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

Groups > sci.physics > #595897 > unrolled thread

Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-05 00:54 -0700
    Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-06 04:20 -0700
      Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-06 23:52 -0700
        Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-09 08:35 -0700
          Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-11 01:42 -0700
            Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 08:54 -0700
            Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-17 06:07 -0700
    Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False "Tim BandTech.com" <timgolden@bandtechnology.com> - 2016-09-17 10:23 -0700
      Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 19:43 +0200
        Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False "Tim BandTech.com" <timgolden@bandtechnology.com> - 2016-09-22 07:14 -0700
          Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 17:04 +0200
            Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 17:48 +0200
          Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 21:37 +0200
            Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False "Tim BandTech.com" <timgolden@bandtechnology.com> - 2016-09-22 20:55 -0700
              Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 06:59 +0200
              Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 08:59 +0200
                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False "Tim BandTech.com" <timgolden@bandtechnology.com> - 2016-09-23 08:43 -0700
                  Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 18:06 +0200
                    Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False "Tim BandTech.com" <timgolden@bandtechnology.com> - 2016-09-23 09:17 -0700
                      Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 11:28 -0500
                        Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False "Tim BandTech.com" <timgolden@bandtechnology.com> - 2016-09-24 08:40 -0700
                          Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 18:09 +0200
                          Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 18:47 +0200
                          Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 13:30 -0500
                            Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False "Tim BandTech.com" <timgolden@bandtechnology.com> - 2016-09-24 12:49 -0700
                              Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 15:29 -0500
                                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False "Tim BandTech.com" <timgolden@bandtechnology.com> - 2016-09-25 07:24 -0700
                                  Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 17:54 +0200
                                  Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 16:47 -0500
                                    Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False "Tim BandTech.com" <timgolden@bandtechnology.com> - 2016-09-26 06:47 -0700
                                      Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 18:16 +0200
                                        Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 18:24 +0200
                                        Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False "Tim BandTech.com" <timgolden@bandtechnology.com> - 2016-09-29 09:04 -0700
                                          Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 18:57 +0200
                                            Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 19:02 +0200
                                              Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False "Tim BandTech.com" <timgolden@bandtechnology.com> - 2016-09-30 07:00 -0700
                                                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 09:05 -0500
                                                  Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False "Tim BandTech.com" <timgolden@bandtechnology.com> - 2016-09-30 08:26 -0700
                                                    Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 18:17 +0200
                                                      Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False "Tim BandTech.com" <timgolden@bandtechnology.com> - 2016-10-02 05:48 -0700
                                                        Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 08:51 +0200
                                                          Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False "Tim BandTech.com" <timbandtech@gmail.com> - 2016-10-08 10:19 -0700
                                                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 17:39 +0200
                                                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 17:52 +0200
                                    Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-26 18:51 -0400
                              Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 08:37 +0200
                                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 08:39 +0200
                              Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 10:16 +0200
                      Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 18:36 +0200
                      Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 15:44 +0200
                        Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False "Tim BandTech.com" <timgolden@bandtechnology.com> - 2016-09-24 07:56 -0700
                          Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 17:18 +0200
                            Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 17:31 +0200
                              Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False "Tim BandTech.com" <timgolden@bandtechnology.com> - 2016-09-24 11:34 -0700
                                Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 21:21 +0200
                                  Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False "Tim BandTech.com" <timgolden@bandtechnology.com> - 2016-09-25 08:38 -0700
                                    Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 18:55 +0200
                                      Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 09:07 +0200
                                    Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 09:30 +0200
                                      Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False "Tim BandTech.com" <timgolden@bandtechnology.com> - 2016-09-26 04:45 -0700
                                        Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 14:53 +0200
                                          Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 15:52 +0200
      Re: Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-09-19 12:38 -0400

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#595897 — Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False

As a rule, scientists are silent about violations of the second law of thermodynamics, no matter how convincing they are. Here is a perpetual motion machine of the second kind published in a prestigious journal (no reaction at all from the scientific community): 

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/apl/103/16/10.1063/1.4825269 
 Electricity generated from ambient heat across a silicon surface, Guoan Tai, Zihan Xu, and Jinsong Liu, Appl. Phys. Lett. 103, 163902 (2013): "We report generation of electricity from the limitless thermal motion of ions across a two-dimensional (2D) silicon (Si) surface at room temperature. [...] ...limitless ambient heat, which is universally present in the form of kinetic energy from molecular, particle, and ion sources, has not yet been reported to generate electricity. [...] This study provides insights into the development of self-charging technologies to harvest energy from ambient heat, and the power output is comparable to several environmental energy harvesting techniques such as ZnO nanogenerator, liquid and gas flow-induced electricity generation across carbon nanotube thin films and graphene, although this remains a challenge to the second law of thermodynamics..."

There are even obvious violations of the second law of thermodynamics. In this video one switches the capacitor on and off and the system can repeatedly lift floating weights:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6KAH1JpdPg 
 "Liquid Dielectric Capacitor"

Switching the capacitor on and off involves no work done on the system so the energy for the work done BY the system (if it repeatedly lifts floating weights) can only come from the environmental heat, in violation of the second law.

The liquid-dielectric-capacitor perpetuum mobile (of the second kind) can be described in a different way. When a constant-charge parallel-plate capacitor is immersed in a liquid dielectric, e.g. water, a mysterious pressure emerges between the plates, pushes them apart and so counteracts their electrostatic attraction: 

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node46.html 
 "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." 

So we have a high pressure between the plates and a lower pressure outside the capacitor - then what if one punches a small hole in one of the plates? Will there be an eternal flow through the hole, from inside to outside? 

