Re: [Vo]:quantum thermodynamics and the Second Law--

[David Roberson]

Bob,

I do not see any problem with the operation of the magnetic resonance machine 
you mention with regard to angular momentum being orthogonal to linear 
momentum.  You can identify a source of angular momentum that arrives 
externally to the system, such as via the RF incident field to supply any 
change in total angular momentum measured.  Sometimes the final source can be 
subtle like a change to the Earth's angular momentum due to application of a 
torque.

In my viewpoint linear momentum is associated with mass moving along a straight 
line relative to the observer.  Angular momentum is likewise associated with 
rotation of mass about a point.  You can select a new location and a velocity 
where the linear momentum of a closed system of masses cancels out to zero.  Of 
course each moving mass can posses its own linear momentum, but the vector sum 
is zero.

If, on the other hand a closed system of masses has angular momentum according 
to your measurements, then there is no point and/or linear velocity that you 
can choose which zero's out the system angular momentum.  The two momentums are 
defined in a manner that allows them to be orthogonal.  I do not recall any 
proven experiment that demonstrates the conversion between these two quantities.

Dave

 

 

-Original Message-
From: bobcook39923 <bobcook39...@hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sat, May 20, 2017 5:25 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:quantum thermodynamics and the Second Law--



Dave and Bob--
 
In common nuclear magnetic resonance machines the angular momentum of nuclei 
are  changed by a resonant radio frequency energy source in a strong ambient 
magnetic field.  That field aligns  the  nuclear magnetic dipoles and creates 
new  discrete potential energy levels for the nuclei.When excited to a new 
level by the radio frequency input, the nuclei are said to be in an elevated 
isomeric energy state.  When the ambient magnetic field is shut off, the nuclei 
relax giving off EM energy.  This energy from the relaxing nuclei is monitored 
to determine the location and concentration of nuclei which return to a ground 
state. 
 
I believe the energy associated with the various nuclear spin states is 
considered nuclear binding potential energy, but not associated with mass 
energy binding protons and neutrons within a nucleus.  However, this potential 
energy  of an isomer DOES add mass to nuclei.  
 
Thus, I would guess that transitions of nuclear species during LENR from one 
ground state to another ground state (with  a different combination of neutrons 
and protons and lower net angular momentum) would involve coupling via a 
magnetic field to the orbital electrons of a metal lattice.  You can call that 
energy mass energy,  binding energy or whatever.  It is a parameter of the 
nucleus in question in units of joules.  Energy is energy no matter what force  
field is involved IMHO.   
 
Dave, 
 
( I  believe linear momentum can be co-linear (not necessarily orthogonal) with 
angular momentum for properties ascribed to a particle or system of particles.  
  Even thought they have the same units mass-length/time, one must change in 
units of h/2pie and the other is associated with free particles in space and 
subject to uncertainty in its actual value reflecting Planck’s constant, h.
 
  ( I am not sure I understand your comment regarding classical physics.)
 
Bob Cook
 
 
 

From: David Roberson
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2017 11:29 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum thermodynamics and the Second Law--

 
Of course, in classical physics linear momentum and angular momentum are 
orthogonal to each other and can not be exchanged within a closed system.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sat, May 20, 2017 11:16 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum thermodynamics and the Second Law--



This is interesting thinking.  The idea that angular momentum, linear momentum, 
and energy are "conserved" is a hypothesis created and supported (as I 
understand it) by observation, not by derivation based upon a fundamental 
principle.  While it would be a violation of the hypothesis, trading between 
these conserved quantities would not invalidate a fundamental premise (am I 
correct?).

So, Bob, when you say, "Trading nuclear potential energy for metal lattice 
electron orbital (thermal) angular momentum is LENR", what is the nuclear 
potential energy that you are saying is being traded (exchanged) into the 
electron orbital angular momentum?  What in the nucleus do you envision being 
traded?

Clearly the nucleus is not as well understood as we imagine.  If you read 
Norman Cook's book, "Models of the Atomic Nucleus", you will see the sorry 
state of things.  Present models for the nucleus predict fission as occurring 
in equal portions, but experiment shows that is far from 

RE: [Vo]:quantum thermodynamics and the Second Law--

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

I just looked at Marco’s comment of May 20 on the Rossi Blog Reader, Tom 
Conway’s comment and Rossi’s answer to Conway.   Marco is close to the right 
answer IMHO.

The following is Macro’s comment:


>>>>>>”Regarding magnetic fields I am very curious. I am a researcher in the 
>>>>>>medical field and have access to magnetic resonance devices, with fields 
>>>>>>up to 3 Tesla. I ever wondered if a strong magnetic field can increase 
>>>>>>the hydrogen loading in nickel lattice or reaction rate, since a strong 
>>>>>>magnetic field has a big effect on hydrogen atoms.”

“Nickel is a ferromagnetic element, so it should further increase the local 
magnetic field.
Hydrogen atoms subject to a magnetic field tend to align with it: the stronger, 
the lesser the casual orientation of the atoms spin. Another property of 
hydrogen (along with each atom with odd number of protons or neutrons) is the 
resonance. For hydrogen subject to a magnetic field of B Tesla, it is 
susceptible to an RF pulse of 43.5*B MHz center frequency. (43.5MGz is called 
the Gyromagnetic ratio).
This means that an aligned hydrogen atom, can be excited with a such RF pulse. 
The more the intensity, the more the energy absorbed. Then the hydrogen atom 
returns to the quiescent state with a time constant depending on the material 
in which is immersed. This is exploited in the magnetic resonance devices to 
detect which material the hydrogen is immersed in.”
“But we don’t care of this behaviour, becouse we care only of the fact that an 
RF pulse can give energy to hydrogen atoms. This can increase the reaction rate 
into an Ecat: excited atoms are more prone to reaction: we know tha temperature 
is one of the contro factor. But heat is unordered oscillation of the atoms, 
while an RF pulse on hydrogen aligned with a magnetic field is an ordered 
oscillation. If the nickel lattice is regular enough (i am thinking of a solid 
rod instead of a powder, but also in a powder there should be an effect), an 
ordered oscillation is better of a chaoitc oscillation. At worst it should have 
the same effect of heat.”
“I don’t know if you have a codified method to calculate the frequency of the 
RF pulses to give to the Ecat, but here there is the possible theoretic 
background:
A DC current in the coil, with nickel mixture in the inside, produce a magnetic 
field of B Tesla (you can measure it). Then, the best RF pulse to att to the DC 
component should have 43.5*B MHz as main frequency. The more the intensity, the 
more the “cadence”, the more energy you give to the hydrogen atoms. It can even 
happen that a strong enough RF pulse train can start the reactions even with 
cold reactor. This can be a method to trigger the reaction even at “low” 
temperature. Obviously the RF pulse intensity should be lowered with the 
increase of the reactor temperature.”

“This can also explain the instabilities that you may have detected during the 
R phase and the increase of the reaction rate with some RF pulses: RF pulses 
have multiple frequency harmonics and probabily one of them excited hydrogen 
atoms immersed in the low magnetic field of the coil.”

“Here i gave a theory and a possible direction of research…”

“Regards,
Marco”

<<<<<<<<
Those devices Marco refers to are nuclear magnetic resonance machines I 
believe.  I did my own research on them in 1961.

Bob Cook



From: bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2017 2:26 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: [Vo]:quantum thermodynamics and the Second Law--

Dave and Bob--

In common nuclear magnetic resonance machines the angular momentum of nuclei 
are  changed by a resonant radio frequency energy source in a strong ambient 
magnetic field.  That field aligns  the  nuclear magnetic dipoles and creates 
new  discrete potential energy levels for the nuclei.When excited to a new 
level by the radio frequency input, the nuclei are said to be in an elevated 
isomeric energy state.  When the ambient magnetic field is shut off, the nuclei 
relax giving off EM energy.  This energy from the relaxing nuclei is monitored 
to determine the location and concentration of nuclei which return to a ground 
state.

I believe the energy associated with the various nuclear spin states is 
considered nuclear binding potential energy, but not associated with mass 
energy binding protons and neutrons within a nucleus.  However, this potential 
energy  of an isomer DOES add mass to nuclei.

Thus, I would guess that transitions of nuclear species during LENR from one 
ground state to another ground state (with  a different combination of neutrons 
and protons and lower net angular momentum) would involve coupling via a 
magnetic field to the orbital electrons of a metal lattice.  You can call that 
energy mass energy,  binding energy 

RE: [Vo]:quantum thermodynamics and the Second Law--

[bobcook39...@hotmail.com]

Dave and Bob--

In common nuclear magnetic resonance machines the angular momentum of nuclei 
are  changed by a resonant radio frequency energy source in a strong ambient 
magnetic field.  That field aligns  the  nuclear magnetic dipoles and creates 
new  discrete potential energy levels for the nuclei.When excited to a new 
level by the radio frequency input, the nuclei are said to be in an elevated 
isomeric energy state.  When the ambient magnetic field is shut off, the nuclei 
relax giving off EM energy.  This energy from the relaxing nuclei is monitored 
to determine the location and concentration of nuclei which return to a ground 
state.

I believe the energy associated with the various nuclear spin states is 
considered nuclear binding potential energy, but not associated with mass 
energy binding protons and neutrons within a nucleus.  However, this potential 
energy  of an isomer DOES add mass to nuclei.

Thus, I would guess that transitions of nuclear species during LENR from one 
ground state to another ground state (with  a different combination of neutrons 
and protons and lower net angular momentum) would involve coupling via a 
magnetic field to the orbital electrons of a metal lattice.  You can call that 
energy mass energy,  binding energy or whatever.  It is a parameter of the 
nucleus in question in units of joules.  Energy is energy no matter what force  
field is involved IMHO.

Dave,

( I  believe linear momentum can be co-linear (not necessarily orthogonal) with 
angular momentum for properties ascribed to a particle or system of particles.  
  Even thought they have the same units mass-length/time, one must change in 
units of h/2pie and the other is associated with free particles in space and 
subject to uncertainty in its actual value reflecting Planck’s constant, h.

  ( I am not sure I understand your comment regarding classical physics.)

Bob Cook



From: David Roberson<mailto:dlrober...@aol.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2017 11:29 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum thermodynamics and the Second Law--

Of course, in classical physics linear momentum and angular momentum are 
orthogonal to each other and can not be exchanged within a closed system.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sat, May 20, 2017 11:16 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum thermodynamics and the Second Law--
This is interesting thinking.  The idea that angular momentum, linear momentum, 
and energy are "conserved" is a hypothesis created and supported (as I 
understand it) by observation, not by derivation based upon a fundamental 
principle.  While it would be a violation of the hypothesis, trading between 
these conserved quantities would not invalidate a fundamental premise (am I 
correct?).
So, Bob, when you say, "Trading nuclear potential energy for metal lattice 
electron orbital (thermal) angular momentum is LENR", what is the nuclear 
potential energy that you are saying is being traded (exchanged) into the 
electron orbital angular momentum?  What in the nucleus do you envision being 
traded?
Clearly the nucleus is not as well understood as we imagine.  If you read 
Norman Cook's book, "Models of the Atomic Nucleus", you will see the sorry 
state of things.  Present models for the nucleus predict fission as occurring 
in equal portions, but experiment shows that is far from the case.  Even though 
we rely heavily on engineering of nuclear fission, the models don't predict the 
characteristics of the reaction.  Could the "smallness" of the constituents in 
the nucleus allow interaction with a zero-point field, where at such small 
scales physics is different than we know?  Could the trading of "conserved" 
quantities be commonplace at such small scales?

On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 7:30 AM, 
bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com> 
<bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
The following link contains interesting views on the subject of this thread.

