Fact Check, debunking obviously false information

    Quote

    There have been any number of Maxwell's demon claims, they all fail because 2LOT is fundamental


    Umm, which Maxwell's demon claim actually failed? Many of them were presented in peer-reviewed journals and subsequently confirmed. They just generated too little energy for being exploitable practically. But they were also demonstrated only with tiny isolated systems - army of Maxwell's demons working in unison would release way more energy - and this is just the way, in which macroscopic overunity devices IMO work.


    Quote

    The many similar systems indeed exist, because (1) and (2) together give you a lot of candidates. Just as there are a lot of machines that look like PM, but in fact are not.


    They also share many similar aspects, for example low-dimensionality of particle motion and energy concentration gradients which I talked above. For example Thibado talks about possibility of draining of graphene buckling energy with piezoelectric material whereas Steorn, QuantaMagnetic and QGEnergy already independently presented mixtures of graphene with piezoelectric material as a source of environmental energy. It can still be a damned coincidence - but I don't believe in coincidences.

    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    Umm, which Maxwell's demon claim actually failed? Many of them were presented in peer-reviewed journals and subsequently confirmed. They just generated too little energy for being exploitable practically. But they were also demonstrated only with tiny isolated systems - army of Maxwell's demons working in unison would release way more energy - and this is just the way, in which macroscopic overunity devices IMO work.


    Zephir, cite your best peer reviewed at least 3 years ago if possible (so I can look up citations) example and I will tell you why it obeys 2LOT.

    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    Whereas we can read about negative mass, reversal of time arrow and Maxwell demons. It's dominant, yes - but we can face many negentropic phenomena all around us. Thermodynamics for example says that particles should never arrange spontaneously, but crystals are forming all the time.


    OK - I'll take that one. Negentropic phenomena abound, but do not break 2LOT because they are only locally negentropic.


    Crystal formation does not break 2LOT.


    I'm lazy - will let others answer.


    https://physics.stackexchange.…ntropy-and-crystal-growth


    I was reading about growing single crystals and I'm a little confused about this -

    In most crystal growing processes, a "seed crystal" is used, and the rest of the material crystallizes onthe seed crystal (for example the czochrlaski process).

    But thinking about entropy, wouldn't it be more favourable for the vapour/liquid to not crystallize and hence maintain a larger disorder?

    A similar process occurs in supersaturated vapour as well, where a small liquid droplet acts as a "seed" for more condensation to occur. So I suspect I'm missing something, but I can't figure out what.


    Indeed this is a handy counter example to people who, not understanding the second law, claim that evolution is impossible on the basis that entropy decreases (nevermind that by this misunderstanding life itself would be impossible as well). The growing crystal is not a closed system: it exchanges energy and matter with the surrounding environment, and this can lead to a local entropy decrease if it is compensated by an entropy increase of the environment. The thermodynamic potential that is truly minimized, taking these exchanges into account, is the free energy. (Note that there are slightly different definitions of the free energy which apply to slightly different types of process, but they are all morally the same.)



    Remember my (1) and (2) above? This is (1).

    Quote

    Negentropic phenomena abound, but do not break 2LOT because they are only locally negentropic


    So we can have a hedgehog, which is globally entropic and locally - along its spines - negentropic. The amount of energy radiated by spines is indeed low but it can get significant once we use lot of dense spines. Compare also recent theories of black holes, which can radiate energy along hairs (i.e. miniature invisible jets of scalar waves which condense to dark matter outside it). The radiation of matter from black holes would violate both radiative time arrow both thermodynamics in quite pronounced way. Dense aether theory requires this process for to have steady-state Universe model, otherwise all matter would condense into black holes - but this process recycles their mass into a free space, so it can condense into galaxies again. In general sense aether model considers reversibility of thermodynamics through subtle hyperdimensional (quantum mechanics and magnetic field driven) phenomena which are manifesting itself in transient and low-dimensional arrangement, where temporal reversibility of vacuum fluctuations and quantum mechanics can apply.


    LeYZN5p.jpg

    Zephir,


    One of your two references here is to yourself. Forgive me if I do not find that convincing.


    The other relates to the thermodynamic properties of black holes. This is a fascinating subject, related to cosmology and the holographic principle, and still unclear.


    But nowhere here do we get the contradiction of 2LOT that you seem to think is clearly been shown.


