Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Laws of Thermodynamics Thread (merged)

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

THE Laws of Thermodynamics Thread (merged)

Unread postby Chicagoan » Tue 05 Oct 2004, 22:22:43

:shock: http://tinyurl.com/52p8k
According to Fred Westlund of Westlund Technology, the Second Law of Thermodynamics can be shown to be invalid with simple experiments that can be reproduced by most researchers without expensive lab equipment. Westlund describes his experiments on his website westlundtech.com and in his report “How Lightning Strikes Are Produced and Why the Second Law of Thermodynamics Is Invalid”.
Last edited by Ferretlover on Sun 16 Sep 2012, 20:05:24, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: Merged with THE Thermodynamics Thread.
Chicagoan
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 296
Joined: Sat 19 Jun 2004, 02:00:00

Unread postby trespam » Tue 05 Oct 2004, 23:13:22

I can create a web site and create a press release that describes my experiments that violate thermodynamics as well. Doesn't make it true. Find someone who has reproduced his findings. I bet you won't.
User avatar
trespam
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 996
Joined: Tue 10 Aug 2004, 02:00:00
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Unread postby aldente » Tue 05 Oct 2004, 23:45:51

I am not sure who stand behind this "pureenrgysystems" website, it might be those guys from the artificial island of Sealand: http://www.fruitsofthesea.demon.co.uk/sealand/
And honestly I have neither the time nor the patience to check on those perma-magnet generators. They seem to work as far as I have heard but the energy they create is so minimal that at most a flash light can be operated on. In so far interesting but useless when comparing it to the energy oil provides.
A better approch and most important "understandable" and comprehensive is the mechanical approach of opposing the second law of thermodynamics. This indeed only applies to closed systems which is correct but in an open system a perpetuum mobile is theoretically possible. One has to dedicate time to enter and study this subject but it might be the one most worthwile to check on in your life:

http://www.evert.de/eft800e.htm
User avatar
aldente
permanently banned
 
Posts: 1559
Joined: Fri 20 Aug 2004, 02:00:00

perpetual motion

Unread postby Such » Wed 06 Oct 2004, 09:01:03

I think they should very carefully redo their calculations.
Such
 

Unread postby djd » Wed 06 Oct 2004, 09:31:53

I note here something common to most free energy claims: the results claimed occur under conditions that make measurement extremely difficult.

In this case, extremely high impedances are present. The measurements have an implicit accuracy of about 20 pico-amperes (that's 0.00000000002 amp). While this certainly can be achieved, it takes extreme precautions to do so. The following is a quite from a TI datasheet for an electrometer amplifier:

"Triboelectric effects (friction-generated charge) can be a
troublesome source of errors. Vibration of the circuit board,
input connectors and input cables can cause noise and drift."
from http://focus.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/opa129.pdf

The equipment would need to be much more complex than stated to avoid even relatively obvious effects - for example, entirely surrounded by a "Farady cage" to prevent external electric fields from intruding - and that's just a start.

As a side note: the experiment that was claimed to have "produced a significant amount of electrical energy"? It produced about 0.0000000025 watts. Congratulations - it'd only take about 5600 million of those to light a 14W compact fluorescent bulb.
User avatar
djd
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed 06 Oct 2004, 02:00:00

THE Laws of Thermodynamics Thread (merged)

Unread postby stayathomedad » Mon 11 Oct 2004, 14:16:04

Ladies and Gentlemen: We talk a lot about geophysics, politics, hopes of new enrgies etc. But it seems to me that we have little understanding about the laws of thermodynamics in our forums.

My concern is, that a lot of the alternative energy sources and uses of energy described and discussed here have the same limitations as the existing ones: the laws of thermodynamics.

These laws are valid universally, and there is no observation which would discredit them. Should we start an educational/informative page on here to bring them to a wider audience, especially us and our guests?

Best Regards
It just gets better every day....
User avatar
stayathomedad
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun 18 Jul 2004, 02:00:00
Location: wilmington, nc

Unread postby k_semler » Mon 11 Oct 2004, 14:31:08

I shall let Wikipedia speak here: Wiki
Here Lies the United States Of America.

July 04, 1776 - June 23 2005

Epitaph: "The Experiment Is Over."

Rest In Peace.

Eminent Domain Was The Murderer.
k_semler
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1797
Joined: Mon 17 May 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Democratic People's Republic of Washington

Unread postby trespam » Mon 11 Oct 2004, 14:38:54

Please keep in mind: God makes the laws of the Universe, and our beloved Attorney General, John Ashcroft, is able to channel God. John also happens to be in charge of our earthly laws.