IMHO these are key LENR concepts.   Trading nuclear potential energy for metal 
lattice electron orbital (thermal) angular momentum is LENR.

http://www.quantamagazine.org/the-quantum-thermodynamics-revolution-20170502/

The following is excerpted from the article on thermodynamics:

“Imagine a vast container, or reservoir, of particles that possess both
energy and angular momentum (they’re both moving around and spinning).
This reservoir is connected to both a weight, which takes energy to
lift, and a turning turntable, which takes angular momentum to speed up
or slow down. Normally, a single reservoir can’t do any work — this goes
back to Carnot’s discovery about the need for hot and cold reservoirs.
But the researchers found that a reservoir containing multiple conserved
quantities follows dif

Re: [Vo]:quantum thermodynamics and the origin of the neutrino-

[Brian Ahern]

An energetic universe has no need for the neutrino. Fermi hypothesized it as an 
object to preserve angular momentum in interacting nuclear particle and 
radiations.


A Dirac universe can access angular momenta from the Dirac Sea.


This is not a closed system.



From: David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2017 2:29 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum thermodynamics and the Second Law--

Of course, in classical physics linear momentum and angular momentum are 
orthogonal to each other and can not be exchanged within a closed system.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sat, May 20, 2017 11:16 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum thermodynamics and the Second Law--

This is interesting thinking.  The idea that angular momentum, linear momentum, 
and energy are "conserved" is a hypothesis created and supported (as I 
understand it) by observation, not by derivation based upon a fundamental 
principle.  While it would be a violation of the hypothesis, trading between 
these conserved quantities would not invalidate a fundamental premise (am I 
correct?).

So, Bob, when you say, "Trading nuclear potential energy for metal lattice 
electron orbital (thermal) angular momentum is LENR", what is the nuclear 
potential energy that you are saying is being traded (exchanged) into the 
electron orbital angular momentum?  What in the nucleus do you envision being 
traded?

Clearly the nucleus is not as well understood as we imagine.  If you read 
Norman Cook's book, "Models of the Atomic Nucleus", you will see the sorry 
state of things.  Present models for the nucleus predict fission as occurring 
in equal portions, but experiment shows that is far from the case.  Even though 
we rely heavily on engineering of nuclear fission, the models don't predict the 
characteristics of the reaction.  Could the "smallness" of the constituents in 
the nucleus allow interaction with a zero-point field, where at such small 
scales physics is different than we know?  Could the trading of "conserved" 
quantities be commonplace at such small scales?

On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 7:30 AM, 
bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com> 
<bobcook39...@hotmail.com<mailto:bobcook39...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
The following link contains interesting views on the subject of this thread.

IMHO these are key LENR concepts.   Trading nuclear potential energy for metal 
lattice electron orbital (thermal) angular momentum is LENR.

http://www.quantamagazine.org/the-quantum-thermodynamics-revolution-20170502/

The following is excerpted from the article on thermodynamics:

“Imagine a vast container, or reservoir, of particles that possess both
energy and angular momentum (they’re both moving around and spinning).
This reservoir is connected to both a weight, which takes energy to
lift, and a turning turntable, which takes angular momentum to speed up
or slow down. Normally, a single reservoir can’t do any work — this goes
back to Carnot’s discovery about the need for hot and cold reservoirs.
But the researchers found that a reservoir containing multiple conserved
quantities follows different rules. “If you have two different physical
quantities that are conserved, like energy and angular momentum,”
Popescu said, “as long as you have a bath that contains both of them,
then you can trade one for another.”

In the hypothetical weight-reservoir-turntable system, the weight can be
lifted as the turntable slows down, or, conversely, lowering the weight
causes the turntable to spin faster. The researchers found that the
quantum information describing the particles’ energy and spin states can
act as a kind of currency that enables trading between the reservoir’s
energy and angular momentum supplies. The notion that conserved
quantities can be traded for one another in quantum systems is brand
new. It may suggest the need for a more complete thermodynamic theory
that would describe not only the flow of energy, but also the interplay
between all the conserved quantities in the universe.

The fact that energy has dominated the thermodynamics story up to now
might be circumstantial rather than profound, Oppenheim said. Carnot and
his successors might have developed a thermodynamic theory governing the
flow of, say, angular momentum to go with their engine theory, if only
there had been a need. “We have energy sources all around us that we
want to extract and use,” Oppenheim said. “It happens to be the case
that we don’t have big angular momentum heat baths around us. We don’t
come across huge gyroscopes.”

_”Popescu, who won a Dirac Medal last year for his insights in quantum
information theory and quantum foundations, said he and his
collaborators work by “pushing quantum mechanics into a corner,”
gathering at

Re: [Vo]:quantum thermodynamics and the Second Law--

[David Roberson]

Of course, in classical physics linear momentum and angular momentum are 
orthogonal to each other and can not be exchanged within a closed system.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sat, May 20, 2017 11:16 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:quantum thermodynamics and the Second Law--




This is interesting thinking.  The idea that angular momentum, linear momentum, 
and energy are "conserved" is a hypothesis created and supported (as I 
understand it) by observation, not by derivation based upon a fundamental 
principle.  While it would be a violation of the hypothesis, trading between 
these conserved quantities would not invalidate a fundamental premise (am I 
correct?).


So, Bob, when you say, "Trading nuclear potential energy for metal lattice 
electron orbital (thermal) angular momentum is LENR", what is the nuclear 
potential energy that you are saying is being traded (exchanged) into the 
electron orbital angular momentum?  What in the nucleus do you envision being 
traded?


Clearly the nucleus is not as well understood as we imagine.  If you read 
Norman Cook's book, "Models of the Atomic Nucleus", you will see the sorry 
state of things.  Present models for the nucleus predict fission as occurring 
in equal portions, but experiment shows that is far from the case.  Even though 
we rely heavily on engineering of nuclear fission, the models don't predict the 
characteristics of the reaction.  Could the "smallness" of the constituents in 
the nucleus allow interaction with a zero-point field, where at such small 
scales physics is different than we know?  Could the trading of "conserved" 
quantities be commonplace at such small scales?




On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 7:30 AM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com 
<bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:


The following link contains interesting views on the subject of this thread.
 
IMHO these are key LENR concepts.   Trading nuclear potential energy for metal 
lattice electron orbital (thermal) angular momentum is LENR.
 
http://www.quantamagazine.org/the-quantum-thermodynamics-revolution-20170502/
 
The following is excerpted from the article on thermodynamics:
 
“Imagine a vast container, or reservoir, of particles that possess both
energy and angular momentum (they’re both moving around and spinning).
This reservoir is connected to both a weight, which takes energy to
lift, and a turning turntable, which takes angular momentum to speed up
or slow down. Normally, a single reservoir can’t do any work — this goes
back to Carnot’s discovery about the need for hot and cold reservoirs.
But the researchers found that a reservoir containing multiple conserved
quantities follows different rules. “If you have two different physical
quantities that are conserved, like energy and angular momentum,”
Popescu said, “as long as you have a bath that contains both of them,
then you can trade one for another.”
 
In the hypothetical weight-reservoir-turntable system, the weight can be
lifted as the turntable slows down, or, conversely, lowering the weight
causes the turntable to spin faster. The researchers found that the
quantum information describing the particles’ energy and spin states can
act as a kind of currency that enables trading between the reservoir’s
energy and angular momentum supplies. The notion that conserved
quantities can be traded for one another in quantum systems is brand
new. It may suggest the need for a more complete thermodynamic theory
that would describe not only the flow of energy, but also the interplay
between all the conserved quantities in the universe.
 
The fact that energy has dominated the thermodynamics story up to now
might be circumstantial rather than profound, Oppenheim said. Carnot and
his successors might have developed a thermodynamic theory governing the
flow of, say, angular momentum to go with their engine theory, if only
there had been a need. “We have energy sources all around us that we
want to extract and use,” Oppenheim said. “It happens to be the case
that we don’t have big angular momentum heat baths around us. We don’t
come across huge gyroscopes.”
 
_”Popescu, who won a Dirac Medal last year for his insights in quantum
information theory and quantum foundations, said he and his
collaborators work by “pushing quantum mechanics into a corner,”
gathering at a blackboard and reasoning their way to a new insight after
which it’s easy to derive the associated equations. Some realizations
are in the process of crystalizing. In one of several phone
conversations in March, Popescu discussed a new thought experiment that
illustrates a distinction between information and other conserved
quantities — and indicates how symmetries in nature might set them apart.”
 
 











Virus-free. www.avg.com 

Re: [Vo]:quantum thermodynamics and the Second Law--

[Bob Higgins]

This is interesting thinking.  The idea that angular momentum, linear
momentum, and energy are "conserved" is a hypothesis created and supported
(as I understand it) by observation, not by derivation based upon a
fundamental principle.  While it would be a violation of the hypothesis,
trading between these conserved quantities would not invalidate a
fundamental premise (am I correct?).

So, Bob, when you say, "Trading nuclear potential energy for metal lattice
electron orbital (thermal) angular momentum is LENR", what is the nuclear
potential energy that you are saying is being traded (exchanged) into the
electron orbital angular momentum?  What in the nucleus do you envision
being traded?

Clearly the nucleus is not as well understood as we imagine.  If you read
Norman Cook's book, "Models of the Atomic Nucleus", you will see the sorry
state of things.  Present models for the nucleus predict fission as
occurring in equal portions, but experiment shows that is far from the
case.  Even though we rely heavily on engineering of nuclear fission, the
models don't predict the characteristics of the reaction.  Could the
"smallness" of the constituents in the nucleus allow interaction with a
zero-point field, where at such small scales physics is different than we
know?  Could the trading of "conserved" quantities be commonplace at such
small scales?

On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 7:30 AM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> The following link contains interesting views on the subject of this
> thread.
>
>
>
> IMHO these are key LENR concepts.   Trading nuclear potential energy for
> metal lattice electron orbital (thermal) angular momentum is LENR.
>
>
>
> http://www.quantamagazine.org/the-quantum-thermodynamics-
> revolution-20170502/
>
>
>
> The following is excerpted from the article on thermodynamics:
>
>
>
> “Imagine a vast container, or reservoir, of particles that possess both
>
> energy and angular momentum (they’re both moving around and spinning).
>
> This reservoir is connected to both a weight, which takes energy to
>
> lift, and a turning turntable, which takes angular momentum to speed up
>
> or slow down. Normally, a single reservoir can’t do any work — this goes
>
> back to Carnot’s discovery about the need for hot and cold reservoirs.
>
> But the researchers found that a reservoir containing multiple conserved
>
> quantities follows different rules. “If you have two different physical
>
> quantities that are conserved, like energy and angular momentum,”
>
> Popescu said, “as long as you have a bath that contains both of them,
>
> then you can trade one for another.”
>
>
>
> In the hypothetical weight-reservoir-turntable system, the weight can be
>
> lifted as the turntable slows down, or, conversely, lowering the weight
>
> causes the turntable to spin faster. The researchers found that the
>
> quantum information describing the particles’ energy and spin states can
>
> act as a kind of currency that enables trading between the reservoir’s
>
> energy and angular momentum supplies. The notion that conserved
>
> quantities can be traded for one another in quantum systems is brand
>
> new. It may suggest the need for a more complete thermodynamic theory
>
> that would describe not only the flow of energy, but also the interplay
>
> between all the conserved quantities in the universe.
>
>
>
> The fact that energy has dominated the thermodynamics story up to now
>
> might be circumstantial rather than profound, Oppenheim said. Carnot and
>
> his successors might have developed a thermodynamic theory governing the
>
> flow of, say, angular momentum to go with their engine theory, if only
>
> there had been a need. “We have energy sources all around us that we
>
> want to extract and use,” Oppenheim said. “It happens to be the case
>
> that we don’t have big angular momentum heat baths around us. We don’t
>
> come across huge gyroscopes.”
>
>
>
> _”Popescu, who won a Dirac Medal last year for his insights in quantum
>
> information theory and quantum foundations, said he and his
>
> collaborators work by “pushing quantum mechanics into a corner,”
>
> gathering at a blackboard and reasoning their way to a new insight after
>
> which it’s easy to derive the associated equations. Some realizations
>
> are in the process of crystalizing. In one of several phone
>
> conversations in March, Popescu discussed a new thought experiment that
>
> illustrates a distinction between information and other conserved
>
> quantities — and indicates how symmetries in nature might set them apart.”
>
>
>
>
>



Virus-free.
www.avg.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[Robin van Spaandonk]

In reply to  Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Thu, 01 Mar 2007 10:30:06 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
 DC component. I agree with you that a diode should produce the same sort of
 thermal AC voltage as a resistor, however it should also rectify it's own
 voltage.