    Even black holes obey 2LOT - when you consider quantum effects at black hole event horizons:


    http://nautil.us/issue/68/cont…-holes-nearly-ruined-time


    It is just not true that 2LOT is looking flaky - on the contrary the more strange things we study, the more we find that it is one of the very few fundamental laws. Many would say it is more fundamental than conservation of energy.


    Physics, as it is currently understood, presents us with incredible wonders and extroardinary questions. You do not need crackpot perpetual motion or Maxwell's demons to have all that.

    Quote

    One of your two references here is to yourself. Forgive me if I do not find that convincing.


    I personally don't care what you're personally finding convincing or not - as I'm here for objective discussion of testable facts and ideas. I already linked many references here for to support my stance and all these references lead to another references, which aren't mine. Please note that cold fusion subject itself violates thermodynamics, as it deals with nuclear systems frozen in metastable state, the energy of which is waiting for its release. The low-dimensional geometry may help them to become reversible again. From this reason I'd expect more open and flexible attitude toward this grand scheme of things just on forum dedicated to cold fusion.

    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    I personally don't care what you're personally finding convincing or not - as I'm here for objective discussion of testable facts and ideas. I already linked many references here for to support my stance and all these references lead to another references, which aren't mine. Please note that cold fusion subject itself violates thermodynamics, as it deals with nuclear systems frozen in metastable state, the energy of which is waiting for its release. The low-dimensional geometry may help them to become reversible again. From this reason I'd expect more open and flexible attitude toward this grand scheme of things just on forum dedicated to cold fusion.


    Zephir, if you have referenced work that supports your view Thermodynamics for example says that particles should never arrange spontaneously, but crystals are forming all the time or related views that many physical phenomena break 2LOT I'll be very happy to consider them. I'm also happy to consider your very own arguments, but the post you references did not directly argue this.


    I'm also happy to consider your arguments for why cold fusion breaks 2LOT - which, assuming cold fusion does work as energy extracted from nuclear reactions, again is not true. Many physical systems are "frozen in a metastable state" and this does not break 2LOT.


    Asking for a flexible and open minded attitude, on no evidence, towards a fundamental physical law, which many including me would see as more fundamental than conservation of energy, is like asking a mathematician to reserve judgement about what is the sum of 2 and 2. Not quite as bad - but you have given no evidence in favour of your proposed change to the whole of physics.

    Quote

    your arguments for why cold fusion breaks 2LOT - which, assuming cold fusion does work as energy extracted from nuclear reactions, again is not true


    It's the same principle of arguments based on shifting of goals: considering that for example graphene buckling extracts energy from vacuum fluctuations, then it actually doesn't break thermodynamics. It just references to forces, the existence of which isn't recognized yet in similar way, like forces responsible for radioactivity in the times of Marie Curie.


    Quote

    for a flexible and open minded attitude, on no evidence


    Says who? Evidence of energy from graphene is already utilized commercially . You can buy it.

    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    It's the same principle of arguments based on shifting of goals: considering that for example graphene buckling extracts energy from vacuum fluctuations, then it actually doesn't break thermodynamics. It just references to forces, the existence of which isn't recognized yet in similar way, like forces responsible for radioactivity in the times of Marie Curie.



    Says who? Evidence of energy from graphene is already utilized commercially . You can buy it.


    Zephir - no-one denies energy from graphene - it can harvest mechanical energy and (not sure large enough for commercial) temperature change energy. The issue is energy from graphene breaking 2LOT.


    Only you assume that when something works it must therefore break a fundamental physical law.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    The issue is energy from graphene breaking 2LOT.


    Only you assume that when something works it must therefore break a fundamental physical law.


    2LOT is a classical law based on macroscopic evidence. Today we are able to manipulate the microstructure of matter. We already see many evidence that 2LOT fails on atomic/molecular level as large coordinated states can go into resonance and focus the "chaotic" energy in a "point". This works for phonon frequency upscaling since a few years now and will give us solar panels with 40% efficiency together with the UV down scaling.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    2LOT is a classical law based on macroscopic evidence. Today we are able to manipulate the microstructure of matter. We already see many evidence that 2LOT fails on atomic/molecular level as large coordinated states can go into resonance and focus the "chaotic" energy in a "point". This works for phonon frequency upscaling since a few years now and will give us solar panels with 40% efficiency together with the UV down scaling.


