Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False

From	Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	sci.physics
Subject	Re: Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False
Date	2016-09-22 17:04 +0200
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<ns0rtl$q2j$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	<451e287d-06c3-4d74-8a78-b1d333410503@googlegroups.com> <2068082e-dc0f-45fd-859a-beddb32ca94b@googlegroups.com> <nrjvb4$3ah$1@dont-email.me> <e1a8b6c8-1410-40ef-8647-e4045b191400@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

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.
>

Thread

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

csiph-web