What you say is true, but there is an issue, which is that real diodes 
are not perfect diodes:  they have a nonzero forward voltage drop. 
What's more, they're not even ideal diodes: the forward voltage drop 
is not constant.  As you suggest, let's look at the current curve for a 
hypothetical real diode, taken from Senturia and Wedlock, Electronic 
Cicuits and Applications, p184 in my copy.  It's given as

   i = I_S(e^(qv/kT) - 1)

where I_S, q, and k are constants.

I'm a bit out of my depth here, but since noise voltage is thermal in origin,
wouldn't q*v = k*T by definition? If so, then the current is constant, and equal
to 1.718 * I_S. I'm assuming that q is the charge on a free electron, v is the
thermal voltage, and k*T is the average thermal energy of these electrons.
IOW q*v is just charge x voltage = electron energy, but k*T is supposed to
represent the thermal energy of the electron. Since the electron only has one
energy at any given time, it seems they must both be different expressions of
the same entity, and hence identical. (Note that this is only true when the
voltage in question is the thermal voltage, not when it is an externally imposed
voltage).
[snip]
I don't pretend to be able to analyze this situation in detail, but it 
appears to me, from the above formula, that for any realistic level of 
noise-induced charge on a cap hooked up across the diode, the charge is 
going to leak away through the diode long before the next probabilistic 
noise crest of sufficient magnitude to charge it up any farther comes along.

If I am correct hereabove, then the only requirement for charging the cap would
be that the leakage current  1.718 x I_S. (My suspicious nature leads me to
suspect however that this may very well be the very definition of diode leakage
current.) :(


 IOW a diode connected across a capacitor should eventually charge the 
 capacitor,
 if it's thermal voltage is current independent.

But the more charge you get, the longer you have to wait for another 
noise pulse which exceeds that voltage, and the longer you have for 
the charge you already had accumulated to leak away through the diode.

If you are using the power as it is provided, then this ceases to be a problem.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/

Competition (capitalism) provides the motivation,
Cooperation (communism) provides the means.

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[Nick Palmer]

Steven A Lawrence wrote:-

Actually we're supposed to exercise a bit of restraint on this list and
not shoot too many holes in theories even if they look like easy
targets.  At least, that's my understanding of the Vortex rules -- it's
supposed to be a safe place to air ideas which are not fully baked, and
criticism is supposed to be constructive, if possible, rather than
destructive

Yes, I was (reacting to provocation) rude too. I apologise to Paul. I'll 
still be very surprised if he ever fully bakes his idea... 

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
 Nick Palmer wrote:
 From John Berry's we can do what ever we want if we just get the old
 rocks
 out of our head message:-

 Why people think their preconcieved notions of what is and isn't
 possible trumps the evidence I'll never know Quite so. Tell Paul...

 Paul Lowrance has come up with a theory that if he exploits a certain
 phenomenon he will get free energy from ambient heat. He has no
 evidence that he can do this - only his belief in his theory.

 It's also something which is discussed in sophomore EE classes FWIW.  I
 don't think Paul realizes that.


I think Paul's aware of it. ;-)  Sorry, but I really fail to see the logic in 
assuming -- I could not possible see something that a world of EE's have not 
seen.  If we follow that line of thinking then we assume no single person will 
ever discover anything.  It's easy to place such faith in the science community, 
but that's just not realistic.


For example, my conversations with EE's on a forum discovered that nearly all 
EE's have an incomplete understanding of real random noise.  Most do not 
understand that true noise has no upper crest limit.  I debated this with 
several EE's on a forum until they saw their error when I broke the problem down 
in simple frequency spectrum and phase angle.


Another example is every EE I've ever talked to thinks **all** real resistance 
has thermal noise.  This is not true.  Radiation resistance for instance has no 
known thermal noise.  I can hand you an wide BW antenna consisting of thick 
metal tubing that has several thousand ohms radiation resistance, but the only 
thermal noise you'll find on the antenna is due to the resistance of the metal 
itself, which is infinitesimally small compared to the radiation resistance. One 
EE disbelieved me so much that he still thinks that a 50 ohm antenna given the 
BW range will have the amount of thermal noise in accordance to -- V = sqrt(4 K 
T R dF)--  it simply does not.






 He has been irritating people on this forum for quite some time. He
 maybe does not realise that he is not the first type to come on here
 with some idea that they believe is brilliant that the whole of the
 rest of humanity has not spotted. They normally stick around for a
 while, get their ideas repeatedly shot full of holes by most of the
 good minds on here

 Actually we're supposed to exercise a bit of restraint on this list and
 not shoot too many holes in theories even if they look like easy
 targets.  At least, that's my understanding of the Vortex rules -- it's
 supposed to be a safe place to air ideas which are not fully baked, and
 criticism is supposed to be constructive, if possible, rather than
 destructive.


Holes, says Nick?  I'm still waiting for anyone to point out even a single hole 
in my claims.  Please, by all means, someone point out the hole(s). I'm not 
running away with my tail between my legs.  I challenge anyone! If I'm wrong 
then man I'll admit it in a heartbeat.






 It's hard sometimes, when people come in with totally goofy
 misconceptions and a condescending and insulting attitude toward anyone
 who's actually invested the time and effort to understand some small
 piece of modern physics, but whatever ... most of the regulars here are
 at least polite about it when someone disagrees with them.


Some would say that's passive aggressive Stephen A. Lawrence.  People will 
wonder if you were referring to someone in particular, namely one Paul Lowrance, 
lol.  People will wonder who you thought had totally goofy misconceptions and a 
condescending and insulting attitude ...


Please let me know if you ever want to debate the idea that your passive 
aggressive ways of life is better than my direct ways of life. You name the 
forum of your liking or we can do it in person.  Just perhaps, just perhaps 
society is wrong on this.  Just perhaps society is slowly changing toward my 
methodology where people are upfront and honest, and drop the passive aggressive 
tactics, silent jabs, etc. etc.  What you call insulting I call honesty and 
speaking my mind. On occasion you have said you're sorry if that hurts my 
feelings.  That's just it my brother.  Please understand it does not hurt my 
feelings when you speak your mind.  Sure, society has programmed you otherwise. 
It is indeed a rough and dog eat dog world out there.






Regards,
Paul Lowrance

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:


 Some would say that's passive aggressive Stephen A. Lawrence.

 Just a little bit of an ad hominem?  I guess some means you, eh?


Yes, I think you are passive aggressive.  I think you have a negative 
interpretation to my statements.  I am very direct and address what people say-- 
not ad hominem.





 you have not attacked me _because_ I had learned a little electrical 
engineering.


Attack is your POV.  I call it how I see it, state my mind, and do not make 
statements to hurt people. Rather, such statements are what I believe.


I think you left the discussion because I found direct error in your science.




 Please let me know if you ever want to debate the idea that your
 passive aggressive ways of life is better than my direct ways of life.

 Have you completely dropped the science arguments, and totally replaced
 them with ad hominem attacks?


No I have not resorted to ad hominem.  Ad hominem is when a person attacks for 
the purpose of not address the issue.  Show me what I am not addressing?  Please 
by all means, back up your statement.  IMHO your statement is pure fuzzy logic. 
 I put forth effort to directly address your statements, and did indeed address 
your statements regarding my theory. No I am not perfect and cannot reply to 
every one of your sentences due to time!  Furthermore, look at my recent posts 
and you'll see I am challenging everyone to find holes in my claims. It's funny 
that you have not replied to such a challenge. Rather, of recent you prefer only 
to reply to my philosophy statements, lol.


If you want to continue these personal issue then please send me a private email 
and we'll post here the final results.  Yes, that's another challenge for you to 
back up your words.



I have been waiting for someone to answer my question to nail down his or her 
stance, but it seems nobody is perhaps brave enough.  Once people answer the 
question then I will provide a specific circuit example demonstrating how energy 
captured from thermal noise can be stored in a capacitor, which is a form of 
battery.  So then answer this Stephen A. Lawrence --


If I can demonstrate how you can permanently store energy in to a capacitor 
taken from ambient temperature then for the sake of spreading truth will you 
public admit I am correct?  No I am not trying to trick you with temperature 
gradients or radiation from an external source such as a radio station or 
electric ground potential gradients, etc. etc.  I am talking about a device that 
utilizes thermal voltage noise at room temperature-- Vn = sqrt(4 K T R dF)




Regards,
Paul Lowrance

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[Michel Jullian]

Paul stop antagonizing people it's not fun any more.

Michel

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 8:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics


 Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
 
 
  Some would say that's passive aggressive Stephen A. Lawrence.
 
  Just a little bit of an ad hominem?  I guess some means you, eh?
 
 
 Yes, I think you are passive aggressive.  I think you have a negative 
 interpretation to my statements.  I am very direct and address what people 
 say-- 
 not ad hominem.
 
 
 
 
  you have not attacked me _because_ I had learned a little electrical 
  engineering.
 
 
 Attack is your POV.  I call it how I see it, state my mind, and do not make 
 statements to hurt people. Rather, such statements are what I believe.
 
 I think you left the discussion because I found direct error in your science.
 
 
 
 
  Please let me know if you ever want to debate the idea that your
  passive aggressive ways of life is better than my direct ways of life.
 
  Have you completely dropped the science arguments, and totally replaced
  them with ad hominem attacks?
 
 
 No I have not resorted to ad hominem.  Ad hominem is when a person attacks 
 for 
 the purpose of not address the issue.  Show me what I am not addressing?  
 Please 
 by all means, back up your statement.  IMHO your statement is pure fuzzy 
 logic. 
  I put forth effort to directly address your statements, and did indeed 
 address 
 your statements regarding my theory. No I am not perfect and cannot reply to 
 every one of your sentences due to time!  Furthermore, look at my recent 
 posts 
 and you'll see I am challenging everyone to find holes in my claims. It's 
 funny 
 that you have not replied to such a challenge. Rather, of recent you prefer 
 only 
 to reply to my philosophy statements, lol.
 
 If you want to continue these personal issue then please send me a private 
 email 
 and we'll post here the final results.  Yes, that's another challenge for you 
 to 
 back up your words.
 
 
 I have been waiting for someone to answer my question to nail down his or her 
 stance, but it seems nobody is perhaps brave enough.  Once people answer the 
 question then I will provide a specific circuit example demonstrating how 
 energy 
 captured from thermal noise can be stored in a capacitor, which is a form of 
 battery.  So then answer this Stephen A. Lawrence --
 
 If I can demonstrate how you can permanently store energy in to a capacitor 
 taken from ambient temperature then for the sake of spreading truth will you 
 public admit I am correct?  No I am not trying to trick you with temperature 
 gradients or radiation from an external source such as a radio station or 
 electric ground potential gradients, etc. etc.  I am talking about a device 
 that 
 utilizes thermal voltage noise at room temperature-- Vn = sqrt(4 K T R dF)
 
 
 
 Regards,
 Paul Lowrance

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

Michel Jullian wrote:
 Paul stop antagonizing people it's not fun any more.



Michel, could you please stop the personal stuff. What gives you the right to 
post a personal statement as above while I do not have the right?  I will debate 
anyone on this matter in private. You think you are completely incorrect. 
Please, lets take this up in private and we'll post the results.




Regards,
Paul Lowrance

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
   Nick Palmer wrote:
   From John Berry's we can do what ever we want if we just get the old
   rocks
   out of our head message:-
  
   Why people think their preconcieved notions of what is and isn't
   possible trumps the evidence I'll never know Quite so. Tell Paul...
  
   Paul Lowrance has come up with a theory that if he exploits a certain
   phenomenon he will get free energy from ambient heat. He has no
   evidence that he can do this - only his belief in his theory.
  