We are expecting Mr Ashcroft to hold a press conference any day. He will then announce that the laws of Thermodynamics have been overturned until further notice.

I think this is the October surprise everyone has been waiting for. The American way of life is not negotiable.
User avatar
trespam
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 996
Joined: Tue 10 Aug 2004, 02:00:00
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Unread postby stayathomedad » Mon 11 Oct 2004, 14:40:01

But that site is a little complex, right? No? What about something easier?
It just gets better every day....
User avatar
stayathomedad
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun 18 Jul 2004, 02:00:00
Location: wilmington, nc

Unread postby stayathomedad » Mon 11 Oct 2004, 14:46:29

trespam: how could I, somewhere here in my little bubble I forgot about god, bush, ramsfeld, cheny and ashcroft. but you should take a spanking for that as well: forgetting about condy rice [smilie=5dragon.gif]

maybe I should go and talk to the lord more often :twisted:
It just gets better every day....
User avatar
stayathomedad
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun 18 Jul 2004, 02:00:00
Location: wilmington, nc

Unread postby aldente » Mon 11 Oct 2004, 14:57:46

The laws of thermodynamics apply only in closed systems, and yet is it until today not possible for physics to explain gravity for instance. It is simply considered a constant, a given. There is a very interesting web site where the basic understanding of surplus energy and potential generation therof is layed out: http://www.evert.de/indefte.htm
It is a large website with many different approaches of this subject, mostly focussing on fluid-technology as well as simple to understand mechanical systems. I suggest that you take your time before dismissing it (which you probably will unless you are willing to place the pillars of your reasoning, the laws of thermodynamics out of a closed in an open system).

The real problem when thinking about generating energy is that the human mind seems to be stuck on the process of combustion whereas relative simple mechanical systems using inertia creating surplus energy would be able to deliver "near-free" energy without depleting resources.
User avatar
aldente
permanently banned
 
Posts: 1559
Joined: Fri 20 Aug 2004, 02:00:00

Unread postby smiley » Mon 11 Oct 2004, 16:23:30

I have my doubts when it comes to the use of of thermodynamics. It is a very valuable tool in some fields. It greatly aids in the understanding of simple equilibriated and (as albente rightly states) closed systems.

However I feel that some here consider it as the holy grail of science. Something which explains everything.

If you work on disordered or metastable systems thermodynamics are no longer applicable. Unfortunately many of the things around us are like that. One cannot explain by mere thermodynamics why random systems have the tendency to rearrange themselves in elaborate and complex structures.

That doesn't necessarely mean that thermodynamics are incorrect. It probably is the way we use it. A system quickly can become too complicated to understand with our computing power. One has to make shortcuts and assumptions which increases the risk of an erroneous outcome.

I like to view thermodynamics as a tool for understanding the world around us. A tool which is limited by the skill of its users.

Chaos theory can be a great help in the description of these subjects. However I have always viewed chaos theory as a temporary fix, something which is usuable until something better comes along. It is hardly as well defined as quantum physics and uses some methaphysical elements which we not yet understand.

Another technique which you can use is brute force calculations or modelling. Methods like Monte Carlo simulations can be a great help in these systems. However the "Garbage in-garbage out" problem quickly arises, meaning that the correctness of your outcome greatly relies on your initial assumptions and boundary conditions.

All these methods can only be used in distinct isolated cases. Moreover these cases have to be more or less perfect from an experimental viewpoint. We obviously live in a less than perfect world which will cause a deviation from reality.

Assessing the thermodynamic properties of an alternative source or use of energy might be an interesting excercise. However you might also find that a device, which works very well from a thermodynamic viewpoint, does not do so well in reality (most carnot cycles).

On the other hand you also might find, that a device which does not seem so sensible from a thermodynamic point of view, actually works pretty well in reality.

There is no substitute for builing a device and testing it.
User avatar
smiley
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2274
Joined: Fri 16 Apr 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Europe

Unread postby MrBean » Mon 11 Oct 2004, 17:45:32

smiley wrote:If you work on disordered or metastable systems thermodynamics are no longer applicable. Unfortunately many of the things around us are like that. One cannot explain by mere thermodynamics why random systems have the tendency to rearrange themselves in elaborate and complex structures.

That doesn't necessarely mean that thermodynamics are incorrect. It probably is the way we use it. A system quickly can become too complicated to understand with our computing power. One has to make shortcuts and assumptions which increases the risk of an erroneous outcome.


