Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #600504 > unrolled thread

Revolution Around the Corner : Water in Electric Field

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Revolution Around the Corner : Water in Electric Field Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2023-01-30 12:43 -0800
    Re: Revolution Around the Corner : Water in Electric Field Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-01-30 15:38 -0600
      Re: Revolution Around the Corner : Water in Electric Field Darrel Vaccaro <acoc@vecdalvl.vc> - 2023-01-30 22:38 +0000
      Re: Revolution Around the Corner : Water in Electric Field Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2023-01-30 15:49 -0800
        Re: Revolution Around the Corner : Water in Electric Field nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-01-31 14:04 +0100
          Re: Revolution Around the Corner : Water in Electric Field RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-01-31 12:12 -0800
            Re: Revolution Around the Corner : Water in Electric Field nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-01-31 23:34 +0100
            Re: Revolution Around the Corner : Water in Electric Field Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-01-31 20:06 -0600
              Re: Revolution Around the Corner : Water in Electric Field Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-01-31 18:21 -0800
                Re: Revolution Around the Corner : Water in Electric Field nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-02-02 13:01 +0100
                  Re: Revolution Around the Corner : Water in Electric Field RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-02-02 10:41 -0800
                    Re: Revolution Around the Corner : Water in Electric Field Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-02-02 15:31 -0600
              Re: Revolution Around the Corner : Water in Electric Field nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-02-01 12:01 +0100
                Re: Revolution Around the Corner : Water in Electric Field RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-02-02 10:54 -0800
              Re: Revolution Around the Corner : Water in Electric Field RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-02-02 11:10 -0800
                Re: Revolution Around the Corner : Water in Electric Field Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-02-02 11:40 -0800
                Re: Revolution Around the Corner : Water in Electric Field Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-02-02 11:43 -0800
                Re: Revolution Around the Corner : Water in Electric Field Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-02-02 15:15 -0500
                  Re: Revolution Around the Corner : Water in Electric Field nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-02-03 11:37 +0100
                Re: Revolution Around the Corner : Water in Electric Field nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-02-03 11:37 +0100
                  Re: Revolution Around the Corner : Water in Electric Field RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-02-04 17:31 -0800
                    Re: Revolution Around the Corner : Water in Electric Field nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-02-06 19:59 +0100
                    Re: Revolution Around the Corner : Water in Electric Field Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-02-06 12:50 -0800
                      Re: Revolution Around the Corner : Water in Electric Field RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-02-07 14:05 -0800
                        Re: Revolution Around the Corner : Water in Electric Field Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-02-10 23:57 -0600
                          Re: Revolution Around the Corner : Water in Electric Field Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-02-10 22:31 -0800
                Re: Revolution Around the Corner : Water in Electric Field Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-02-03 13:50 -0600
                  Re: Revolution Around the Corner : Water in Electric Field Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-02-03 22:48 -0800
                  Re: Revolution Around the Corner : Water in Electric Field Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-02-06 14:17 -0800
                    Re: Revolution Around the Corner : Water in Electric Field whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-02-06 18:13 -0600
                    Re: Revolution Around the Corner : Water in Electric Field Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-02-06 20:38 -0500
                    Re: Revolution Around the Corner : Water in Electric Field nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-02-07 20:37 +0100
                    Re: Revolution Around the Corner : Water in Electric Field RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-02-07 14:07 -0800
              Re: Revolution Around the Corner : Water in Electric Field RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-02-04 17:18 -0800
        Re: Revolution Around the Corner : Water in Electric Field Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-01-31 17:30 -0800
          Re: Revolution Around the Corner : Water in Electric Field Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-02-01 09:30 +0100
      Re: Revolution Around the Corner : Water in Electric Field RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-01-31 12:03 -0800
    Re: Revolution Around the Corner : Water in Electric Field Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2023-01-31 00:06 -0800

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#600808

On February 3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>> A magnifying glass focuses sunlight onto a small spot. The spots 
>>>> heats. Thus the machine converts high entropy, low temperature 
>>>> energy, into a higher temperature, low entropy state. 
> 
>> > If you want to talk about heat, you need to use atoms, not light, so 
>> > you need start with the sun, which is not "low entropy" at all, and is 
>> > very much larger than your lens and its focus. Moreover, do you 
>> > seriously think that the hot spot from the lens is "higher temperature" 
>> > than the surface of the sun???? 
> 
>> Scale up to a large hemisphere, gathering light from half 
>> the sun. Focus it through mirrors and lenses to a small 
>> container of hydrogen-helium gas. Its temperature can be 
>> raised arbitrarily high.
>
> Another fundamental error. You need to learn about Kirchhoff's Laws 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_law_of_thermal_radiation> 
> 
> In the simplest form: 
> === 
> For an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in 
> thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity. 
> === 
> So applied to your magnifying glass: the focus cannot become hotter 
> than the surface of the sun. 