   It's also something which is discussed in sophomore EE classes FWIW.  I
   don't think Paul realizes that.


 I think Paul's[I] aware of it. ;-)   Sorry, but I really fail to see the
 logic in assuming -- I could not possible see something that a world of
 EE's have not seen.  If we follow that line of thinking then we assume
 no single person will ever discover anything.  It's easy to place such
 faith in the science community, but that's just not realistic.

 For example, my conversations with EE's on a forum discovered that
 nearly all EE's have an incomplete understanding of real random noise.
 Most do not understand that true noise has no upper crest limit.  I
 debated this with several EE's on a forum until they saw their error
 when I broke the problem down in simple frequency spectrum and phase angle.

 Another example is every EE I've ever talked to thinks **all** real
 resistance has thermal noise.  This is not true.  Radiation resistance
 for instance has no known thermal noise.  I can hand you an wide BW
 antenna consisting of thick metal tubing that has several thousand ohms
 radiation resistance, but the only thermal noise you'll find on the
 antenna is due to the resistance of the metal itself, which is
 infinitesimally small compared to the radiation resistance. One EE
 disbelieved me so much that he still thinks that a 50 ohm antenna given
 the BW range will have the amount of thermal noise in accordance to --
 V = sqrt(4 K T R dF)--  it simply does not.





   He has been irritating people on this forum for quite some time. He
   maybe does not realise that he is not the first type to come on here
   with some idea that they believe is brilliant that the whole of the
   rest of humanity has not spotted. They normally stick around for a
   while, get their ideas repeatedly shot full of holes by most of the
   good minds on here
  
   Actually we're supposed to exercise a bit of restraint on this list and
   not shoot too many holes in theories even if they look like easy
   targets.  At least, that's my understanding of the Vortex rules -- it's
   supposed to be a safe place to air ideas which are not fully baked, and
   criticism is supposed to be constructive, if possible, rather than
   destructive.


 Holes, says Nick?  I'm still waiting for anyone to point out even a
 single hole in my claims.  Please, by all means, someone point out the
 hole(s). I'm not running away with my tail between my legs.  I challenge
 anyone! If I'm wrong then man I'll admit it in a heartbeat.





   It's hard sometimes, when people come in with totally goofy
   misconceptions and a condescending and insulting attitude toward anyone
   who's actually invested the time and effort to understand some small
   piece of modern physics, but whatever ... most of the regulars here are
   at least polite about it when someone disagrees with them.


 Some would say that's passive aggressive Stephen A. Lawrence.  People
 will wonder if you were referring to someone in particular, namely one
 Paul Lowrance, lol.  People will wonder who you thought had totally
 goofy misconceptions and a condescending and insulting attitude ...

 Please let me know if you ever want to debate the idea that your passive
 aggressive ways of life is better than my direct ways of life. You name
 the forum of your liking or we can do it in person.  Just perhaps, just
 perhaps society is wrong on this.  Just perhaps society is slowly
 changing toward my methodology where people are upfront and honest, and
 drop the passive aggressive tactics, silent jabs, etc. etc.  What you
 call insulting I call honesty and speaking my mind. On occasion you
 have said you're sorry if that hurts my feelings.  That's just it my
 brother.  Please understand it does not hurt my feelings when you speak
 your mind.  Sure, society has programmed you otherwise. It is indeed a
 rough and dog eat dog world out there.





 Regards,
 Paul Lowrance




I for one am tired of people avoiding the main discussion.  ...  Talking about 
ad hominem.  Notice my tech talk above on various issues from radiation 
resistance not have thermal noise to real noise not having an upper crest limit. 
 Stephen A. Lawrence, I really think we should take our ad hominem discussion 
in private and then post the results, because IMHO it's really sad when all 
you'll reply to is personal statements and then accuse me of resorting to ad 
hominem.  Read the past 

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

Nick,



Nick Palmer wrote:
 Paul, you seem to think that just because you have used a computer
 modelling program (LT Spice) that it's predictions are necessarily
 reality. If the initial assumptions and parameters that were modelled
 and programmed in are in error it won't be of much use to help us in the
 area we are looking at. Your EE friends have never, in a real situation,
 needed to know or even been able to measure the thermally generated
 voltage noise when there is *no* current of any description, AC or DC,
 passing though the resistor.


You have to be kidding.




 Ideally, it could be measured, if it
 exists, but in the real world there is no ideal instrument. I don't care
 if your EE friends lol at this - that would just show they don't fully
 understand what they are dealing with.


The challenge for EE's is *NOT* measuring noise.  A great deal of EE's spend 
their entire career designing circuits and chips that have the least amount of 
noise.  Viewing noise is one of the simplest task in electronics.


BTW, the main issue with your recent posts is that you make it very clear that 
such thermal voltage noise is ***current dependant.***  You should build a low 
noise op-amp and measure both the voltage and current caused by a resistors 
thermal noise.  I can assure you the amount of thermal voltage noise does not 
change relative to current.


Some people would say that's basic 101 Electronics.  Shame on you for spreading 
disinformation!






 Your point about several random
 sources adding up and BTW, true voltage noise has no upper voltage
 crest  yet again sabotages your position.


It only sabotages it to naïve youngsters, no offense intended to anyone.





 By analogy, looking at random
 thermal molecular vibrations (heat) you might as well say that
 temperature is only a statistical average - that there exists all
 temperatures of particles in the spoon - that some in a room temperature
 teaspoon are at a notional 5,000,000 degreesC. Just try using this spoon
 to boil a cuppa though - you'll have a bloody long wait for your tea if
 you wait for a number of random sources to align and give you useable
 heat above ambient temperature.


Again, no offense, but that's pure fuzzy logic.  Again, adding two purely random 
noise sources increase the root mean square by sqrt(2).  You should try it some 
day.  Just do it by hand (pen waving) or with your calculator.  Just take a 
hundred purely random numbers between 1 an -1, add them up and see what RMS 
value you get.






 Let's cut to the chase. Build one of these diode/resistor/LED devices
 that unequivocally generates significant, useable cohered output - such
 as photons of a frequency and magnitude sufficient to cause a PV cell to
 generate, say, 1  continuous watt  using only ambient room temperature
 heat without a lower temperature sink (to give the difference in energy
 levels that is essential to create work) and I will give you £1,000.


There's nothing magical about 1 continuous watt.  One ***should*** only have to 
prove the point.





 Of course once you have done this, then the world will also beat a path to
 your door but I suspect that hell will freeze over first.


That's a cup half empty comment.





 You are one
 amongst countless free energy dreamers - they failed - you will fail
 too.


That's a cup half empty comment.





 Your hand waving


That's a very well known term used by skeptics and debunkers.  What's funny is 
watching physicists wave the pens as they write mathematical equations. 
Personally I prefer computer software over pen and hand waving, lol.







 when pinned down is nowhere near as impressive as
 such masters of the art as Joseph Newman and Dennis Lee or Joe Champion.


Thanks for the confidence, support, and positive thinking, lol.  I'll keep my 
glass half full mentality thank you very much!






 BTW, I really think people who use the glass half full/empty witticism
 are half wits.


God bless you!



Regards,
Paul Lowrance

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[Terry Blanton]

On 3/1/07, Nick Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Of course once
you have done this, then the world will also beat a path to your door but I
suspect that hell will freeze over first.


Well, Nick, the energy must come from somewhere.

An engineer dies. He arrives at the Pearly Gates, but they don't let
him in, so he goes to Hell. Hell is a pretty rotten environment. Right
away, the engineer starts making improvements-lights, bathrooms, air
conditioning-and after a while, Hell doesn't look so bad any more. God
notices this, and asks the Devil what's going on.

Well, it's this engineer we've got, says the Devil.

Engineer?? You're not supposed to have any engineers in Hell! says
God. There must have been a mistake. All engineers go to Heaven. Send
him up here, right away!

No way, says the Devil. We're keeping him here.

I'll sue!! cries God.

Yeah, right, sneers the Devil. Where you gonna get a lawyer??


(however, I'm still hoping Terry Blanton's pet magmo project might
work!).


Hey, it's not *my* project, I'm just a technical consultant (with an
equity position now :-).  The BFM ships this week.

Terry

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[Nick Palmer]

From John Berry's we can do what ever we want if we just get the old rocks 

out of our head message:-

Why people think their preconcieved notions of what is and isn't possible 
trumps the evidence I'll never know Quite so. Tell Paul...


Paul Lowrance has come up with a theory that if he exploits a certain 
phenomenon he will get free energy from ambient heat. He has no evidence 
that he can do this - only his belief in his theory. He has been irritating 
people on this forum for quite some time. He maybe does not realise that he 
is not the first type to come on here with some idea that they believe is 
brilliant that the whole of the rest of humanity has not spotted. They 
normally stick around for a while, get their ideas repeatedly shot full of 
holes by most of the good minds on here and end up coming out with 
increasingly desperate and irrelevant arguments, such as Paul just did and 
then eventually they disappear into cyberspace, never to be heard from 
again. I am sure they go away thinking that we are all a bunch of half 
empty types who don't recognise genius when we see it... LOL  He has no 
evidence that his idea can be done. He just believes it because he cannot 
see why he is mistaken. I have tried to show him why he is mistaken and 
others also tried before but he brushes all reality off his personal force 
field of vanity, patronisation and smugness.  I challenged him that if he 
can provide a working device based on his idea that I would pay him £1000 
just for doing it - I do not want the device after it has proved itself. I 
forgot to say that my terms also are that he owes me £1,000 when he fails, 
which he will.
   He seems to be taking ideas from computer programme simulations and the 
received wisdom of sound/electrical engineers as gospel and that their macro 
scale understanding relates to what is happening at the molecular and 
sub-atomic level - what is he - another burnt out rock musician like that 
clown Minato? At least Minato built a bicycle wheel device which fooled a 
lot of people.


   Put up or shut up Paul - stop rabbiting about why you think your idea 
will work, go and build it and report back to Vortex with ***RESULTS***, 
which will undoubtedly show that no energy is generated from ambient heat 
without a cooler heat sink, which will prove that your unsubstantiated 
theory is in error. Then just slink off with your tail between your legs (if 
you have any sense) and go and leave us in peace. If you don't slink off 
quietly, you may get obsessed with your vapourware belief and like so many, 
many, many others, you will waste your entire life chasing a half-full 
positive thinking mirage. You may go to your grave, still trying to work out 
why all your experiments failed to generate energy and your last thought may 
be Ah, if only I had tried this variation, it would have worked. 
Alternatively, you could come up with a  fraudulent device that looks 
realistic to the general public and could tout it around as the answer to 
mankind's need for clean energy and offer licences for the exclusive right 
to an area etc, etc. Perhaps that was your original purpose in coming on 
this forum. 

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

Nick Palmer wrote:
 From John Berry's we can do what ever we want if we just get the old
 rocks
 out of our head message:-

 Why people think their preconcieved notions of what is and isn't
 possible trumps the evidence I'll never know Quite so. Tell Paul...

 Paul Lowrance has come up with a theory that if he exploits a certain
 phenomenon he will get free energy from ambient heat. He has no evidence
 that he can do this - only his belief in his theory. He has been
 irritating people on this forum for quite some time. He maybe does not
 realise that he is not the first type to come on here with some idea
 that they believe is brilliant that the whole of the rest of humanity
 has not spotted. They normally stick around for a while, get their ideas
 repeatedly shot full of holes by most of the good minds on here and end
 up coming out with increasingly desperate and irrelevant arguments, such
 as Paul just did and then eventually they disappear into cyberspace,
 never to be heard from again. I am sure they go away thinking that we
 are all a bunch of half empty types who don't recognise genius when we
 see it... LOL  He has no evidence that his idea can be done. He just
 believes it because he cannot see why he is mistaken. I have tried to
 show him why he is mistaken and others also tried before but he brushes
 all reality off his personal force field of vanity, patronisation and
 smugness.  I challenged him that if he can provide a working device
 based on his idea that I would pay him £1000 just for doing it - I do
 not want the device after it has proved itself. I forgot to say that my
 terms also are that he owes me £1,000 when he fails, which he will.
He seems to be taking ideas from computer programme simulations and
 the received wisdom of sound/electrical engineers as gospel and that
 their macro scale understanding relates to what is happening at the
 molecular and sub-atomic level - what is he - another burnt out rock
 musician like that clown Minato? At least Minato built a bicycle wheel
 device which fooled a lot of people.