If the plates are vertical and only partially immersed, the same mysterious pressure forces the liquid between the plates to rise above the surface of the water pool: 

http://www.academia.edu/25650739/Fluids_in_electric_and_magnetic_fields_Pressure_variation_and_stability 
 I. Brevik, Fluids in electric and magnetic fields: Pressure variation and stability, Can. J . Phys. (1982): "Fig. 1. Two charged condenser plates partly immersed in a dielectric liquid. [...] Fig. 2. The hydrostatic pressure variation from point 1 to point 5 in Fig. 1." 

In 2002 I proposed the following device presumably violating the second law of thermodynamics: 

http://proceedings.aip.org/resource/2/apcpcs/643/1/430_1 
 AIP Conf. Proc. 643, pp. 430-435, Pentcho Valev 2002: "...as two vertical constant-charge capacitor plates partially dip into a pool of a liquid dielectric (e.g. water), the liquid between them rises high above the surface of the rest of the liquid in the pool. Evidently, if one punches a macroscopic hole in one of the plates, nothing could prevent the liquid between the plates from leaking out through the hole and generating an eternal waterfall outside the capacitor. This hypothesis has been discussed on many occasions but so far no serious counter-argument has been raised." 

Here is a schematic picture of the "eternal waterfall": 

http://energythic.com/usercontent/3/DIEPHOPU_caphole.gif 

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#596020

Catalysts can shift chemical equilibrium, which is fatal for the second law of thermodynamics:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-014-9781-5 
 Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox, D. P. Sheehan et al, Foundations of Physics, March 2014, Volume 44, Issue 3, pp 235-247: "...there arise between the vane faces permanent pressure and temperature differences, either of which can be harnessed to perform work, in apparent conflict with the second law of thermodynamics. Here we report on the first experimental realization of this paradox, involving the dissociation of low-pressure hydrogen gas on high-temperature refractory metals (tungsten and rhenium) under blackbody cavity conditions. The results, corroborated by other laboratory studies and supported by theory, confirm the paradoxical temperature difference and point to physics beyond the traditional understanding of the second law."

The second law of thermodynamics is obviously false for chemical systems. Consider the (valid) argument that, if catalysts can shift chemical equilibrium, the second law is violated: 

https://www.boundless.com/chemistry/textbooks/boundless-chemistry-textbook/chemical-equilibrium-14/factors-that-affect-chemical-equilibrium-106/the-effect-of-a-catalyst-447-3459/ 
 "In the presence of a catalyst, both the forward and reverse reaction rates will speed up equally, thereby allowing the system to reach equilibrium faster. However, it is very important to keep in mind that the addition of a catalyst has no effect whatsoever on the final equilibrium position of the reaction. It simply gets it there faster. [...] To reiterate, catalysts do not affect the equilibrium state of a reaction. In the presence of a catalyst, the same amounts of reactants and products will be present at equilibrium as there would be in the uncatalyzed reaction. To state this in chemical terms, catalysts affect the kinetics, but not the thermodynamics, of a reaction. If the addition of catalysts could possibly alter the equilibrium state of the reaction, this would violate the second rule of thermodynamics..." 

It is evident that, for the dissociation-association reaction 

A <-> B + C, 

a catalyst cannot speed up both the forward and reverse reaction rates equally, due to the entirely different forward and reverse catalytic mechanisms. In the forward (dissociation) reaction, the catalyst should just meet and split A. In the reverse (association) reaction, the catalyst should first get together B and C, which, if the diffusion factor is predominant, could be highly improbable. 

Catalysts do shift chemical equilibrium, in violation of the second law of thermodynamics. 

I have started the same discussion (and it has developed in an interesting way) here: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL_iNGh8CNo 
 Chemical Thermodynamics - Second Law / Entropy Review 

Pentcho Valev

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

#596148

Catalysts do shift chemical equilibrium, in violation of the second law of thermodynamics:

http://microver.se/sse-pdf/edgescience_24.pdf 
 "A small, closed, high temperature cavity contained two metal catalysts (rhenium and tungsten), which were known to dissociate molecular hydrogen (H2) to different degrees (Figure 1). (Rhenium dissociates hydrogen molecules into atoms better than tungsten does; conversely, tungsten recombines hydrogen atoms back into hydrogen molecules better than rhenium.) Because the dissociation reaction (H2 -> 2H) is endothermic (absorbs heat), and the recombination reaction (2H -> H2) is exothermic (liberates heat), when hydrogen was introduced into the cavity, the rhenium surfaces cooled (up to more than 125 K) relative to the tungsten (Figure 2). Because the hydrogen-metal reactions were ongoing in the sealed cavity, the rhenium stayed cooler than the tungsten indefinitely. This permanent temperature difference - this steady-state nonequilibrium - is expressly forbidden by the second law, not just because the system won’t settle down to a single-temperature equilibrium, but because this steady-state temperature difference can, in principle, be used to drive a heat engine (or produce electricity) solely by converting heat back into work, which is a violation of one of the most fundamental statements of the second law (Kelvin-Planck formulation)."

Pentcho Valev

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

#596379

It seems research on some perpetual-motion machines of the second kind is partially secret:

http://wewillblowyourmind.blogspot.bg/2013/01/self-charged-graphene-battery.html 
 SELF-CHARGED GRAPHENE BATTERY HARVESTS ELECTRICITY FROM THERMAL ENERGY OF THE ENVIRONMENT.

We heard a rumor that graphene patent applications have gone through the roof.

Now we know why...
This is some big stuff, we suggest you keep your eye on the graphene field. We don't want to just repeat what these others have gone through all the hard work of explaining, so below is the source article and below that is the technology review. The future is cool! We love renewable, clean energy!

