Free Energy
in [Physics]
|
From: Martin Swain on 23 Feb 2006 13:35 Scott Nudds wrote: > "Tom" <askpermission(a)comcast.net> wrote > >>Most physicists are pretty sure a "free energy" machine can't work because >>it violates the first law of thermodynamics. > > > There was a time not long ago when most physicists were pretty sure that > Newtonian mechanics was correct as well. > > It is entirely unclear to me why anyone would expect the laws of statistical > mechanics to apply to a realm where the laws of mechanics do not apply. > > Perhsps you can enlighten us as to why this must be the case Tom. > > I await your response with baited breah. > > You haven't explained your problem with that statement well enough to respond to. If you could answer a couple questions it might serve to shed some light. 1. How do you think relativity effects the first law of thermodynamics in such a way as to render it possible to build a free energy machine? 2. Assuming the previous statement to be true, why hasn't anyone built one yet? Also, here is the first law of thermodynamics, just to save you the trouble of looking it up. " The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added to the system by heating, minus the amount lost in the form of work done by the system on its surroundings. " It's pretty obvious, at least to me, why this indicates that a free energy machine can't be created. I fail to see however how it is supposed to be broken by relativity, but then I am no expert.
From: Scott Nudds on 23 Feb 2006 14:41 > > It is entirely unclear to me why anyone would expect the laws of > > statistical > > mechanics to apply to a realm where the laws of mechanics do not apply. > > > > Perhsps you can enlighten us as to why this must be the case Tom. > > > > I await your response with baited breah. "Archangel" <Archangel(a)nulldev.com> wrote > I thought it was a good post until you invoked the stupidity demon. You were and still are free to clarify the issue of the applicability macroscopic statistical mechanics to non-mechanical quantum-mechanical systems Archangel. Perhaps you can provide a proof that doesn't require a redefinition of entropy. I note that you have elected not to do so.
From: Scott Nudds on 23 Feb 2006 14:43 "Richard Tobin" <richard(a)cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message > It's more common to wait with bated breath. Or have you been eating a > lot of cheese? Yes... Yes I have as a matter of fact. And thank you for asking. I also have a nice crop of fruit flies growing in my kitchen. Mmmmmmm Yummy, Yummy Fruit Flies. Oddly, and contrary to popular sentiment, my fruit flies don't like banannas. I think they are the decendents of native Floridians.
From: Scott Nudds on 23 Feb 2006 14:46 > "There was a time not long ago when most physicists were pretty > sure that Newtonian mechanics was correct as well." "Kore" wrote > How is Newtonian mechanics incorrect? It may not work well when > dealing with the very small (subatomic level) or the very fast (going > towards light speed), but here in the world I always inhabit, it works > pretty well. But not exactly, which makes it incorrect in the same way that .99999999 = 1 is incorrect. "Kore" wrote > In this world as well, I have yet to encounter anything > free, that is, which doesn't have a price or a cost. Then perhaps you should start a movement to banish the word from the English Language. Stupid... Stupid... Kore.
From: Scott Nudds on 23 Feb 2006 15:09
Scott Nudds wrote: > > There was a time not long ago when most physicists were pretty sure that > > Newtonian mechanics was correct as well. > > > > It is entirely unclear to me why anyone would expect the laws of statistical > > mechanics to apply to a realm where the laws of mechanics do not apply. > > > > Perhsps you can enlighten us as to why this must be the case Tom. > > > > I await your response with baited breah. "Martin Swain" wrote: > You haven't explained your problem with that statement well enough > to respond to. It's quite simple. Statistical mechanics is based on the idea of counting the definitive states of aggregates of real world objects, assuming things like the equality of any two energy states, and then drawing infrences and conclusions from the statistical nature of these systems. In quantum mechanics, a system can be in a multitude of states - perhaps an infinite number at any given instant, and individual objects may or may not exist at any particular time. Further there are confounding relationships like the existance of vaccum energy, that can perterb the system, as well as exclusionary rules like Pauli that in no way make it clear that the concepts of thermodynamics apply to these systems. In particular the orgin of the universe is a spectacular violation of the laws of thermodynamics. You are asked to provide a thermodynamic explanation for the origin of the universe, and to provide a reason based on thermodynamics that energy can not be extracted from the vacuum. Now given that the universe exists, and that energy has already been extracted from the vacuum, I suspect you are going to have a hard time of it. I await your response with laughter. "Martin Swain" wrote: > 1. How do you think relativity effects the first law of thermodynamics > in such a way as to render it possible to build a free energy > machine? Do we assume the existance of negative mass? Snicker. Relativity requires that gravity waves propagate in space as quadrapole distortions in space and time. It is theoretically possible to use a large mass and it's associated inertial momentum to extract energy from these distortions as they pass through the mass, stretching and compacting it as it passes. Energy is thereby extracted from the vacuum of space. Other arguments based on relativity and quantum mechanics require that forces of action/reaction become uncoupled. Pushes can for example be devoid of pulls. A particle A for example can be pulled toward particle B without particle B feeling any force from particle A. This is a direct result of the finite speed of propagation of force fields. This also implies immediately that the vacuum of space holds a sea of energy and that this energy from time to time is used to accelerate objects and hence is extracted from this underlying free energy sea. > Also, here is the first law of thermodynamics, just to save you the > trouble of looking it up. > > " > The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount > of energy added to the system by heating, minus the amount lost in the > form of work done by the system on its surroundings. > " > > It's pretty obvious, at least to me, why this indicates that a free > energy machine can't be created. I fail to see however how it is > supposed to be broken by relativity, but then I am no expert. That's nice. And as such is wrong, and has been proven so experimentally. In fact if it were not the case the PC you are using now would not be capable of functioning since the transistors it uses to compute would not work. Vacuum energy my boy is very real, and most probably the reason for all quantum mechanical wierdness, with the exception of quantization. I would add, that it is also the origin of momentum, and most probably the cosmological constant and the origin of the universe as you probably misunderstand it. |