Put up or shut up Paul - stop rabbiting about why you think your idea
 will work, go and build it and report back to Vortex with ***RESULTS***,
 which will undoubtedly show that no energy is generated from ambient
 heat without a cooler heat sink, which will prove that your
 unsubstantiated theory is in error. Then just slink off with your tail
 between your legs (if you have any sense) and go and leave us in peace.
 If you don't slink off quietly, you may get obsessed with your
 vapourware belief and like so many, many, many others, you will waste
 your entire life chasing a half-full positive thinking mirage. You may
 go to your grave, still trying to work out why all your experiments
 failed to generate energy and your last thought may be Ah, if only I
 had tried this variation, it would have worked. Alternatively, you
 could come up with a  fraudulent device that looks realistic to the
 general public and could tout it around as the answer to mankind's need
 for clean energy and offer licences for the exclusive right to an area
 etc, etc. Perhaps that was your original purpose in coming on this forum.



Nick,

Answer this.  If it is possible to capture energy from ambient temperature then 
wouldn't you want to know how?  Obviously you believe it is impossible to 
capture energy from ambient temperature and stored the energy.  If it is 
possible then first we need to verify. Therefore it does not matter if we prove 
1 joule was captured or however much energy. We are talking about a device that 
theoretically could be a micrometer or smaller.


If I can demonstrate how you can store energy taken from ambient temperature 
then will admit your error?  No I am not trying to trick you with temperature 
gradients or radiation from radio stations or electric ground potential 
gradients, etc. etc.  I am talking about a device that utilizes thermal voltage 
noise at room temperature-- Vn = sqrt(4 K T R dF)




Regards,
Paul Lowrance

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[Nick Palmer]

Paul wrote:-

Nick, Answer this.  If it is possible to capture energy from ambient 
temperature then wouldn't you want to know how?


Obviously, but we already know how you propose to do it because you already 
told us over and over. Nanometre scale arrays of LEDs and noisy 
diode/resistors. Rectification of the voltage noise allegedly leads to 
emission of photons - come to think of it why don't you just rectify the 
voltage noise and use the pure electricity directly? Probably because 
making it look this simple would make it even more obvious that it will not 
work. C'mon, this is like saying that pulling your nanometre sized 
bootstraps up in just the right clever way will lift you off the ground. I 
wish you luck in your endeavour.


If I can demonstrate how you can store energy taken from ambient 
temperature then will admit your error?


I will only accept a working device as a true demonstration of your 
assertion.You speculated that this device could power the world. Just giving 
us what you believe to be a watertight theory is not enough. Could'a, 
would'a, should'a won't cut the mustard. Experiment trumps theory, 
particularly way out theories...  Build it and we will come. 

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

Nick Palmer wrote:
 Paul wrote:-

 Nick, Answer this.  If it is possible to capture energy from ambient
 temperature then wouldn't you want to know how?

 I wish you luck in your endeavour.


Please don't leave now.




 If I can demonstrate how you can store energy taken from ambient
 temperature then will admit your error?

 I will only accept a working device as a true demonstration of your
 assertion.You speculated that this device could power the world. Just
 giving us what you believe to be a watertight theory is not enough.
 Could'a, would'a, should'a won't cut the mustard. Experiment trumps
 theory, particularly way out theories...  Build it and we will come.


Nick, for the sake of truth I am directly challenging you on your statements 
regarding thermal voltage noise.  Again I ask you --


Question for Nick --
---
If I can demonstrate how you can store energy taken from ambient temperature 
then will admit your error?  No I am not trying to trick you with temperature 
gradients or radiation from radio stations or electric ground potential 
gradients, etc. etc.  I am talking about a device that utilizes thermal voltage 
noise at room temperature-- Vn = sqrt(4 K T R dF)

---



Regards,
Paul Lowrance

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Nick Palmer wrote:
From John Berry's we can do what ever we want if we just get the old 
rocks 

out of our head message:-

Why people think their preconcieved notions of what is and isn't 
possible trumps the evidence I'll never know Quite so. Tell Paul...


Paul Lowrance has come up with a theory that if he exploits a certain 
phenomenon he will get free energy from ambient heat. He has no evidence 
that he can do this - only his belief in his theory.


It's also something which is discussed in sophomore EE classes FWIW.  I 
don't think Paul realizes that.



He has been 
irritating people on this forum for quite some time. He maybe does not 
realise that he is not the first type to come on here with some idea 
that they believe is brilliant that the whole of the rest of humanity 
has not spotted. They normally stick around for a while, get their ideas 
repeatedly shot full of holes by most of the good minds on here


Actually we're supposed to exercise a bit of restraint on this list and 
not shoot too many holes in theories even if they look like easy 
targets.  At least, that's my understanding of the Vortex rules -- it's 
supposed to be a safe place to air ideas which are not fully baked, and 
criticism is supposed to be constructive, if possible, rather than 
destructive.


It's hard sometimes, when people come in with totally goofy 
misconceptions and a condescending and insulting attitude toward anyone 
who's actually invested the time and effort to understand some small 
piece of modern physics, but whatever ... most of the regulars here are 
at least polite about it when someone disagrees with them.


As one common example, it bugs me when someone who couldn't define a 
rank 2 mixed tensor to save his life explains that relativity is 
obviously self-contradictory and anyone who doesn't realize that must be 
a fool, idiot, or establishment dupe, but in general I try to just shut 
up and ignore it (with limited success, I admit...)




and end 
up coming out with increasingly desperate and irrelevant arguments, such 
as Paul just did and then eventually they disappear into cyberspace, 
never to be heard from again. I am sure they go away thinking that we 
are all a bunch of half empty types 


Yeah, I liked that one.  Along with lumping all mainstream physicists 
together as cynical debunkers...

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[Nick Palmer]

Steven - I wasn't trying to insult you or Michel, however I was definitely 
trying to insult Paul after his appallingly arrogant intelligent thinking 
beings crack. Where is the late, great Chris Tinsley when you need him? He 
could, and did, squash adolescent grandstanding like this in a couple of 
sentences. I am not in his league. For you Steve and Michel, I will see if I 
can explain what I meant because what you said appeared to show that you did 
not get my argument.


Firstly, I did not say that there is no THERMAL noise (obviously there is 
from the Brownian motion) I said that there is no thermally induced 
effective *voltage* noise when there is no current flowing. Consider the 
molecular situation in, say, a carbon resistor which is nicely noisy. The 
Brownian motion of the carbon atoms clearly creates communicated vibrations 
(thermal noise) but no effective electric noise - one could argue that the 
electron cloud around the carbon atoms vibrating creates a varying 
electric field around the atom at very close range but this is not going to 
be a useable or rectifiable voltage.
If one argues that there are ionised carbon atoms present and that it is the 
free electrons that are influenced you  might have an argument that by using 
a naturally very ionised substance it may increase the effect you are 
looking for. However, the equation is analysed  further on in the web site, 
clearly written by someone familiar with sound engineering, and it goes on 
to state that the thermal noise is *independent* of the material of the 
resistor and only depends on the value of the resistance and the absolute 
temperature. It follows that a material with zero free electrons would have 
exactly the same thermal noise i.e. purely due to the Brownian motion of the 
molecules.


Steven wrote
And I do not believe that the noise jumps from 0 to its full-on value as 
soon as the current goes from exactly 0 to, say, 1 fempto-pico-amp.
the formula given in an earlier post, with which you did not disagree, 
certainly does not describe something which
decreases with current.  If it just _cuts_ _off_ at zero current, that would 
be very strange behavior indeed! 


This is where the sound engineer's (as opposed to a physicist's) equation 
comes in. Yes, I do believe it jumps from zero to its full on thermal noise 
influencing free electrons value in exactly the same way as there is no 
current in a wire until you flick the switch and apply a voltage. When a 
sound engineer listens to a noisy resistor with a low noise amp he is, 
in a Schrödinger's cat sort of way, measuring a system but also affecting 
that system at the same time - the connection of the amp inputs *will* 
generate very small currents in the resistor and these will be influenced by 
the *thermal* noise and this will be the source of the amplified electrical 
noise which Paul hopes to rectify and light his LEDs with prior to powering 
the entire world with them. He is expecting to cohere random vibrations 
losslessly and output cohered useable energy capable of doing work at the 
same energy level. THIS WILL NOT WORK. It is really elementary. Work can be 
done only by going from a higher level to a lower level of energy - the 
greater the difference between the levels, the more work can be done. If 
there is no difference, there can be no work done. Get used to it... Still 
no free lunch.


As far as intelligent goes I obviously have a different definition to you. 
There is a difference between potentially intelligent, which Paul obviously 
is, and demonstrated intelligence. An example: I wrote to our Government's 
planning department in 1992 because they were about to uprate building 
insulation standards. I pointed out that the threat from climate change was 
so potentially serious that they should set new standards that rendered new 
buildings carbon-neutral or better because these buildings would be present, 
and using energy, during the critical times ahead. They wrote back with a 
fairly tightly argued, articulate piece about how I was talking rubbish and 
how it should be left to experts in town planning and architects with 
letters after their name to decide what was best for us all.  Thousands of 
homes and flats have been built since then here with inadequate levels of 
insulation. Just last week, the very same Department announced that they 
were going to demolish and rebuild a large estate and make it carbon-neutral 
because they were in the vanguard against global warming - 15 YEARS LATER 
than they could have been. By your definition these people were, and are, 
intelligent with impressive qualifications - by mine, they are bloody-minded 
idiots pretending to be intelligent - they are as intelligent as the straw 
man in the Wizard of Oz clutching his certificate. I am currently fighting 
them on another front and they are STILL MAKING the same fundamental 
mistakes in thinking. 

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

Hello Nick,



Nick Palmer wrote:
 Firstly, I did not say that there is no THERMAL noise (obviously there
 is from the Brownian motion) I said that there is no thermally induced
 effective *voltage* noise when there is no current flowing.



If you want to learn about thermal noise then create a Spice simulation circuit. 
When you feel you have a circuit generating true voltage noise *only* when 
there's current, lol, then post the Spice circuit. You are in for a surprise 
when you learn how EE's simulate true voltage noise.  BTW, true voltage noise 
has no upper voltage crest limit.  I would suggest LTSpice/SwitcherCAD by Linear 
technology if you want a nice professional free spice program --


http://ltspice.linear.com/software/swcadiii.exe
http://www.linear.com/designtools/softwareRegistration.jsp

LTSpice and Linear technology are well viewed in EE world.  If you need help 
creating a voltage noise source then the EE's at LTSpice Yahoo Groups can help --

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/LTspice/

Please, just don't tell them what you told us, otherwise they may laugh and 
ignore you.


I read your entire recent post and I am sorry, but your logic is flawed beyond 
repair.


p.s., I've worked with voltage noise sources on Spice programs far too many 
times in addition to building real circuits.  LTSpice is very accurate.  Such 
thermal voltage noise causes real current, which is caused by random electron 
vibrations.  If you truly want to understand the elementary physics behind such 
noise then write a computer program, which will demonstrate how a peak random 
source doubles when four random sources are added in series.  Random noises 
caused by all vibrating electrons don't cancel.  Thermal noise is real voltage.







Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:


 Paul wrote:
 I have a question for both Michel Jullian and Stephen A. Lawrence.
 Could you please state if you are presently working on so-called Free
 Energy technology?  My definition of Free Energy obviously would
 not include the initial cost or cost of maintenance.

 No, never said I was.

Michel Jullian wrote:
 My involvement in new energy is non-public, and concerns principally the 
electrical and chemical aspects of determining a system's energy balance.