Source: Cornell University Library:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.0161
Zihan Xu, Guoan Tai, Yungang Zhou, Fei Gao, Kin Hung Wong

Technology Review:  http://www.technologyreview.com/view/427140/graphene-battery-turns-ambient-heat-into-electric-current/  [end of quotation]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVUf7-tTLXo 
 The Super Supercapacitor

Pentcho Valev

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

#596541

The second law of thermodynamics is OBVIOUSLY violated by pH-sensitive polymers:

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/valev/val3.gif

http://www.google.com/patents/US5520672 
 "When the pH is lowered (that is, on raising the chemical potential, μ, of the protons present) at the isothermal condition of 37°C, these matrices can exert forces, f, sufficient to lift weights that are a thousand times their dry weight."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1367611/pdf/biophysj00645-0017.pdf 
 POLYELECTROLYTES AND THEIR BIOLOGICAL INTERACTIONS, A. KATCHALSKY, pp. 13-15: "Let the polymolecule be a negatively charged polyacid in a stretched state and have a length L. Now let us add to the molecule a mineral acid to provide hydrogen ions to combine with the ionized carboxylate groups and transform them into undissociated carboxylic groups according to the reaction RCOO- + H+ = RCOOH. By means of this reaction, the electrostatic repulsion which kept the macromolecule in a highly stretched state vanishes and instead the Brownian motion and intramolecular attraction cause a coiling up of the polymeric chains. Upon coiling, the polymolecule contracts and lifts the attached weight through a distance ΔL. On lifting the weight, mechanical work f*ΔL was performed... [...] FIGURE 4: Polyacid gel in sodium hydroxide solution: expanded. Polyacid gel in acid solution: contracted; weight is lifted."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PH-sensitive_polymers 
 "pH sensitive or pH responsive polymers are materials which will respond to the changes in the pH of the surrounding medium by varying their dimensions. Such materials increase its size (swell) or collapse depending on the pH of their environment."

The following four-step isothermal reversible cycle clearly violates the second law of thermodynamics (the work gained in step 2 is greater than the work lost in step 4): 

1. The polymer is initially stretched. We add H+ to the system. The force of contraction increases. 
2. The polymers contracts and lifts a weight. 
3. We remove the same amount of H+ from the system. The force of contraction decreases. 
4. We stretch the polymer and restore the initial state of the system. 

Note that adding H+ to the system and then removing it (steps 1 and 3), if performed by a reversible concentration cell (the pH-sensitive polymer is immersed in one of the half-cells), amounts to zero work involved (the work gained in step 1 is lost in step 3):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_cell 
 "A concentration cell is a limited form of a galvanic cell that has two equivalent half-cells of the same composition differing only in concentrations."

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Potn3UUHLkE/Uq7bTse46MI/AAAAAAAAAPM/moI8tyAOtk0/s1600/hydrogen-cell.png 

Pentcho Valev

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

#596551

Keep posting, P.
They got nothing- especially HVAC/Ed

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

#597293

http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/valevfaq.htm 
 Athel Cornish-Bowden 1998: "Can a catalyst shift the position of an equilibrium? No. Absolutely not if it is a true catalyst present at very low concentrations. If it is present at a concentration comparable with that of one or more of the reactants then it may appear to shift the position of equilibrium by mass action effects. However, when it does this it is acting as a reactant, not as a catalyst. Mr Valev’s claims to have shown otherwise are analysed by Lukasz Salwinski (1, 2, 3, 4) and Petr Kuzmic (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). There were also some earlier comments from me (1)."

My career as an iconoclast started when I noticed that catalysts obviously can shift chemical equilibrium, which is fatal for the second law of thermodynamics. About 20 years ago I submitted a one-page article to Nature showing that, for the dissociation-association reaction 

A <-> B + C, 

a catalyst cannot speed up both the forward and reverse reaction rates equally, and the reason is that the forward and the reverse catalytic mechanisms are totally different. In the forward (dissociation) reaction, the catalyst should just meet and split A. So the forward rate can be increased substantially. In the reverse (association) reaction, the catalyst should first get together B and C, which, if the (reverse) reaction is diffusion-controlled, would have no effect. Diffusion control means that the affinity between B and C is so high that virtually any encounter between them produces A - no catalyst can increase the rate of such a reaction.

Nature immediately rejected my article - 20 years ago a person suggesting that catalysts can shift chemical equilibrium and so violate the second law was crank, crackpot, troll, or worse, by definition. Then things started to change, and nowadays the situation is entirely different:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan%27s_Paradox 
 "Consider a dimeric gas (A2) that is susceptible to endothermic dissociation or exothermic recombination (A2 <-> 2A). The gas is housed between two surfaces (S1 and S2), whose chemical reactivities are distinct with respect to the gas. Specifically, let S1 preferentially dissociate dimer A2 and desorb monomer A, while S2 preferentially recombines monomers A and desorbs dimer A2. [...]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/NatureSLTD-Fig1c.jpg

In 2014 Duncan's temperature paradox was experimentally realized, utilizing hydrogen dissociation on high-temperature transition metals (tungsten and rhenium). Ironically, these experiments support the predictions of the paradox and provide laboratory evidence for second law breakdown. These results are corroborated by other experiments that demonstrate anomalous (and differential) levels of hydrogen dissociation on heated transition metals; additional theoretical support can be found in the theory of epicatalysis. In 2015 Laboratory experiments verified examples of room temperature epicatalysis involving hydrogen-bonded diamonds on polymers. This could open the door to room temperature tests of Duncan's Paradox." [end of quotation]

Pentcho Valev

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

#597303

On Monday, September 5, 2016 at 3:54:17 AM UTC-4, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> As a rule, scientists are silent about violations of the second law of thermodynamics, no matter how convincing they are. Here is a perpetual motion machine of the second kind published in a prestigious journal (no reaction at all from the scientific community): 
> 
In Maxwell's day thermodynamics still held plenty of fascination. Supposedly Einstein proved that it was moving atoms. I don't believe that this interpretation holds up, for sound is moving atoms, and heat generally does not make a sound. Anyway I've tried to formally make this argument many times in the past. I find it refreshing that you are going on at thermodynamics now. I support it, though your language is very different from my own. 