As stated, it says that the target absorbs and emits at its surface 
at an equal rate, if in equilibrium.  That is, equilibrium with its 
immediate environment.  It doesn't say that the target's temperature 
must be the same as the energy source, far away.

In this case, the hypothetical lens is gigantic, capturing a large 
fraction of the sun's output.

 
> Kirchhoff derived his laws from the consideration 
> that the mistake that you made cannot reflect physical reality. 

--
Rich

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600903

RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On February 3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>> A magnifying glass focuses sunlight onto a small spot. The spots
> >>>> heats. Thus the machine converts high entropy, low temperature 
> >>>> energy, into a higher temperature, low entropy state. 
> > 
> >> > If you want to talk about heat, you need to use atoms, not light, so
> >> > you need start with the sun, which is not "low entropy" at all, and is
> >> > very much larger than your lens and its focus. Moreover, do you 
> >> > seriously think that the hot spot from the lens is "higher temperature"
> >> > than the surface of the sun???? 
> > 
> >> Scale up to a large hemisphere, gathering light from half 
> >> the sun. Focus it through mirrors and lenses to a small 
> >> container of hydrogen-helium gas. Its temperature can be 
> >> raised arbitrarily high.
> >
> > Another fundamental error. You need to learn about Kirchhoff's Laws
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_law_of_thermal_radiation>
> > 
> > In the simplest form: 
> > === 
> > For an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in 
> > thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity.
> > === 
> > So applied to your magnifying glass: the focus cannot become hotter
> > than the surface of the sun. 
> 
> As stated, it says that the target absorbs and emits at its surface 
> at an equal rate, if in equilibrium.  That is, equilibrium with its 
> immediate environment.  It doesn't say that the target's temperature 
> must be the same as the energy source, far away.
> 
> In this case, the hypothetical lens is gigantic, capturing a large 
> fraction of the sun's output.

Do try to understand the physics of it,

Jan

> > Kirchhoff derived his laws from the consideration 
> > that the mistake that you made cannot reflect physical reality. 
> 
> --
> Rich

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600911

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 7:31:22 PM UTC-6, RichD wrote:

> As stated, it says that the target absorbs and emits at its surface 
> at an equal rate, if in equilibrium. That is, equilibrium with its 
> immediate environment. It doesn't say that the target's temperature 
> must be the same as the energy source, far away. 
> 
> In this case, the hypothetical lens is gigantic, capturing a large 
> fraction of the sun's output.

I told you. Read up about conservation of etendue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etendue

Your idea DOESN'T WORK.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#601039

On February 6, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>> As stated, it says that the target absorbs and emits at its surface 
>> at an equal rate, if in equilibrium. That is, equilibrium with its 
>> immediate environment. It doesn't say that the target's temperature 
>> must be the same as the energy source, far away. 
>> In this case, the hypothetical lens is gigantic, capturing a large 
>> fraction of the sun's output.
>
> I told you. Read up about conservation of etendue. 

Entendu.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etendue 
> Your idea DOESN'T WORK.

You're confused.

This etendue thigamajig concerns brightness-area, and its 
conservation, related to conservation of energy.  It says nothing 
about temperature or entropy, the content of the lens paradox.

If you weren't so lazy, you might READ the note to which you 
respond, and read your own references.

I'll spell it out.  In a spontaneous thermal system, entropy increases.  
Intuitively, one expects that as a light wave spreads and thins, its 
temperature should decrease, and entropy increase.  However, a 
convex lens concentrates the energy at its focal point, temperature 
INCREASES relative to the aperture; apparently anti-entropic.  The 
second law is overturned!

The explanation is Thermodynamics 101: that law applies to a CLOSED 
SYSTEM.  But a lens transports energy through both ends.  To close 
the system, we need to start at the original patch of sun surface, 
through space, through the lens, diverging out the other side.  Finally,  
capture the light, feed it back to the source, see if it raises the 
temperature.  Unlikely.

The purpose of all such paradoxes is to test the student.  You flunked.

--
Rich

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#601225

On 2/7/23 4:05 PM, RichD wrote:
> This etendue thigamajig concerns brightness-area, and its 
> conservation, related to conservation of energy.

The entendu of a light beam is what accelerator physicists call
emittance, considering the light beam as a bundle of light rays. There
are theorems about its conservation, and linear elements, such as
lenses, cannot change it. In particular, the entendu of the image of a
lens is equal to the entendu of the light source, considering only light
from the source that reaches the image.