I would interpret your answers as, You are not working on Free Energy 
technology.  Then may I ask What's your purpose or goal at Vo?





Believe it or not, kind regards,
Paul Lowrance

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



I would interpret your answers as, You are not working on Free Energy 
technology.  Then may I ask What's your purpose or goal at Vo?


What's yours?  Just to be annoying?

Do you think the group should only be open to people trying to build 
perpetual motion machines?


alternative energy is a field which is likely to have a large future 
impact.  Vortex-L has historically been a discussion group primarily for 
people interested in alternative energy sources and related topics, 
whether or not they're currently working on building such things.  It 
includes, among other things, photovoltaics, cold fusion, wave energy, 
and pretty much everything else which operates within the laws of 
thermodynamics and doesn't involve (much) petroleum.


free energy, which is also commonly discussed on Vortex-L, is mostly 
pursued by amateur autodidacts searching for the Holy Grail of something 
for nothing.  It includes such wonderful stuff as orgone energy and 
capacitors which charge themselves, and is generally based on the 
assumption that mainstream physicists are idiots who never wondered what 
would happen if a diode and capacitor were hooked up in parallel and 
left that way for a long time.


Sorry if a statement of the truth offends you.

But enough flaming.  Paul, you call it blunt, but you're downright 
offensive at times.  I don't think we have anything further to discuss 
in this area.

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Robin van Spaandonk wrote:

In reply to  Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Wed, 28 Feb 2007 23:49:54 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
In any case there's also thermal noise in the diode, as I believe I also 
pointed out (though I didn't phrase it that way), and that is surely 
where you should be hunting for the flaw in the design.

[snip]
If you look at the voltage current curve of a diode for both positive and
negative currents, then it is clearly asymmetric. That's why we use them.
In short they convert AC into DC, and it doesn't matter whether the AC is a
perfect sine wave or a random mess. Even the latter will result in at least some
DC component. I agree with you that a diode should produce the same sort of
thermal AC voltage as a resistor, however it should also rectify it's own
voltage.


What you say is true, but there is an issue, which is that real diodes 
are not perfect diodes:  they have a nonzero forward voltage drop. 
What's more, they're not even ideal diodes: the forward voltage drop 
is not constant.  As you suggest, let's look at the current curve for a 
hypothetical real diode, taken from Senturia and Wedlock, Electronic 
Cicuits and Applications, p184 in my copy.  It's given as


  i = I_S(e^(qv/kT) - 1)

where I_S, q, and k are constants.

The Taylor series in v for values near 0 is

  i ~ v * I_S * (q/kT) + v^2 * I_S * (q/kT)^2/2 + order(v^3)

At very low voltages, such as noise produces, we can ignore the square 
term and all higher order terms, and the diode looks linear, just like 
a resistor.  Furthermore, if we look at the square term, we see that 
it's proportional to the inverse square of the temperature -- the diode 
gets more linear-looking at 0 volts as the temperature (and, hence, 
noise magnitude) increase.


I don't pretend to be able to analyze this situation in detail, but it 
appears to me, from the above formula, that for any realistic level of 
noise-induced charge on a cap hooked up across the diode, the charge is 
going to leak away through the diode long before the next probabilistic 
noise crest of sufficient magnitude to charge it up any farther comes along.



IOW a diode connected across a capacitor should eventually charge the capacitor,
if it's thermal voltage is current independent.


But the more charge you get, the longer you have to wait for another 
noise pulse which exceeds that voltage, and the longer you have for 
the charge you already had accumulated to leak away through the diode.




Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/

Competition (capitalism) provides the motivation,
Cooperation (communism) provides the means.

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Nick Palmer wrote:
Steven - I wasn't trying to insult you or Michel, however I was 
definitely trying to insult Paul after his appallingly arrogant 
intelligent thinking beings crack. Where is the late, great Chris 
Tinsley when you need him? He could, and did, squash adolescent 
grandstanding like this in a couple of sentences. I am not in his 
league. For you Steve and Michel, I will see if I can explain what I 
meant because what you said appeared to show that you did not get my 
argument.


Firstly, I did not say that there is no THERMAL noise (obviously there 
is from the Brownian motion) I said that there is no thermally induced 
effective *voltage* noise when there is no current flowing. Consider the 
molecular situation in, say, a carbon resistor which is nicely noisy. 
The Brownian motion of the carbon atoms clearly creates communicated 
vibrations (thermal noise) but no effective electric noise - one could 
argue that the electron cloud around the carbon atoms vibrating 
creates a varying electric field around the atom at very close range but 
this is not going to be a useable or rectifiable voltage.
If one argues that there are ionised carbon atoms present and that it is 
the free electrons that are influenced you  might have an argument that 
by using a naturally very ionised substance it may increase the effect 
you are looking for. However, the equation is analysed  further on in 
the web site, clearly written by someone familiar with sound 
engineering, and it goes on to state that the thermal noise is 
*independent* of the material of the resistor and only depends on the 
value of the resistance and the absolute temperature. It follows that a 
material with zero free electrons would have exactly the same thermal 
noise i.e. purely due to the Brownian motion of the molecules.


Thanks for the additional explanation; in fact, I'm still not sure I 
actually got it.  I've tried the experiment of amplifying and 
listening to a resistor with no current through it in the past, in the 
hope of actually seeing a noise signature of some sort, and never found 
anything, but there could have been a number of explanations for that, 
of course (starting with my use of a noisy opamp).


This is a fascinating subject IMHO but I'm going to have to find some 
time to put more thought into it before I can say anything further that 
is ... ahem ... intelligent...



Steven wrote
And I do not believe that the noise jumps from 0 to its full-on 
value as soon as the current goes from exactly 0 to, say, 1 
fempto-pico-amp.
the formula given in an earlier post, with which you did not disagree, 
certainly does not describe something which
decreases with current.  If it just _cuts_ _off_ at zero current, that 
would be very strange behavior indeed! 


This is where the sound engineer's (as opposed to a physicist's) 
equation comes in. Yes, I do believe it jumps from zero to its full on 
thermal noise influencing free electrons value in exactly the same way 
as there is no current in a wire until you flick the switch and apply a 
voltage.


Well  the current through the wire, in the sound engineer's world, 
goes up linearly with the voltage dropped by the wire.  It would be nice 
if the sound engineer's formula for noise showed _some_ dependence on 
the current or voltage, if the noise isn't also present at zero volts!


I have problems with formulas describing physical situations which are 
discontinuous at zero -- it typically means something significant got 
left out (as, come to think of it, I think you already said).




When a sound engineer listens to a noisy resistor with a low 
noise amp he is, in a Schrödinger's cat sort of way, measuring a system 
but also affecting that system at the same time - the connection of the 
amp inputs *will* generate very small currents in the resistor and these 
will be influenced by the *thermal* noise and this will be the source of 
the amplified electrical noise which Paul hopes to rectify and light 
his LEDs with prior to powering the entire world with them. He is 
expecting to cohere random vibrations losslessly and output cohered 
useable energy capable of doing work at the same energy level. THIS WILL 
NOT WORK.


Yeah, well, right, no disagreement there, and I don't have a lot to add 
on the discussion of intelligence, either...

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[Nick Palmer]

Paul, you seem to think that just because you have used a computer modelling 
program (LT Spice) that it's predictions are necessarily reality. If the 
initial assumptions and parameters that were modelled and programmed in are 
in error it won't be of much use to help us in the area we are looking at. 
Your EE friends have never, in a real situation, needed to know or even been 
able to measure the thermally generated voltage noise when there is *no* 
current of any description, AC or DC, passing though the resistor. Ideally, 
it could be measured, if it exists, but in the real world there is no ideal 
instrument. I don't care if your EE friends lol at this - that would just 
show they don't fully understand what they are dealing with.  Your point 
about several random sources adding up and BTW, true voltage noise has no 
upper voltage crest  yet again sabotages your position. By analogy, looking 
at random thermal molecular vibrations (heat) you might as well say that 
temperature is only a statistical average - that there exists all 
temperatures of particles in the spoon - that some in a room temperature 
teaspoon are at a notional 5,000,000 degreesC. Just try using this spoon to 
boil a cuppa though - you'll have a bloody long wait for your tea if you 
wait for a number of random sources to align and give you useable heat above 
ambient temperature.
   Let's cut to the chase. Build one of these diode/resistor/LED devices 
that unequivocally generates significant, useable cohered output - such as 
photons of a frequency and magnitude sufficient to cause a PV cell to 
generate, say, 1  continuous watt  using only ambient room temperature heat 
without a lower temperature sink (to give the difference in energy levels 
that is essential to create work) and I will give you £1,000. Of course once 
you have done this, then the world will also beat a path to your door but I 
suspect that hell will freeze over first. You are one amongst countless free 
energy dreamers - they failed - you will fail too. Your hand waving when 
pinned down is nowhere near as impressive as such masters of the art as 
Joseph Newman and Dennis Lee or Joe Champion. BTW, I really think people who 
use the glass half full/empty witticism are half wits.


P.S. Cold fusion is nothing like the free energy quest that has deluded many 
thousands (however, I'm still hoping Terry Blanton's pet magmo project might 
work!). CF almost certainly generates energy by converting mass into energy, 
just in a different situation with different conditions to classic fusion 
and fission. 

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

Nick Palmer wrote:
 Paul wrote:-
 You should read about different types of noise --

 http://www.aikenamps.com/ResistorNoise.htm 

 Well, I read this webpage. Maybe you misunderstand. When they say

 The thermal noise of a resistor is equal to:
   Vt = SQRT(4kTBR)

 where:

 Vt = the rms noise voltage
 k = Boltzmann's constant
 T = temperature(Kelvin)
 B = noise bandwidth
 R = resistance   

 you are taking this to mean that the noise voltage is generated solely
 by the temperature of the resistor whether or not there is a current
 flow and this is what the equation seems to suggest; however, this is a
 sound engineer's equation, not a physicist's. I think it means that if
 the resistor is ACTUALLY resisting current, then the noise voltage is
 dependent upon temperature and the shot noise depends upon the
 current. I put it to you that when there is no current though the
 resistor, there is no electrical noise at all. Still no free lunch.


I will bet you ***any*** amount of money you are wrong, that thermal noise does 
indeed generate a voltage noise without applying any external voltage to 
generate current.  Hopefully that will put an end to this silly conversation. 
:-)  Any *real* EE or physicists knows for fact thermal noise generates voltage 
noise due to thermal vibrations.


If you want to see thermal noise then get a low noise amp and connect it to a 
large resistor.


There is free lunch for *intelligent* thinking beings. :-)


Regards,
Paul Lowrance

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Nick Palmer wrote:
  Paul wrote:-
  You should read about different types of noise --
 
  http://www.aikenamps.com/ResistorNoise.htm 
 
  Well, I read this webpage. Maybe you misunderstand. When they say
 
  The thermal noise of a resistor is equal to:
Vt = SQRT(4kTBR)


I see no term for the current in this expression.


 
  where:
 
  Vt = the rms noise voltage
  k = Boltzmann's constant
  T = temperature(Kelvin)
  B = noise bandwidth
  R = resistance   
 
  you are taking this to mean that the noise voltage is generated solely
  by the temperature of the resistor whether or not there is a current
  flow and this is what the equation seems to suggest; however, this is a
  sound engineer's equation, not a physicist's. I think it means that if
  the resistor is ACTUALLY resisting current, then the noise voltage is
  dependent upon temperature and the shot noise


shot noise isn't what Paul is talking about.


  depends upon the
  current. I put it to you that when there is no current though the
  resistor, there is no electrical noise at all. Still no free lunch.


I will bet you ***any*** amount of money you are wrong, that thermal 
noise does indeed generate a voltage noise without applying any external 
voltage to generate current.  Hopefully that will put an end to this 
silly conversation. :-)  Any *real* EE or physicists knows for fact 
thermal noise generates voltage noise due to thermal vibrations.


If you want to see thermal noise then get a low noise amp and connect it 
to a large resistor.