    That is not true. 2LOT has its origin in quantum mechanics counting of number of states, where it equally and impressively applies.


    Electromagnetic energy in light at multiple wavelengths can be harnessed with great efficiency (approaching 100%). That is possible because e-m energy is not heat. The simplest way to see why there is no 2LOT limit is this thought experiment:


    • Take the e-m energy, focus it to a small point with a mirror system etc. Heat a collector up to a high temperature.
    • The energy can thus be converted to heat at an (arbitrarily) high temperature, and converted from that into electricity with no bounding Carnot limit given an ambient temperature sink
    • There is in fact a limit given by how well you can focus the light, and the power per unit area available. The black body law then tells you what is the limiting temperature. But this is very high, and close to 100% conversion, though engineering issues make it difficult to achieve that. In fact photons from the sun can generate a temperature as high as the corresponding color temperature (roughly, they are not an exact black body source).


    Please reference phonon frequency upscaling? As normally used in energy harvesting I believe this is phonon-mediated photon upscaling. Obviously there is no simple Carnot limit on monochromatic photon upscaling, since photons are not heat energy, for 2LOT considerations. The 2LOT limit on photons relates to the black body temperature of a photon distribution in thermal equilibrium and therefore with black body spectrum. Thus photons from a black body emitter do have the Carnot limits as the corresponding temperature indicates.


    2LOT is one of the most beautiful, and most misunderstood, laws in physics. Especially on this site!

    2LOT- the second law of thermodynamics..


    Views differ widely on this manmade law


    1- Eddington circa 1930-- Supreme law of Nature


    “The second law of thermodynamics

    holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of

    Nature. If someone points to you that your pet theory of the

    universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations - then so

    much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be

    contradicted by observation, well, these experiments do bungle

    things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the

    second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is

    nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation”.


    2. Sheehan and Nikulov -2004 . Mystique


    Absolute inviolability is intellectually satisfying.

    One should also not discount the power of peer pressure; like most paradigms,

    the second law is understood deeply by few and taken on faith by most.

    Such faith is cemented by many famous endorsements and is
    so deeply rooted in a century and a half of cultural legacy that it has put the second law \

    nearly beyond the reach of serious scientific discussion.

    Taken together, these constitute what may be called the second law mystique.
    Despite the deeply rooted belief in its absolute status, the second law has always had surprisingly
    shallow roots. Despite vaunted claims to the contrary, it does not have a fully satisfactory theoretical
    proof; therefore, its absolute status has always been questionable ..


    https://www.researchgate.net/p…8_The_Second_Law_Mystique


    Views always differ, but the centrality of information-theoretic approaches to physics has surely been cemented in the last 40 years by e.g. Hawking radiation, links between information and cosmology:

    https://iopscience.iop.org/art…742-6596/484/1/012070/pdf

    https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783540208068


    Quite apart from its experimental validation and so many people trying to find paradoxes and failing.

    Quote

    2LOT is one of the most beautiful, and most misunderstood, laws in physics.


    We aren't on beauty contest. Beaty is no argument in physics (not to say, it's solely subjective as the beauty is in eyes of beholder). Where people are getting to such sh*t?



    Quote

    Zephir - no-one denies energy from graphene - it can harvest mechanical energy and (not sure large enough for commercial) temperature change energy. The issue is energy from graphene breaking 2LOT.


    OK, so that energy from graphene is unlimited - but it still doesn't violate thermodynamics. As you wish..


    6eQNgmT.gif


    Zephir "The big Think" is not a scientific publication. And "unlimited energy" what does that mean? Energy contravening 2LOT is no more unlimted, or limited than energy in line with 2LOT.


    I can't see how sound bites have anything to do with the matter of evidence for Maxwell's Demons.

    My point of starting this thread is that there is obviously wrong information being posted and not challenged. It takes me time to research bogus posts and figure out they are by total crackpots. There are just a few of them but they waste my time and limited brain cells with topics like extracting energy from the vacuum, magnetic motors, and chiral Bose Einstein condensates which generate deep UV polaritons. which are captured and downshifted via hexagonal Boron Nitride. All by an "Italian Fox" who is so crafty he made his video so stupid just to throw off competitors. I think Zephir's actually trying to argue his pathetic case proves my point. He said the paper claimed to extract energy from the vacuum. It did not. Fact Check: FALSE

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.