This is NOT conservation of energy, though it ought to be obvious that
if a light beam is propagated without loss, the energy of the beam is
constant all along its path; ditto for a particle beam. For a light
beam, entendu is proportional to entropy; for a particle beam, emittance
is proportional to entropy.

> It says nothing about temperature or entropy, the content of the lens
> paradox.

It says nothing about temperature, but entendu is directly related to
the entropy of the light beam.

Note also that temperature is a property of an EQUILIBRIUM system. A
light beam is nowhere close to an equilibrium system, and temperature
does not apply to it.

BUT: for the case of a hot light source emitting thermal radiation, and
a lens focusing that into an image and heating an object on which the
image is projected, one can discuss the temperature of the source and
the object -- the latter can never exceed the former.

	Hint: if the object was hotter than the source,
	the thermal radiation emitted by the object would
	propagate in the reverse direction and heat the
	source.

> [... lots of misunderstandings and confusions about entropy and 
> temperature]

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#601228

On Saturday, 11 February 2023 at 06:57:10 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 2/7/23 4:05 PM, RichD wrote: 
> > This etendue thigamajig concerns brightness-area, and its 
> > conservation, related to conservation of energy.
> The entendu of a light beam is what accelerator physicists call 

And we're all FORCED!!! To THE BEST WAY!!!!!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600712

On 2/2/23 1:10 PM, RichD wrote:
> Scale up to a large hemisphere, gathering light from half the sun. 
> Focus it through mirrors and lenses to a small container of 
> hydrogen-helium gas.  Its temperature can be raised arbitrarily 
> high.

Making stuff up and pretending it is true is not a viable approach to
physics.

There are optical limits on how sharply such a source can be focused,
and if you had bothered to actually work this out, you would find that
the focused image cannot heat any object above the temperature of the
source.

	[Remember that as the target heats up, it will radiate
	 more energy....]

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600751

On Friday, 3 February 2023 at 20:50:30 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 2/2/23 1:10 PM, RichD wrote: 
> > Scale up to a large hemisphere, gathering light from half the sun. 
> > Focus it through mirrors and lenses to a small container of 
> > hydrogen-helium gas. Its temperature can be raised arbitrarily 
> > high.
> Making stuff up and pretending it is true is not a viable approach to 
> physics. 

But it is exactly the approach of you and your 
fellow idiots.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600913

On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 4:50:30 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:

<snip>

> Making stuff up and pretending it is true is not a viable approach to 
> physics. 

<snip>
> Tom Roberts

But, but Einstein............
Then, his longitudinal and traverse masses of the electron are a fail?. Or his length contraction?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600917

On 2/6/2023 4:17 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 4:50:30 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> Making stuff up and pretending it is true is not a viable approach to
>> physics.
> 
> <snip>
>> Tom Roberts
> 
> But, but Einstein............
> Then, his longitudinal and traverse masses of the electron are a fail?. Or his length contraction?

Does it matter since the technology derived from his theories continues
to work well?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600922

On 2/6/2023 5:17 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 4:50:30 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> Making stuff up and pretending it is true is not a viable approach to
>> physics.
> 
> <snip>
>> Tom Roberts
> 
> But, but Einstein............

You mean the very man who continues to slap you silly because you are so 
pathetically wrong? Even though he's been dead for many decades?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#601015

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 4:50:30 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > Making stuff up and pretending it is true is not a viable approach to
> > physics. 
> 
> <snip>
> > Tom Roberts
> 
> But, but Einstein............
> Then, his longitudinal and traverse masses of the electron are a fail?. Or his
> length contraction?

Longitdinal and transverse masses are obsolete.
They are a legacy from people who attempted
to force relativistic mechanics into a Newtonian framework.
They are not needed in a fully relativistic treatment,

Jan


 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#601040

On February 6,  Richard Hertz wrote:
>> Making stuff up and pretending it is true is not a viable approach to physics.
> 
> But, but Einstein............ 

Don't forget Pauli and his neutrinos - 

--
Rich

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600805

On January 31, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> A magnifying glass focuses sunlight onto a small spot. The spots 
>> heats. Thus the machine converts high entropy, low temperature 
>> energy, into a higher temperature, low entropy state.
>
> A magnifying glass focuses sunlight into a small spot. But it does NOT 
> change the entropy of the light -- for a light beam, such as the 
> sunlight that traverses a lens, entropy is proportional to its 
> emittance, and there is a theorem that no linear element, such as a 
> lens, can change the emittance of a beam. The lens does change a 
> large-area, low-divergence beam into a small-area high-divergence beam 
> at its focus [#], but does NOT change its emittance. 

