<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Some stuff &#187; light bulbs</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.yhuang.org/?feed=rss2&#038;tag=light-bulbs" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://blog.yhuang.org</link>
	<description>here.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Aug 2025 08:50:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>some science</title>
		<link>https://blog.yhuang.org/?p=260</link>
		<comments>https://blog.yhuang.org/?p=260#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Apr 2010 23:02:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[black body radiation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[equilbrium]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[heat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[internal reflection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law of thermodynamics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[light bulbs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[opposite]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[paper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[radiation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scripts.mit.edu/~zong/wpress/?p=260</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Big bang an exploding white hole, opposite of a black hole? (paper) This sounds interesting and somehow satisfying. LED light bulbs coming, but incandescents being phased out by mandate in January, 2012? What?! Time to stockpile bulbs. I like my black-body radiation. Speaking of black-body radiation, suppose I have an enclosed system with a single [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100406172648.htm">Big bang an exploding white hole, opposite of a black hole?</a> (<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2010.03.029">paper</a>) This sounds interesting and somehow satisfying.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.smartplanet.com/business/blog/smart-takes/ge-energys-smart-led-light-bulb-promises-17-years-of-service-nine-watt-draw/5830/">LED light bulbs coming</a>, but incandescents being phased out by mandate in January, 2012? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Independence_and_Security_Act_of_2007#Incandescent_lights">What?!</a> Time to stockpile bulbs. I like my black-body radiation.</p>
<p>Speaking of black-body radiation, suppose I have an enclosed system with a single aperture for light and only light to pass through. Do I now have a system for converting heat to light, and therefore to electricity via bandgaps? Doesn&#8217;t that violate some law of thermodynamics?<br />
<span id="more-260"></span><br />
Okay, I guess the temperature of the photovoltaic converter (the heat sink) matters also, since photons incident on it need to find a site where the electron is in a low-energy state, so unless the converter is at absolute zero, there is some probability the photon will not be captured, which becomes waste heat.</p>
<p>Now what if we enclose the photovoltaic converter, too, so photons cannot escape? That won&#8217;t work, either, since at thermal equilbrium, the converter radiates as many photons as it captures, so no voltage develops. The converter just becomes hotter.</p>
<p>But wait, if the converter&#8217;s temperature rises above that of the radiating source, doesn&#8217;t that imply that the enclosed converter receives some kind of energy, even if it isn&#8217;t converted to electricity? Doesn&#8217;t that also violate a law of thermodynamics? Ah, but the radiating source and the converter are in optical contact. That must mean that no passive one-way optical material can exist, in which one side is totally opaque and absorptive and another side is totally transparent and reflective. Sounds like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff's_law_of_thermal_radiation">Kirchhoff&#8217;s law</a>&#8230;</p>
<p>Yet, there are transparent optical interfaces that use total internal reflection on one side to achieve exactly this one-way effect, is there not? Okay, the optics also radiate, so no free lunch here.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://blog.yhuang.org/?feed=rss2&#038;p=260</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>daylight savings time</title>
		<link>https://blog.yhuang.org/?p=65</link>
		<comments>https://blog.yhuang.org/?p=65#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Mar 2007 07:36:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[4am]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[artificial lighting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fact]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[idea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[light bulbs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reason]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[schedule]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stupid idea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sunrise and sunset]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scripts.mit.edu/~zong/wpress/?p=65</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&#8230; is a stupid idea. Yes, daylight is nice to have, but then go to work from 7 to 4 instead of 8 to 5. The only reason to change the clocks instead of changing schedules is because changing schedules (and habits in general) is hard. So we must pretend 7AM is 8AM. In fact, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8230; is a stupid idea. Yes, daylight is nice to have, but then go to work from 7 to 4 instead of 8 to 5. The only reason to change the clocks instead of changing schedules is because changing schedules (and habits in general) is hard. So we must pretend 7AM is 8AM. In fact, as long as artificial lighting exists, having a non-symmetric waking schedule will always be the norm, I argue. If daylight savings time existed year-round, people would start going to work at 9AM, and end up with no savings of daylight at all. Why don&#8217;t I break all my light bulbs and start getting up at 4AM and going to bed at 8PM. That maximizes daylight usage not to mention you see both sunrise and sunset. Sounds good to me. Why doesn&#8217;t everybody do that?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://blog.yhuang.org/?feed=rss2&#038;p=65</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