Most of our constructions inherently rely upon the solid state; such as our early definitions of space itself. In that temperature effects the states of matter, and the fluid states are actually the more universal forms, then there is a large difficulty level to deal with. 

Anyway, heat as vibrating atoms is a misnomer as far as I can tell. The congruence is apparent, but it may be that higher dimensional forms are going to be the resolution. 

> http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/apl/103/16/10.1063/1.4825269 
>  Electricity generated from ambient heat across a silicon surface, Guoan Tai, Zihan Xu, and Jinsong Liu, Appl. Phys. Lett. 103, 163902 (2013): "We report generation of electricity from the limitless thermal motion of ions across a two-dimensional (2D) silicon (Si) surface at room temperature. [...] ...limitless ambient heat, which is universally present in the form of kinetic energy from molecular, particle, and ion sources, has not yet been reported to generate electricity. [...] This study provides insights into the development of self-charging technologies to harvest energy from ambient heat, and the power output is comparable to several environmental energy harvesting techniques such as ZnO nanogenerator, liquid and gas flow-induced electricity generation across carbon nanotube thin films and graphene, although this remains a challenge to the second law of thermodynamics..."
> 
> There are even obvious violations of the second law of thermodynamics. In this video one switches the capacitor on and off and the system can repeatedly lift floating weights:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6KAH1JpdPg 
>  "Liquid Dielectric Capacitor"
> 
> Switching the capacitor on and off involves no work done on the system so the energy for the work done BY the system (if it repeatedly lifts floating weights) can only come from the environmental heat, in violation of the second law.
> 
> The liquid-dielectric-capacitor perpetuum mobile (of the second kind) can be described in a different way. When a constant-charge parallel-plate capacitor is immersed in a liquid dielectric, e.g. water, a mysterious pressure emerges between the plates, pushes them apart and so counteracts their electrostatic attraction: 
> 
> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node46.html 
>  "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." 
> 
> So we have a high pressure between the plates and a lower pressure outside the capacitor - then what if one punches a small hole in one of the plates? Will there be an eternal flow through the hole, from inside to outside? 
> 
> If the plates are vertical and only partially immersed, the same mysterious pressure forces the liquid between the plates to rise above the surface of the water pool: 
> 
> http://www.academia.edu/25650739/Fluids_in_electric_and_magnetic_fields_Pressure_variation_and_stability 
>  I. Brevik, Fluids in electric and magnetic fields: Pressure variation and stability, Can. J . Phys. (1982): "Fig. 1. Two charged condenser plates partly immersed in a dielectric liquid. [...] Fig. 2. The hydrostatic pressure variation from point 1 to point 5 in Fig. 1." 
> 
> In 2002 I proposed the following device presumably violating the second law of thermodynamics: 
> 
> http://proceedings.aip.org/resource/2/apcpcs/643/1/430_1 
>  AIP Conf. Proc. 643, pp. 430-435, Pentcho Valev 2002: "...as two vertical constant-charge capacitor plates partially dip into a pool of a liquid dielectric (e.g. water), the liquid between them rises high above the surface of the rest of the liquid in the pool. Evidently, if one punches a macroscopic hole in one of the plates, nothing could prevent the liquid between the plates from leaking out through the hole and generating an eternal waterfall outside the capacitor. This hypothesis has been discussed on many occasions but so far no serious counter-argument has been raised." 
> 
> Here is a schematic picture of the "eternal waterfall": 
> 
> http://energythic.com/usercontent/3/DIEPHOPU_caphole.gif 
> 
> Pentcho Valev

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

#597308

Dne 17/09/2016 v 19:23 Tim BandTech.com napsal(a):

> .....I don't believe that this interpretation holds up, for sound is moving atoms, 
and heat generally does not make a sound. .....

Sound is organized periodic collective atom motion ,
Heat is random atom motion.
Sound as organized motion is superposed over the random motion.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

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

#597914

Thu 22 Sep 2016 10:05:59 AM EDT 
On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 1:43:08 PM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
> Dne 17/09/2016 v 19:23 Tim BandTech.com napsal(a):
> 
> > .....I don't believe that this interpretation holds up, for sound is moving atoms, 
> and heat generally does not make a sound. .....
> 
> Sound is organized periodic collective atom motion ,
> Heat is random atom motion.
> Sound as organized motion is superposed over the random motion.
> 
> -- 
> Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
> Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

OK Poutnik, I'll try if you'll try.