One would expect that, in an expanding EM wave, the entropy 
would naturally increase; think of an expanding gas.  So this 
is a surprising result.

I suspect it's somehow related to information conservation.  
Statistical mechanics is often modeled using an informational 
approach.

Assuming the Maxwell equations govern the wave, it's 
deterministic in both time directions.   Given the state at any 
instant, the entire history is fixed.  Hence information is 
conserved.  If entropy is conserved, there must be some 
deeper connection.


--
Rich

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600578

On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 5:49:02 PM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 10:38:53 PM UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote: 
> > So why hasn't anybody built a perpetual motion machine based on this? 
> > Or an electric generator that turns ambient heat into electricity? 
> > 
> > Tom Roberts
> This is a silly objection. Refuting a proposition in science has nothing to do with the technological task of building a machine. The refutation can be valid while the respective technology can be impossible, for many reasons. "Perpetual motion machine of the second kind is possible" means nothing more than "The second law of thermodynamics is false". The word "machine" in "perpetual motion machine" exists for historic reasons only. 

I very seldom respond to any of your posts, but that
is an ***AMAZINGLY*** stupid assertion of yours.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600593

On 2023-02-01 01:30:10 +0000, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog said:

> On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 5:49:02 PM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 10:38:53 PM UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:> > 
>> So why hasn't anybody built a perpetual motion machine based on this?> 
>> > Or an electric generator that turns ambient heat into electricity?> 
>> >> > Tom Roberts
>> This is a silly objection. Refuting a proposition in science has 
>> nothing to do with the technological task of building a machine. The 
>> refutation can be valid while the respective technology can be 
>> impossible, for many reasons. "Perpetual motion machine of the second 
>> kind is possible" means nothing more than "The second law of 
>> thermodynamics is false". The word "machine" in "perpetual motion 
>> machine" exists for historic reasons only.
> I very seldom respond to any of your posts, but that
> is an ***AMAZINGLY*** stupid assertion of yours.

Having followed Pentcho's idiocy over the 2nd law  of thermodynamics 
for about 25 years, I'm long past being amazed at what he writes.


-- 
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly 
in England until 1987.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600563

On January 30, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> [...] Systems of this kind can convert ambient heat into work, in violation of
>> the second law of thermodynamics.
>
> So why hasn't anybody built a perpetual motion machine based on this? 

A pair of economists stroll down the street.
One says:  "Look, a $20 bill, lying on the sidewalk."
The response:  "You hallucinate.  If there really were such 
a bill,  someone would have picked it up."  

--
Rich

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#600534

In an electric field, the pressure in the bulk of water increases (becomes greater than the pressure in field-free regions):

Tai Chow, Introduction to Electromagnetic Theory: A Modern Perspective, p. 267: "The strictly electric forces between charges on the conductors are not influenced by the presence of the dielectric medium. The medium is polarized, however, and the interaction of the electric field with the polarized medium results in an INCREASED FLUID PRESSURE ON THE CONDUCTORS that reduces the net forces acting on them." http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-To-Electromagnetic-Theory-Perspective/dp/0763738271

Wolfgang K. H. Panofsky, Melba Phillips, Classical Electricity and Magnetism, pp.115-116: "Thus the decrease in force that is experienced between two charges when they are immersed in a dielectric liquid can be understood only by considering the effect of the PRESSURE OF THE LIQUID ON THE CHARGES themselves." http://www.amazon.com/Classical-Electricity-Magnetism-Second-Physics/dp/0486439240?tag=viglink21401-20

"However, in experiments in which a capacitor is submerged in a dielectric liquid the force per unit area exerted by one plate on another is observed to decrease...This apparent paradox can be explained by taking into account the DIFFERENCE IN LIQUID PRESSURE in the field filled space between the plates and the field free region outside the capacitor." http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node46.html

This additional (non-conservative) pressure can produce cyclical flows that can be harnessed to do work. If, for instance, a small hole is punched in one of the plates of the submerged capacitor, the high interplate pressure will push water through the hole and so a permanent flow will form.

Water in an electric field automatically becomes a perpetual-motion machine of the second kind. Vigorous motion is generated that can do work (e.g. by rotating waterwheels) at the expense of ambient heat (there is no other source of usable energy):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17UD1goTFhQ&t=1s

Here a liquid in an electric field forms a jet:

Fundamentals of the Electrospray Process https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqemod9DutI&t=4s

The jet and other dynamic processes are powered by

(A) electric energy?

(B) ambient heat?

It is not difficult to see that (B) is the correct (only possible) answer.

More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web