa attacks otto for having the audacity to question aa's authority. What can we discern about your character in light of this unfortunate equation aa?

Take that first step toward recovery aa; admit that 16% is not a majority and that the NSF is a more credible source of valid info than your ego.

Come on. The first step is always the hardest.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2014
Let it rest. He's (yet again) throwing a hissy fit and going through all old postings to downvote them...in a vain attempt to make his own postings seem somehow more...what?...compareable in quality?

The guy is a s far gone in terms of being out of touch between what he claims to stand for and how he acts as it's possible to be.
Lol I know, the immaturity, the vindictiveness, the grandstanding, the posturing and the holier than thou approach he uses to preach about how other people should act is uproariously hilarious! Sorry you got caught in the flack AA, but I am having so much fun with him right now, I'm not ready to let it go.

He's the internet equivalent of the school yard bully, and I am not afraid to call him out. It drives him so batty that's he's so obviously outmatched he has to resort to going back and down-voting past comments in some juvenile vengeance scheme! I'm having fun, feel free to join in lol!
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2014
I see... so instead of having to admit that your guess about the majority of scientists being in academia, when the REALITY is that only 16% of them are per the NSF, you're willing to declare me 'far gone' and out of touch.
Obviously you don't see! It has nothing to do with your facts, is has to do with the fact that you are a childish blowhard with a chip on his shoulder. Everything you say gets lost in your juvenile temper tantrums and bombastic pronouncements.

You are far gone, and you are clearly out of touch. Your also an immature, juvenile philistine.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2014
He's the internet equivalent of the school yard bully,

I think he's just a closet masochist who craves to be put down. So maybe you're just giving him what he really wants?
Attention is his thing. Not giving him any is the most effective approach. I stopped caring about (or even voting on) his posts long ago.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2014
school yard bully
I think he's just a closet masochist who craves to be put down. So maybe you're just giving him what he really wants?
Attention is his thing. Not giving him any is the most effective approach. I stopped caring about (or even voting on) his posts long ago
I'M not the one who likes to make up facts just to act like I know what Im talking about. Why would you make such an outrageously WRONG statement like

"No, because there are hardly any scientists in big companies."

-And then act like it doesnt matter? OF COURSE it matters. You MADE UP a fact, you act like its perfectly ok to do so, and you get indignant when youre called on it. And it is not a little mistake; it is a HUGE one.

You do this a lot. You encourage kids like magnus to do so as well because you appreciate the mutual butt-rubbing I suppose.

Bullies will never admit theyre wrong. They will assemble a gang and use it to taunt people who object to their behavior. Isnt that what youre doing aa?
Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2014
He's the internet equivalent of the school yard bully,

I think he's just a closet masochist who craves to be put down. So maybe you're just giving him what he really wants?
Attention is his thing. Not giving him any is the most effective approach. I stopped caring about (or even voting on) his posts long ago.
You're probably right AA, except that his juvenile antics (along with his buddies rygg, uba, zephyr and a couple of others) causes otherwise good posters to just stop posting. It's not my site, and I'm not really complaining as I enjoy my little distractions, but I miss seeing the likes of djr, runrig, Fleetwood and others. They get frustrated and the immaturity of a Ghost (rubbing bums together!?! HAHAHA) and simply stop posting, and the quality of the site as a whole loses because of it.

I like this site, I like their hands-off approach, I just don't like the juvenile antics of his ilk nor the "state and repeat" antics of some others.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2014
but I miss seeing the likes of djr, runrig, Fleetwood

Fleetfood is still posting (I think I saw a post of his today somewhere). And runrig was still here last week or so, I think.
djr, unfortunately, has gone missing.

On the plus side there are interesting new posters joining all the time (e.g. shavera)
antonima
not rated yet Mar 09, 2014

It does not profit the scientist, personally, one bit.


I work at a research institution, not an educational institution, so all of our money comes from grants. As surprising as it is, with the costs of biomedical research equipment so ludicrously inflated, the majority of research costs goes to salaries.