There is free lunch for *intelligent* thinking beings. :-)


Apples to oranges in this conversation.

IIRC shot noise is indeed noise which occurs only when current is 
flowing, and has to do with the lumpy nature of the current coming 
through the resistor.  OTOH there is also thermal noise which is 
independent of the current flowing through the resistor.  In practical 
terms, they _sound_ very different:  shot noise is more like popcorn 
(ticks and pops), thermal noise is more like angry snakes (a continuous 
hiss).


At least that's what I seem to recall from what I learned back when I 
thought I wanted to be an EE





Regards,
Paul Lowrance

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[Michel Jullian]

I think you're right on this Paul, however you're unnecessarily rude as usual.

Anyway I don't think that rectifying the hot resistor noise with a diode breaks 
2LoT. Does a photovoltaic cell (which is a diode too) break 2LoT when 
converting the thermal energy radiated by a 6000°C black body to electricity? 
In both cases there is a cold source somewhere, not everything is at the 
temperature of the hot source.

Michel

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 3:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics


 Nick Palmer wrote:
  Paul wrote:-
  You should read about different types of noise --
 
  http://www.aikenamps.com/ResistorNoise.htm 
 
  Well, I read this webpage. Maybe you misunderstand. When they say
 
  The thermal noise of a resistor is equal to:
Vt = SQRT(4kTBR)
 
  where:
 
  Vt = the rms noise voltage
  k = Boltzmann's constant
  T = temperature(Kelvin)
  B = noise bandwidth
  R = resistance   
 
  you are taking this to mean that the noise voltage is generated solely
  by the temperature of the resistor whether or not there is a current
  flow and this is what the equation seems to suggest; however, this is a
  sound engineer's equation, not a physicist's. I think it means that if
  the resistor is ACTUALLY resisting current, then the noise voltage is
  dependent upon temperature and the shot noise depends upon the
  current. I put it to you that when there is no current though the
  resistor, there is no electrical noise at all. Still no free lunch.
 
 
 I will bet you ***any*** amount of money you are wrong, that thermal noise 
 does 
 indeed generate a voltage noise without applying any external voltage to 
 generate current.  Hopefully that will put an end to this silly conversation. 
 :-)  Any *real* EE or physicists knows for fact thermal noise generates 
 voltage 
 noise due to thermal vibrations.
 
 If you want to see thermal noise then get a low noise amp and connect it to a 
 large resistor.
 
 There is free lunch for *intelligent* thinking beings. :-)
 
 
 Regards,
 Paul Lowrance

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

Michel Jullian wrote:
 I think you're right on this Paul, however you're unnecessarily rude as usual.


That's just your interpretation according to a POV of common social behavior. 
That's a result of being programmed by society.  What you refer to as rudeness I 
refer to as bluntness with very little attached emotions.  On occasion I 
practice the art of tiptoeing around ones emotions, which is what society refers 
to as common social skills, but it requires unnecessary time and energy.




 Anyway I don't think that rectifying the hot resistor noise with a diode 
breaks 2LoT. Does a photovoltaic cell (which is a diode too) break 2LoT when 
converting the thermal energy radiated by a 6000°C black body to electricity? In 
both cases there is a cold source somewhere, not everything is at the 
temperature of the hot source.



Michel, once again there is a vast difference between a law and an 
interpretation of such a law.  If you adhere to a stricter interpretation of the 
2nd law then yes, the solar cell breaks such a law.  At 300 K a flat 1 x 1 m^2 
of material emits 203 nW of radiation between 1600 nm and 400 nm on one side. 
New technology allows photovoltaic cells to efficiently capture up to 1600 nm 
wavelengths.  The 203 nW is a conservative figure since I did not include 
ultraviolet photovoltaic cells.  How much of that 203 nW depends on the 
efficiency of the cell.  As to how much such a cell will capture is irrelevant. 
 Fact remains that a photovoltaic cell will convert room temperature black body 
radiation to DC, which could charge a capacitor.  That is storing ambient 
temperature energy to a capacitor, which will indeed drop the net temperature in 
the closed system.  Understandably even present leading edge photovoltaic cells 
are highly inefficient at such low radiation levels, but by laws of probability 
such a photovoltaic cell will generate DC electricity.


Therefore, you'll have to ask yourself if the photovoltaic cell breaks the 2nd 
law in accordance to your interpretation of such a law.  Here's a quote from 
Wikipedia,


Quote,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_ratchet
---
This is against the principle of the second law of thermodynamics, which can be 
stated as 'It is impossible for any device that operates on a cycle to receive 
heat from a single reservoir and produce a net amount of work.'

---

A charged capacitor is a source for usable work and can generate heat.


[snip]



Regards,
Paul Lowrance

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[Michel Jullian]

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics


  I think you're right on this Paul, however you're unnecessarily rude as 
  usual.
 
 
 That's just your interpretation according to a POV of common social behavior. 
 That's a result of being programmed by society.  What you refer to as 
 rudeness I 
 refer to as bluntness with very little attached emotions.  On occasion I 
 practice the art of tiptoeing around ones emotions, which is what society 
 refers 
 to as common social skills, but it requires unnecessary time and energy.

Less time and energy than it takes to explain your bluntness, plus you put 
people off so you may deprive yourself of potentially useful discussions and 
critics.

  Anyway I don't think that rectifying the hot resistor noise with a diode 
 breaks 2LoT. Does a photovoltaic cell (which is a diode too) break 2LoT when 
 converting the thermal energy radiated by a 6000°C black body to electricity? 
 In 
 both cases there is a cold source somewhere, not everything is at the 
 temperature of the hot source.
 
 
 Michel, once again there is a vast difference between a law and an 
 interpretation of such a law.  If you adhere to a stricter interpretation of 
 the 
 2nd law then yes, the solar cell breaks such a law.  At 300 K a flat 1 x 1 
 m^2 
 of material emits 203 nW of radiation between 1600 nm and 400 nm on one side. 
 New technology allows photovoltaic cells to efficiently capture up to 1600 nm 
 wavelengths.  The 203 nW is a conservative figure since I did not include 
 ultraviolet photovoltaic cells.  How much of that 203 nW depends on the 
 efficiency of the cell.  As to how much such a cell will capture is 
 irrelevant. 
  Fact remains that a photovoltaic cell will convert room temperature black 
 body 
 radiation to DC, which could charge a capacitor.  That is storing ambient 
 temperature energy to a capacitor, which will indeed drop the net temperature 
 in 
 the closed system.  Understandably even present leading edge photovoltaic 
 cells 
 are highly inefficient at such low radiation levels, but by laws of 
 probability 
 such a photovoltaic cell will generate DC electricity.

I believe at 99.9% that it wouldn't generate any electricity if everything is 
at the same temperature, in which case 2LoT wouldn't be broken, that's my 
point. If you believe otherwise, it's easy enough to experiment.
 
 Therefore, you'll have to ask yourself if the photovoltaic cell breaks the 
 2nd 
 law in accordance to your interpretation of such a law.  Here's a quote from 
 Wikipedia,
 
 Quote,
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_ratchet
 ---
 This is against the principle of the second law of thermodynamics, which can 
 be 
 stated as 'It is impossible for any device that operates on a cycle to 
 receive 
 heat from a single reservoir and produce a net amount of work.'
 ---
 
 A charged capacitor is a source for usable work and can generate heat.

But would the capacitor get charged, that's the question, I don't think it 
would. Anyway now you've got your billions of tiny diodes in parallel ready 
made, in the form of a single photovoltaic diode (a large area junction), and 
so has Aloha Charlie, so all that's left to do is verify your theories :)

Michel

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Michel Jullian wrote:
  I think you're right on this Paul, however you're unnecessarily rude 
as usual.



That's just your interpretation according to a POV of common social 
behavior. That's a result of being programmed by society.  What you 
refer to as rudeness I refer to as bluntness with very little attached 
emotions.  On occasion I practice the art of tiptoeing around ones 
emotions, which is what society refers to as common social skills, but 
it requires unnecessary time and energy.




  Anyway I don't think that rectifying the hot resistor noise with a 
diode breaks 2LoT. Does a photovoltaic cell (which is a diode too) break 
2LoT when converting the thermal energy radiated by a 6000°C black body 
to electricity? In both cases there is a cold source somewhere, not 
everything is at the temperature of the hot source.


You can't just hypothesize that there's a cold reservoir somewhere -- 
the cold must be necessary to the effect, of course, or it's irrelevant! 
 And in the case of a resistor and diode, it's not obvious how a cold 
place is necessary.  What, exactly, must be kept cool in order to 
obtain energy from the resistor?


Is it the diode?  If so, why?

In general Maxwell's demon tends to run a fever in fall down on the job. 
 In this case it's the diode which is the demon, and I'd guess it's 
heat in the diode that kills the effect.  But I certainly can't prove it.


Come to think of it, considering that a thermocouple is really only 
three back to back diodes with the center diode at a different 
temperature from the outer two, I actually feel pretty confident that 
it's heat in the diode which kills it in this case.  (If you thought 
there was only 1 diode in a thermocouple, ask yourself how the 
dissimilar materials of the two sides of the thermocouple are attached 
to the rest of the system.)




Michel, once again there is a vast difference between a law and an 
interpretation of such a law.  If you adhere to a stricter 
interpretation of the 2nd law then yes, the solar cell breaks such a 
law.
 At 300 K a flat 1 x 1 m^2 of material emits 203 nW of radiation 
between 1600 nm and 400 nm on one side. New technology allows 
photovoltaic cells to efficiently capture up to 1600 nm wavelengths.  
The 203 nW is a conservative figure since I did not include ultraviolet 
photovoltaic cells.  How much of that 203 nW depends on the efficiency 
of the cell.  As to how much such a cell will capture is irrelevant. 
 Fact remains that a photovoltaic cell will convert room temperature 
black body radiation to DC, which could charge a capacitor.


And how much electrical noise energy is the cell converting back into 
radiation, eh?  If everything's at the same temperature you'll most 
likely find the amount of radiation the cell is generating, as a result 
of running backwards, is equal to the amount of radiation it's 
converting to electricity.  You should at least check that possibility 
carefully before you invest any money in a scheme based on this effect! ;-)



 That is 
storing ambient temperature energy to a capacitor, which will indeed 
drop the net temperature in the closed system.  Understandably even 
present leading edge photovoltaic cells are highly inefficient at such 
low radiation levels, but by laws of probability such a photovoltaic 
cell will generate DC electricity.


The laws of probability predict that if you wait long enough you'll 
fly up into the air because the molecules under your chair will all get 
together and bump the bottom of your seat at once.  That's a violation 
of the second law, too, and in exactly the same sense.


For that matter you can dispense with the diode, photocell, and 
everything _except_ the capacitor and a wire, and just wait for random 
jiggling of the electrons in the wire to charge the capacitor. (You may 
need to wait quite a while, of course.)


These examples may be hard to reconcile with the second law of 
thermodynamics but that doesn't make them any less irrelevant. 
Rectifying Brownian motion has been an impossible dream ever since 
someone first noticed its existence.



Therefore, you'll have to ask yourself if the photovoltaic cell breaks 
the 2nd law in accordance to your interpretation of such a law.  Here's 
a quote from Wikipedia,


Quote,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_ratchet
---
This is against the principle of the second law of thermodynamics, 
which can be stated as 'It is impossible for any device that operates on 
a cycle to receive heat from a single reservoir and produce a net amount 
of work.'

---

A charged capacitor is a source for usable work and can generate heat.


[snip]



Regards,
Paul Lowrance

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

Michel Jullian wrote:
 - Original Message -
 From: Paul
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 4:50 PM
 Subject: Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics


 I think you're right on this Paul, however you're unnecessarily rude as 
usual.

 That's just your interpretation according to a POV of common social behavior.
 That's a result of being programmed by society.  What you refer to as 
rudeness I

 refer to as bluntness with very little attached emotions.  On occasion I
 practice the art of tiptoeing around ones emotions, which is what society 
refers

 to as common social skills, but it requires unnecessary time and energy.