Let's consider the speed of sound propagation versus the speed of heat propagation. They are beyond orders of magnitude different. Let's use a point source and let's apply this point source to a crystal of pure silicon one meter long and nominally 1cm in diameter. 
From wikipedia I see that the speed of sound is 8433 m/s and there is a thermal conductivity of 149 W/(m·K). Now let's make contact at one end of the rod and do some measurements at the other end of the rod. One experiment we will apply sound to our contact. In another experiment we will apply heat to our contact. Please consider that we are operating on a crystalline lattice and we are applying two forms of energy to one atom which are supposedly both vibrating atoms. I suppose I'll have to concede that our point source is going to deform and we'll wind up stimulating a group of adjacent atoms near the center of the rods end, but the existence of the lattice will hold up so long as the transducer is softer than the silicon crystal. 
In the gedanken form of this physical experiment we are controlling the motion of one atom at one end of a crystalline rod. The sound energy, though small, propagates through the rod at 8433 meters per second, which clearly is distributing this kinetic energy within a second though it could take some time to build to a full standing wave for such a small energy source.
Next we apply some heat to this point source and the results are abysmal. We will see no result at the other end of the rod for quite some time if at all.
How can these two actions which are supposedly both kinetic in nature be the same phenomenon? Even the figures in which they are described have a major discrepancy. Even a red hot metal point source is going to have a paltry effect, and yet the local stimulation in both cases are supposedly the vibration of an atom or a group of atoms. Particularly the fact that we are in a crystalline lattice exposes the fact that these atoms are not free to wiggle without affecting their neighbors.

Heat is clearly a loosely coupled effect and we need a theory which allows for a reservoir of energy in each atom which barely affects its neighbors, and hence the term loosely coupled, but no such conversation goes on in modern physics. The atoms of a crystalline lattice are obviously tightly coupled with regard to any form of kinetic energy, and so the interpretation of heat as vibrating atoms is not sufficient. 

Whatever effects were observed in pollen grains on water the conclusions drawn were a great relief after decades of struggle to physically determine the properties of heat. Maxwell's demon and his efforts to join electromagnetism with heat are fine instances of the mystery that heat did hold at the time. I suggest that the settlement to treat heat as vibrating atoms was a matter of exhaustion rather than one with scientific merit. 

We are caught as mimics in virtually every area of physics, and if we fail to mimic the accepted and established ideas then we get marginalized. It is a tremendous amount of work to use our own judgement on every detail of physics and I would concede that it is beyond any individual human to undertake this responsibly. However when we come to details of conflicting nature then we have a duty to follow those out, for it is in these details that the progression that is science takes place. The modern progression is one of tremendous accumulation and heat phenomena are now treated as fully categorized. Yet I submit here that the physical mode of heat vibration in a crystalline lattice has not been treated so carefully. This is the perfect place to have such a conversation for we are free to express our minds fully, and hopefully engage in a progression of free thought rather than the shackles that the journals require atop their inaccessibility. I welcome a careful falsification of my analysis here. Thank you for your patience.

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

#597922

On 09/22/2016 04:14 PM, Tim BandTech.com wrote:
> Thu 22 Sep 2016 10:05:59 AM EDT
> On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 1:43:08 PM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
>> Dne 17/09/2016 v 19:23 Tim BandTech.com napsal(a):
>>
>>> .....I don't believe that this interpretation holds up, for sound is moving atoms,
>> and heat generally does not make a sound. .....
>>
>> Sound is organized periodic collective atom motion ,
>> Heat is random atom motion.
>> Sound as organized motion is superposed over the random motion.
>>
>> --
>> Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
>> Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
>
> OK Poutnik, I'll try if you'll try.
>
> Let's consider the speed of sound propagation versus the speed of heat propagation. They are beyond orders of magnitude different.

Let me stop you here and turn the table.

Consider speed of sound in air

            v = sqrt ( gamma . R .T / M )

where gamma is adiabatic constant,
equal cca 1.4 for diatomic gases

and compare it to the mean quadratic speed of gas molecules.

            v = sqrt ( 3 . R .T / M )

speed of sound is always, including condensed phases,
slower than the mean thermal speed of molecules.



> Let's use a point source and let's apply this point source to a crystal of pure silicon one meter long and nominally 1cm in diameter.
> From wikipedia I see that the speed of sound is 8433 m/s and there is a thermal conductivity of 149 W/(m·K). Now let's make contact at one end of the rod and do some measurements at the other end of the rod. One experiment we will apply sound to our contact. In another experiment we will apply heat to our contact. Please consider that we are operating on a crystalline lattice and we are applying two forms of energy to one atom which are supposedly both vibrating atoms. I suppose I'll have to concede that our point source is going to deform and we'll wind up stimulating a group of adjacent atoms near the center of the rods end, but the existence of the lattice will hold up so long as the transducer is softer than the silicon crystal.
> In the gedanken form of this physical experiment we are controlling the motion of one atom at one end of a crystalline rod. The sound energy, though small, propagates through the rod at 8433 meters per second, which clearly is distributing this kinetic energy within a second though it could take some time to build to a full standing wave for such a small energy source.
> Next we apply some heat to this point source and the results are abysmal. We will see no result at the other end of the rod for quite some time if at all.
> How can these two actions which are supposedly both kinetic in nature be the same phenomenon? Even the figures in which they are described have a major discrepancy. Even a red hot metal point source is going to have a paltry effect, and yet the local stimulation in both cases are supposedly the vibration of an atom or a group of atoms. Particularly the fact that we are in a crystalline lattice exposes the fact that these atoms are not free to wiggle without affecting their neighbors.
>
> Heat is clearly a loosely coupled effect and we need a theory which allows for a reservoir of energy in each atom which barely affects its neighbors, and hence the term loosely coupled, but no such conversation goes on in modern physics. The atoms of a crystalline lattice are obviously tightly coupled with regard to any form of kinetic energy, and so the interpretation of heat as vibrating atoms is not sufficient.
>
> Whatever effects were observed in pollen grains on water the conclusions drawn were a great relief after decades of struggle to physically determine the properties of heat. Maxwell's demon and his efforts to join electromagnetism with heat are fine instances of the mystery that heat did hold at the time. I suggest that the settlement to treat heat as vibrating atoms was a matter of exhaustion rather than one with scientific merit.
>
> We are caught as mimics in virtually every area of physics, and if we fail to mimic the accepted and established ideas then we get marginalized. It is a tremendous amount of work to use our own judgement on every detail of physics and I would concede that it is beyond any individual human to undertake this responsibly. However when we come to details of conflicting nature then we have a duty to follow those out, for it is in these details that the progression that is science takes place. The modern progression is one of tremendous accumulation and heat phenomena are now treated as fully categorized. Yet I submit here that the physical mode of heat vibration in a crystalline lattice has not been treated so carefully. This is the perfect place to have such a conversation for we are free to express our minds fully, and hopefully engage in a progression of free thought rather than the shackles that the journals require atop their inaccessibility. I welcome a careful falsification of my analysis here. Thank you for your patience.
>

