On The Second Law of Thermodinamics
Posted on Saturday, June 16, 2007 @ 15:46:39 UTC by vlad
|
|
Comments by Ken Rauen and Leslie Pastor (members of NEC): "... Be careful about what benchmarks you use to establish a judgment. Citing impossibility and violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics can get YOU in trouble by leading you astray.
First of all, the claim of impossibility is illogical. In order for you to be certain it truly is impossible, you must know everything, and from that state of omniscience, see that the purported thing indeed does not exist. Do you know everything? I doubt it. A negative conclusion cannot be proven, as it requires infinite evidence.
Secondly, the Second Law of Thermodynamics has not been proven. It is merely a rule-of-thumb based upon 200 years of experience in thermodynamics. Remember, Newtonian Mechanics operates upon the assumption that space and time are absolute, and Newtonian Mechanics functioned just fine with that underlying assumption until Relativity showed it was incorrect. The same parallel exists today regarding the Second Law. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Also, new evidence will not destroy the Second Law; it will only place a boundary on it, just like classical mechanics. The Second Law is valid, but not universally.
There is experimental evidence that the Second Law is not universal, though the evidence is not widely known. I have DEMONSTRATED a Maxwell's Demon in a tabletop physics experiment that has been witnessed by dozens of scientists, including a room full of university physics professors who found no fault in the experimental protocol, nor could they provide any alternate explanation for the test results. 150 years of BELIEF in the Second Law does not make it FACT. There is no room for beliefs in science, only facts.
Be careful of what you marshal to reinforce your point of view; it might be wrong.
Ken Rauen
----------------
Posted by: "Leslie R. Pastor"
Tue Jun 12, 2007 11:27 pm (PST)
The problem with science is indeed our former understanding of thermodynamics. Source
James Clerk Maxwell http://www.clerkmaxwellfoundation.org/ stated: "The truth of the second la w is . a statistical, not a mathematical, truth, for it depends on the fact that the bodies we deal with consist of millions of molecules. Hence the second law of thermodynamics is continually being violated, and that to a considerable extent, in any sufficiently small group of molecules belonging to a real body." [Maxwell, J. C., "Tait's Thermodynamics II," Nature 17, 278-280 (7 February 1878)].
The second law of thermodynamics, in simple language, says that in a closed physical system, useful energy decays into waste heat, and you can't win it back. A machine that produces, say, electrical energy from ambient heat is impossible according to the second law, and termed a "perpetuum mobile of the second kind". But the second law is under siege, and it may turn out that this alleged rock-solid law of nature is only a reflection of the limitations of 19th and 20th century engineering. In a paper titled A Solid-State Maxwell Demon[74] D.P. Sheehan and A.R. Putnam of the departments of Physics and J.H. Wright of the department of Mathematics and Computer science of the University of San Diego propose a semiconductor device that would generate useful energy from the thermal noise of an electronic circuit. The authors successfully tested their model on a commercial semiconductor simulator and estimate that the technology necessary to construct a laboratory model will be available by 2007. In their introduction, they write:
"Over the last ten years, an unprecedented number of challenges have been leveled against the absolute status of the second law of thermodynamics. During this period, roughly 40 papers have appeared in the general literature, representing more than a dozen distinct challenges; the publication rate is increasing. Recently, for the first time, a major scientific press has commissioned a monograph on the subject and a first international conference has been convened to examine these challenges." One would think that given the implications (defeating the second "law" means nothing less than solving the human energy crisis permanently), governments, corporations and the scientific establishment would be interested. But there is very little interest. The prevailing (circular) reasoning remains that machines that violate the second law are impossible because they would contradict the second law. Source: http://www.suppressedscience.net/physics.html
James Clerk Maxwell's "A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field"
(http://www.zpenergy.com/)
All the Best,
Leslie R. Pastor
P.S. My association with Tom Bearden has provided me with an interesting point of view, that shows how our current physics laws and models are interestingly NOT ABSOLUTE.
Source: Our Models & Physics Laws Are Not Absolute
|
| |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
| |
Average Score: 3
Votes: 1
| |
|