The basic problem of application of thermodynamics seems to be this: "systems delimited by real or ideal boundaries". Quantum Theory put's in question the validity of any boundaries, at least Bohr and Bohm take the holistic view.

You might find Bohm's 'Wholeness and Implicate order' very interesting, especially his ideas on different orders of order and the dynamics between them. Chaos theory and then some.
User avatar
MrBean
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1202
Joined: Sun 26 Sep 2004, 02:00:00

Unread postby MonteQuest » Mon 11 Oct 2004, 18:13:41

The Laws of Thermodynamics have been discussed here at length in at least three threads:

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic1687.html

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic1762.html

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic2006.html
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16299
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Unread postby MonteQuest » Mon 11 Oct 2004, 18:23:03

albente wrote:The laws of thermodynamics apply only in closed systems, and yet is it until today not possible for physics to explain gravity for instance.


And they don't apply in isolated and open systems? You are saying that in space( an isolated system) and in living systems(open) you can create and destroy energy and transfer energy without a loss? Care to explain yourself.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16299
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Unread postby MonteQuest » Mon 11 Oct 2004, 18:25:24

smiley quote:
One cannot explain by mere thermodynamics why random systems have the tendency to rearrange themselves in elaborate and complex structures.


For instance?
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16299
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Unread postby smiley » Mon 11 Oct 2004, 18:48:51

smiley quote:
Quote:
One cannot explain by mere thermodynamics why random systems have the tendency to rearrange themselves in elaborate and complex structures.


For instance?


Image
User avatar
smiley
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2274
Joined: Fri 16 Apr 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Europe

Unread postby MonteQuest » Mon 11 Oct 2004, 18:57:56

It's called non-equilibrium thermodynamics. No mystery here. I covered this at length in one of my threads.

Living systems can never obtain an equilibrium state while they are alive because that would entail death. They maintain this "steady state" by feeding off the available energy around them. Matter and energy must continue to flow through them or they die. Fee flow of energy, rather than entropy is the primary concern. Nonequilibrium thermodynamics. While nonequilibrium systems are not explained in the same way as equilibrium systems, they do conform to the broad imperative of 2nd Law. So I think my agruments hold water in the broad sense. The rate of entropy is just different. Splitting hairs does little to take away the import of the message does it?
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16299
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Unread postby MrBean » Mon 11 Oct 2004, 20:03:43

By quick search, this seems good discussion on negentropy

http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/Mae ... tr.html#p1

`Negentropy', as stored mobilizable energy in a space-time structured (organized) system, can be intuitively understood as follows. In an equilibrium system, energy is fixed, which in turn fixes the population of energy levels characteristic of the temperature of the system. In a nonequilibrium system such as the organism, energy is stored over all space-time domains. For a given temperature, the energy stored is no longer fixed, but on account of efficient coupling, becomes transferred to ever larger space-time domains (starting from the photon trapped in photosynthesis, or the energy in food) until all characteristic domains are equally populated. This implies that the organism itself has no preferred levels, its activities spanning the `quantum' to `classical', from the `microscopic' through `mesoscopic' to the `macroscopic' in a quasi-continuum of self-similar patterns.
User avatar
MrBean
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1202
Joined: Sun 26 Sep 2004, 02:00:00

Unread postby stayathomedad » Mon 11 Oct 2004, 20:18:55

:twisted: I love what is going here. It confirms my old theory, that folks which do not understand thermodynamics become laywers, medical doctors or turn into religion/metaphysics, priests, gurus etc, or even politicians. This is why I am against caps on liability and malpractice, I am tired of paying for other folks fuck-ups, or people's believe in a magic something, sort of the perpetuum mobile which was quoted in this topic. Sounds like folks do the old witches test: if she can swim, she is a whitch and needs to be burned on the stake, if she cannot and drowns, she was clearly innocent :-D

I know that you old timers on this site are tired of this topic, but this discussion shows that we need a "thermodynamics for dummies" section. Barnes and Nobles makes a shitload of money on the whatever for dummies section, so we should do it for good will.

Old Signature: It just gets better every day

New one: Celebrate the new dark age with us, calculate the irony with someone you can trust.

Or: You think the dark age is over, never mind it just starts

Maybe I should have a vote over that signature

:!:
User avatar
stayathomedad
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun 18 Jul 2004, 02:00:00
Location: wilmington, nc

Next

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 14 guests