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

#597929

On 09/22/2016 05:04 PM, Poutnik wrote:
> On 09/22/2016 04:14 PM, Tim BandTech.com wrote:
>>
>> OK Poutnik, I'll try if you'll try.
>>
>> Let's consider the speed of sound propagation versus the speed of heat
>> propagation. They are beyond orders of magnitude different.
>
> Let me stop you here and turn the table.
>
> Consider speed of sound in air
>
>            v = sqrt ( gamma . R .T / M )
>
> where gamma is adiabatic constant,
> equal cca 1.4 for diatomic gases
>
> and compare it to the mean quadratic speed of gas molecules.
>
>            v = sqrt ( 3 . R .T / M )
>
> speed of sound is always, including condensed phases,
> slower than the mean thermal speed of molecules.
>
Oops. this is of course false, my instant mistake.
It is valid only for unbound molecules.

Bound molecules/atoms have faster means
of pressure propagation via electromagnetic forces.

But that is valid for the thermal motion as well.

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

#597949

On 09/22/2016 04:14 PM, Tim BandTech.com wrote:

simple mechanical simulation of a coupled system
would reveal you that it is not big deal.

A humble idea you may misunderstood something
brings usually much better results
than a proud idea you have found something
what hundreds of physicists overlook for a hundred years...

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

#597996

On Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 3:37:15 PM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
> On 09/22/2016 04:14 PM, Tim BandTech.com wrote:
> 
> simple mechanical simulation of a coupled system
> would reveal you that it is not big deal.
> 
> A humble idea you may misunderstood something
> brings usually much better results
> than a proud idea you have found something
> what hundreds of physicists overlook for a hundred years...

Reading between the lines I have to conclude that you are uncomfortable with the propagation of heat versus sound in a crystalline lattice where the freedoms of the gas state do not exist. How can heat energy remain so well localized? It cannot under the kinetic model, for every motion of every atom is so tightly coupled to its neighbor that the heat energy should dissipate rapidly. It does not do so. You have gone over to a more loosely coupled environment, but generally gases are fair thermal insulators, which actually contradicts your own statement. I would prefer a falsification of my argument over your present course. The crystalline lattice lays out a simpler configuration. Indeed if we were to consider the energy storage ability in heat versus sound we will arrive in another quagmire. Tremendous heat energy can be stored, but not so with sound energy. Anyway I didn't mean to broaden out the argument. I would rather stick to a simple argument as I've layed it out initially.

Here is a way to get to the loosely coupled form that we need: reflection. But this would have to be a special kind of reflection, for the standard spring model will only yield acoustics again. In effect the atoms themselves must reflect the heat energy back into themselves for the most part; we do see some dysmal propagation, so we still would have to have some coupling. Anyway, this would then allow the acoustic mode to be distinguished from the heat mode. Do you see how they have to be two different mechanisms? It cannot be that both operate from the mesh of springs and weights that model the atomic structure. Please this is a common sense argument. I understand the stupendous nature of the claim, but that is irrelevant. Let's just try to focus on the issues, as Bernie has said. Keep the high ground; maintain your own sense of integrity; don't just mimic the past for that will never lead into a progression of value. Why we'd still be decoding our bibles with numerology if Newton had his way. Pythagoras even outlawed some numbers as I understand it. Do you abide by Pythagoras? Or perhaps you like the biblical stance: one must preserve the book... the book... the book... which will it be man: conformity or freedom?

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

#597999

Dne 23/09/2016 v 05:55 Tim BandTech.com napsal(a):
> On Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 3:37:15 PM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
>> On 09/22/2016 04:14 PM, Tim BandTech.com wrote:
>>
>> simple mechanical simulation of a coupled system
>> would reveal you that it is not big deal.
>>
>> A humble idea you may misunderstood something
>> brings usually much better results
>> than a proud idea you have found something
>> what hundreds of physicists overlook for a hundred years...
> 
> Reading between the lines I have to conclude that you are uncomfortable
> with the propagation of heat versus sound in a crystalline lattice
> where the freedoms of the gas state do not exist. ............

Why ? It just follows different rules.
Aside of that, you ideas have to address
both crystalline and gas cases.

> ..................................................How can heat
> energy remain so well localized? It cannot under the kinetic
> model, for every motion of every atom is so tightly coupled to
> its neighbor that the heat energy should dissipate rapidly. ...

It can easily do so, if you do the proper analysis.

> ............................................................ It
> does not do so. You have gone over to a more loosely coupled
> environment, but generally gases are fair thermal insulators,
> which actually contradicts your own statement.

Which one ? From the mean molecule gas speed and gas thermal capacity
is easily derivable its thermal conductivity, with the gas theory.


> .............................................. I would prefer

> a falsification of my argument over your present course. The
> crystalline lattice lays out a simpler configuration. Indeed
> if we were to consider the energy storage ability in heat versus
> sound we will arrive in another quagmire. Tremendous heat energy
> can be stored, but not so with sound energy. 

What is so surprising on it ?



-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

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

#598004

Dne 23/09/2016 v 05:55 Tim BandTech.com napsal(a):
> On Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 3:37:15 PM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
>> On 09/22/2016 04:14 PM, Tim BandTech.com wrote:
>>
>> simple mechanical simulation of a coupled system
>> would reveal you that it is not big deal.
>>
>> A humble idea you may misunderstood something
>> brings usually much better results
>> than a proud idea you have found something
>> what hundreds of physicists overlook for a hundred years...
> 
> Reading between the lines I have to conclude that you are uncomfortable with the propagation of heat versus sound in a crystalline lattice where the freedoms of the gas state do not exist. How can heat energy remain so well localized? It cannot under the kinetic model, for every motion of every atom is so tightly coupled to its neighbor that the heat energy should dissipate rapidly. It does not do so. You have gone over to a more loosely coupled environment, but generally gases are fair thermal insulators, which actually contradicts your own statement. I would prefer a falsification of my argument over your present course. The crystalline lattice lays out a simpler configuration. Indeed if we were to consider the energy storage ability in heat versus sound we will arrive in another quagmire. Tremendous heat energy can be stored, but not so with sound energy. Anyway I didn't mean to broaden out the argument. I would rather stick to a simple argument as I've layed it out initially.
> 
> Here is a way to get to the loosely coupled form that we need: reflection. But this would have to be a special kind of reflection, for the standard spring model will only yield acoustics again. In effect the atoms themselves must reflect the heat energy back into themselves for the most part; we do see some dysmal propagation, so we still would have to have some coupling. Anyway, this would then allow the acoustic mode to be distinguished from the heat mode. Do you see how they have to be two different mechanisms? It cannot be that both operate from the mesh of springs and weights that model the atomic structure. Please this is a common sense argument. I understand the stupendous nature of the claim, but that is irrelevant. Let's just try to focus on the issues, as Bernie has said. Keep the high ground; maintain your own sense of integrity; don't just mimic the past for that will never lead into a progression of value. Why we'd still be decoding our bibles with numerology if Newton had his way. Pythagoras even outlawed some numbers as I understand it. Do you abide by Pythagoras? Or perhaps you like the biblical stance: one must preserve the book... the book... the book... which will it be man: conformity or freedom?
> 
Conductive propagation of heat in all phases
follows the same math patterns as molecular diffusion.

dQ/dt = C1 . ds/dl  . dT/dx ,
as analogy to the 1st Fick law of diffusion.

dT/dt = C2 . d2T/dt^2,
as analogy to the 2nd Fick law of diffusion.

Both diffusion and thermal conduction are slow,
regardless the speed of molecules.

Travel from A to B is much faster when organized a sound,
than if you change direction 10 billion times
per second as molecules do.

While the speed of sound is given by mechanical properties
like density, bulk, sheer and young modulus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound#Speed_of_sound_in_solids

Typical speed of air molecules is twice the speed of sound.
But the speed of spreading of the dinner aroma
does not spread with such a speed, not even
with support of convection.


-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

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

#598038

On Friday, September 23, 2016 at 2:59:37 AM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
> Dne 23/09/2016 v 05:55 Tim BandTech.com napsal(a):
> > On Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 3:37:15 PM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
> >> On 09/22/2016 04:14 PM, Tim BandTech.com wrote:
> >>
> >> simple mechanical simulation of a coupled system
> >> would reveal you that it is not big deal.
> >>
> >> A humble idea you may misunderstood something
> >> brings usually much better results
> >> than a proud idea you have found something
> >> what hundreds of physicists overlook for a hundred years...
> > 
> > Reading between the lines I have to conclude that you are uncomfortable with the propagation of heat versus sound in a crystalline lattice where the freedoms of the gas state do not exist. How can heat energy remain so well localized? It cannot under the kinetic model, for every motion of every atom is so tightly coupled to its neighbor that the heat energy should dissipate rapidly. It does not do so. You have gone over to a more loosely coupled environment, but generally gases are fair thermal insulators, which actually contradicts your own statement. I would prefer a falsification of my argument over your present course. The crystalline lattice lays out a simpler configuration. Indeed if we were to consider the energy storage ability in heat versus sound we will arrive in another quagmire. Tremendous heat energy can be stored, but not so with sound energy. Anyway I didn't mean to broaden out the argument. I would rather stick to a simple argument as I've layed it out initially.
> > 
> > Here is a way to get to the loosely coupled form that we need: reflection. But this would have to be a special kind of reflection, for the standard spring model will only yield acoustics again. In effect the atoms themselves must reflect the heat energy back into themselves for the most part; we do see some dysmal propagation, so we still would have to have some coupling. Anyway, this would then allow the acoustic mode to be distinguished from the heat mode. Do you see how they have to be two different mechanisms? It cannot be that both operate from the mesh of springs and weights that model the atomic structure. Please this is a common sense argument. I understand the stupendous nature of the claim, but that is irrelevant. Let's just try to focus on the issues, as Bernie has said. Keep the high ground; maintain your own sense of integrity; don't just mimic the past for that will never lead into a progression of value. Why we'd still be decoding our bibles with numerology if Newton had his way. Pythagoras even outlawed some numbers as I understand it. Do you abide by Pythagoras? Or perhaps you like the biblical stance: one must preserve the book... the book... the book... which will it be man: conformity or freedom?
> > 
> Conductive propagation of heat in all phases
> follows the same math patterns as molecular diffusion.
> 
> dQ/dt = C1 . ds/dl  . dT/dx ,
> as analogy to the 1st Fick law of diffusion.
> 
> dT/dt = C2 . d2T/dt^2,
> as analogy to the 2nd Fick law of diffusion.
> 
> Both diffusion and thermal conduction are slow,
> regardless the speed of molecules.
> 
> Travel from A to B is much faster when organized a sound,
> than if you change direction 10 billion times
> per second as molecules do.
> 
> While the speed of sound is given by mechanical properties
> like density, bulk, sheer and young modulus.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound#Speed_of_sound_in_solids
> 
> Typical speed of air molecules is twice the speed of sound.
> But the speed of spreading of the dinner aroma
> does not spread with such a speed, not even
> with support of convection.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
> Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

In a crystalline solid we do not witness diffusion at all, and furthermore your argument is wandering away from the mechanism being one and the same between heat and sound which is commonly named vibrating atoms. 

The states of matter are fascinating and it is pleasing to think of the gas phase, particularly with those kinetic energies causing molecules to liberate from a pool of the liquid state, and the thermodynamics that goes along with it; the pool of liquid is colder as those molecules liberate to the gas phase. That is generally a substantial amount of energy. 

I do already see the coherencies that lead the modern theory to its conclusion that heat is vibrating atoms, but they are not born out in the solid state. Your avoidance in this discussion can be taken as an indicator presuming that you have credibility, and I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Your sensibilities are quite good so far as I can see, but you have not falsified my own analysis on the solid state. With your diffusion argument you are right nearby to entropy, but here again you see the state of order of a crystalline solid as troubling and yet heat flow is well behaved in a solid.

This is a complicated discussion and there are many ways to go in it, but they tend to raise the confusion. Still, since you dodge the main point I suppose I should be allowed to digress as well.  

Aluminum is pretty soft, but conducts heat quite well which is why it is used for heat sinks for silicon based semiconductors. I admit that the heat flow is much more like the diffusion process that you discuss, and that is likewise consistent with my own claim that the mechanism of heat transfer in a solid must be loosely coupled, for without this the slowness of the heat transfer cannot be accommodated. Our discussion of the macro effect has to come down in scale to the atomic level where the usage of a small impulse can be injected into a system and its result measured either theoretically or experimentally. 
Down at this scale when we inject an acoustic stimulus or a heat stimulus what is the difference? If there is no difference at the atomic scale then how can there be a difference at the macro scale? This is how I come to the point source gedanken. In the spirit of first year physics let's reduce the system in dimension down to a one dimensional construction. A line of aluminum atoms, constrained to that line are under study; lets say ten of them:
   *---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*---*
The * are the nuclei of the atoms and the --- are springs connecting them. Isn't it clear that there is no room for two different qualities of sound and heat in this construction? Now, when we allow a second dimension into the construction then we can have a transverse mode which raises the degree of freedom. But you see this second mode is only a little bit different from the first compression mode and there would be no diffusion effect for the energy transfer to adjacent atoms is still well coupled. We will be forced to carry on with this rise in freedom beyond three dimensions in order to arrive at a heat model, and in doing so the intangibility of heat will have to be expressed, for it cannot but mildly perturb the three ordinary spatial dimensions. This is another route to entertain in thermodynamic modeling: higher dimensions. What a shame that string physicists have surrendered to a minuscule place in modern physics. It goes to show you that academia is making wusses out of all who pass  through their ways. 

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

#598043

On 09/23/2016 05:43 PM, Tim BandTech.com wrote:
>
> In a crystalline solid we do not witness diffusion at all, and furthermore your argument is wandering away from the mechanism being one and the same between heat and sound which is commonly named vibrating atoms.

The statement above says you have not understood my previous post,
and possible nor the equations.

The heat distribution and diffusion share the same equations,
just coefficients and symbolics differ.

As they are general equations for the flow,
whatever is the nature of the flow.

The fact diffusion does not happen*) in solids does not mean
the equations are not valid
for the heat flow and temperature drift.

*) It is not exact, but the diffusion rate is extremely low

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

#598044

On Friday, September 23, 2016 at 12:06:32 PM UTC-4, Poutnik Fornntp wrote:
> On 09/23/2016 05:43 PM, Tim BandTech.com wrote:
> >
> > In a crystalline solid we do not witness diffusion at all, and furthermore your argument is wandering away from the mechanism being one and the same between heat and sound which is commonly named vibrating atoms.
> 
> The statement above says you have not understood my previous post,
> and possible nor the equations.
> 
> The heat distribution and diffusion share the same equations,
> just coefficients and symbolics differ.
> 
> As they are general equations for the flow,
> whatever is the nature of the flow.
> 
> The fact diffusion does not happen*) in solids does not mean
> the equations are not valid
> for the heat flow and temperature drift.
> 
> *) It is not exact, but the diffusion rate is extremely low

I do not dispute that heat behaves this way. The point is that you don't have a reasonable physical mechanism for it to behave this way. You cannot rely upon three dimensional mechanics to get this 'extremely low' response while sound propagates at such a rapid rate. This is the crux of my own argument which you continue to avoid systematically.

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

#598046

On 9/23/2016 11:17 AM, Tim BandTech.com wrote:
> I do not dispute that heat behaves this way. The point is that you
> don't have a reasonable physical mechanism for it to behave this way.
> You cannot rely upon three dimensional mechanics to get this 'extremely
> low' response while sound propagates at such a rapid rate. This is the
> crux of my own argument which you continue to avoid systematically.

Tim, I'm not sure what your "argument" is, but I know I can put a metal 
bar with one end in a fire, so that I can hold the cool end in my bare 
hand while the other end is red hot. But I can bang on one end of the 
bar with a stick and hear the bang at the other end of the bar a 
fraction of a second later. This proves to me that heat and sound travel 
by different mechanisms.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web