 Less time and energy than it takes to explain your bluntness, plus you put 
people off so you may deprive yourself of potentially useful discussions and 
critics.



1. Your statement is entirely relative to how many discussions I have.  I can 
assure you it's saved plenty of time, but you're digging into my savings. ;-)
2. The topic is a little more complex that just saving time.  We could get into 
other areas such as principle, as I am man of principle. I do not agree with 
going along with something because other people do it.  That's giving in and 
playing Follow the leader.  I have no problem with people expressing emotions 
regardless if it is negative or positive so long as I'm not appreciably 
affected, but the negative stuff is not for me.


Perhaps there will be world peace when people drop the emotional sensitivities 
and emotional attachments and practice more positive expressions such as 
unconditional love!




[snip]



Regards,
Paul Lowrance

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
[snip]
 And how much electrical noise energy is the cell converting back into
 radiation, eh?  If everything's at the same temperature you'll most
 likely find the amount of radiation the cell is generating, as a result
 of running backwards, is equal to the amount of radiation it's
 converting to electricity.  You should at least check that possibility
 carefully before you invest any money in a scheme based on this effect! ;-)


A solar cell providing work absorbs more radiation than it radiates.




  That is storing ambient temperature energy to a capacitor, which will
 indeed drop the net temperature in the closed system.  Understandably
 even present leading edge photovoltaic cells are highly inefficient at
 such low radiation levels, but by laws of probability such a
 photovoltaic cell will generate DC electricity.

 The laws of probability predict that if you wait long enough you'll
 fly up into the air because the molecules under your chair will all get
 together and bump the bottom of your seat at once.  That's a violation
 of the second law, too, and in exactly the same sense.


Indeed, but I'd bet my money on a visible light photon striking a solar cell and 
thus causing a charge differential on the output occurring far before your body 
atoms reach coherence.



Again, all matter at room temperature radiates visible light photons.  At 300 K 
one side of a flat 1 x 1 m^2 panel emits 203 nW of radiation between 1600 nm and 
400 nm.  Those are photons present photovoltaic cells are capable of using.





Regards,
Paul Lowrance

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
[snip]
  And how much electrical noise energy is the cell converting back into
  radiation, eh?  If everything's at the same temperature you'll most
  likely find the amount of radiation the cell is generating, as a result
  of running backwards, is equal to the amount of radiation it's
  converting to electricity.  You should at least check that possibility
  carefully before you invest any money in a scheme based on this 
effect! ;-)



A solar cell providing work absorbs more radiation than it radiates.


Sure it does.  But a solar cell operating in the visible spectrum, with 
a source which is at room temperature, is /not/ providing work.  (At 
least no solar cell I've ever heard of could provide work under those 
conditions!)  It's that case which I'm addressing:  Like all the other 
materials in the room, the solar cell is radiating.


You think that unlike other materials in the room, it radiates less than 
it absorbs under those conditions.  I'm saying I'm not so sure. 
Experiment can't give the answer at this time, of course -- or, rather, 
any real experiment using real solar cells will support my claim, not yours!



   That is storing ambient temperature energy to a capacitor, which will
  indeed drop the net temperature in the closed system.  Understandably
  even present leading edge photovoltaic cells are highly inefficient at
  such low radiation levels, but by laws of probability such a
  photovoltaic cell will generate DC electricity.
 
  The laws of probability predict that if you wait long enough you'll
  fly up into the air because the molecules under your chair will all get
  together and bump the bottom of your seat at once.  That's a violation
  of the second law, too, and in exactly the same sense.


Indeed, but I'd bet my money on a visible light photon striking a solar 
cell and thus causing a charge differential on the output occurring far 
before your body atoms reach coherence.


And I'd bet 1,000,000 times more on being able to extract useful energy 
from the temperature difference obtained by driving a metal stake 3 feet 
into the ground, at any point in the country, any time of the year, than 
on your ability to extract useful energy from a solar cell sealed in a 
room with _no_ sources more intense or warmer than the ambient and _no_ 
objects cooler than the ambient temperature.


The point is, even if you were right that you could get _something_ out, 
the extracted energy is going to be insignificant, even in comparison 
with such trivial and generally ignored sources as geothermal energy 
from extremely shallow wells -- as with my 3 foot metal stake above.






Again, all matter at room temperature radiates visible light photons.  
At 300 K one side of a flat 1 x 1 m^2 panel emits 203 nW of radiation 
between 1600 nm and 400 nm.  Those are photons present photovoltaic 
cells are capable of using.





Regards,
Paul Lowrance

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
 You think that unlike other materials in the room, it radiates less than
 it absorbs under those conditions.  I'm saying I'm not so sure.
 Experiment can't give the answer at this time, of course -- or, rather,
 any real experiment using real solar cells will support my claim, not
 yours!


You admit room temperature radiates visible light photons.  Think about what 
happens when a visible light photon strikes a photovoltaic cell.






That is storing ambient temperature energy to a capacitor, which
 will
   indeed drop the net temperature in the closed system.  Understandably
   even present leading edge photovoltaic cells are highly
 inefficient at
   such low radiation levels, but by laws of probability such a
   photovoltaic cell will generate DC electricity.
  
   The laws of probability predict that if you wait long enough you'll
   fly up into the air because the molecules under your chair will all
 get
   together and bump the bottom of your seat at once.  That's a violation
   of the second law, too, and in exactly the same sense.


 Indeed, but I'd bet my money on a visible light photon striking a
 solar cell and thus causing a charge differential on the output
 occurring far before your body atoms reach coherence.

 And I'd bet 1,000,000 times more on being able to extract useful energy
 from the temperature difference obtained by driving a metal stake 3 feet
 into the ground, at any point in the country, any time of the year, than
 on your ability to extract useful energy from a solar cell sealed in a
 room with _no_ sources more intense or warmer than the ambient and _no_
 objects cooler than the ambient temperature.


The goal is to get physicists to first understand the possibility.  Then they 
can begin searching micro technology that maximizes the effect such as a micro 
LED's connected to a noisy resistor.  From there they can design machines 
capable of building trillions of such units in a small space.






Regards,
Paul Lowrance

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[Nick Palmer]

In response to Paul and Michel and Steven I will only repeat what I wrote. 
Obviously you did not understand what I said. Read it again without your 
knee-jerk prejudices. Besides, in order do work by extracting energy from 
ambient heat with no heat sink, Paul's diodes would need to rectify a 
current. There won't be one there.


you are taking this to mean that the noise voltage is generated solely
by the temperature of the resistor whether or not there is a current
flow and this is what the equation seems to suggest; however, this is a
sound engineer's equation, not a physicist's. I think it means that if
the resistor is ACTUALLY resisting current, then the noise voltage is
dependent upon temperature and the shot noise depends upon the
current. I put it to you that when there is no current though the
resistor, there is no electrical noise at all. Still no free lunch.

There is free lunch for *intelligent* thinking beings. :-)

No, there isn't. Therefore you are not intelligent, despite your self 
aggrandising, egotistical blustering. The free energy field is littered with 
the metaphorical corpses of thousands of people like you who thought they 
had some brilliant idea. They all came to nothing. Their ghosts are 
sustained by gullible or crooked people. Their ideas are those of the 
deluded or fraudulent.

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Nick Palmer wrote:
In response to Paul and Michel and Steven I will only repeat what I 
wrote. Obviously you did not understand what I said. Read it again 
without your knee-jerk prejudices.


If you're including me in the knee-jerk crowd who didn't understand what 
you wrote, I take issue with that.


You asserted, among other things, that there is no thermal noise unless 
the resistor is carrying current, _and_ that the shot noise depends on 
the current.


I agree about the shot noise, and I said so.

However, AFAIK there _is_ thermal noise whether or not there's current, 
just as there's Brownian motion whether or not there's current flowing 
through the water, and the formula given in an earlier post, with which 
you did not disagree, certainly does not describe something which 
decreases with current.  If it just _cuts_ _off_ at zero current, that 
would be very strange behavior indeed!  The formula given was:


 The thermal noise of a resistor is equal to:
   Vt = SQRT(4kTBR)

 where:

 Vt = the rms noise voltage
 k = Boltzmann's constant
 T = temperature(Kelvin)
 B = noise bandwidth
 R = resistance   

Assuming the formula is correct as written, I really  don't see a 
current term in it anywhere.  As far as I can see the RHS does not 
depend in any way on applied voltage or current through the resistor, 
nor on the resistance, for that matter.  And the LHS is a voltage -- 
_not_ a coefficient to be multiplied into the voltage applied to the 
resistor.  If you disagree, please explain, because what you've said so 
far doesn't elucidate this at all.


And I do not believe that the noise jumps from 0 to its full-on value 
as soon as the current goes from exactly 0 to, say, 1 fempto-pico-amp.


In any case there's also thermal noise in the diode, as I believe I also 
pointed out (though I didn't phrase it that way), and that is surely 
where you should be hunting for the flaw in the design.




Besides, in order do work by 
extracting energy from ambient heat with no heat sink, Paul's diodes 
would need to rectify a current. There won't be one there.


you are taking this to mean that the noise voltage is generated solely
by the temperature of the resistor whether or not there is a current
flow and this is what the equation seems to suggest; however, this is a
sound engineer's equation, not a physicist's. I think it means that if
the resistor is ACTUALLY resisting current, then the noise voltage is
dependent upon temperature and the shot noise depends upon the
current. I put it to you that when there is no current though the
resistor, there is no electrical noise at all. Still no free lunch.

There is free lunch for *intelligent* thinking beings. :-)

No, there isn't. Therefore you are not intelligent,


Wrong.  Paul is clearly intelligent, and so is Michel, even if both of 
them are occasionally rude (and no doubt occasionally wrong).  Paul may 
very well be an autodidact rather than, say, a PhD solid state 
physicist, and may have some soft spots in his knowledge base in this 
area (as may I, and Michel, and you) but that is hardly equivalent to 
his being unintelligent.

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[Robin van Spaandonk]

In reply to  Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Wed, 28 Feb 2007 23:49:54 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
In any case there's also thermal noise in the diode, as I believe I also 
pointed out (though I didn't phrase it that way), and that is surely 
where you should be hunting for the flaw in the design.
[snip]
If you look at the voltage current curve of a diode for both positive and
negative currents, then it is clearly asymmetric. That's why we use them.
In short they convert AC into DC, and it doesn't matter whether the AC is a
perfect sine wave or a random mess. Even the latter will result in at least some
DC component. I agree with you that a diode should produce the same sort of
thermal AC voltage as a resistor, however it should also rectify it's own
voltage.
IOW a diode connected across a capacitor should eventually charge the capacitor,
if it's thermal voltage is current independent.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://users.bigpond.net.au/rvanspaa/

Competition (capitalism) provides the motivation,
Cooperation (communism) provides the means.

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[Nick Palmer]

Connect a noisy resistor across a red LED and it will emit red photons

I don't know if anyone mentioned this before but surely the noisy resistor 
is only noisy when a current is flowing through it - which takes a voltage - 
which needs energy input to sustain it - which will probably at least match, 
and most likely exceed, the energy extractable from the red photons - no 
free lunch...


Nick Palmer 

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

Michel Jullian wrote:
 In any case you're not the first one to challenge the 2nd law, some famous 
names have tried before you it seems: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
 If I was you I would study their work in depth, if only to make sure I don't 
duplicate it. E.g. have you looked into Feynman's brownian ratchet thought 
experiment BTW, and if so have you understood why it couldn't work according to him?

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_ratchet


Actually yes, I've been in too many 2nd law debates to not know about the 
ratchet and various Brownian motors.


Paul





 Michel

 - Original Message -
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 2:05 AM
 Subject: Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics


 Michel Jullian wrote:
 ---
 Ok I remember you mentioned something of the sort now. So the hard bit is to
 make the material convert its thermal energy contents to electrical energy
 obviously, the rest follows.
 Known thermoelectric devices e.g. thermocouples need temperature
 differentials, what makes you think you don't need one? Something feels wrong
 about that material of yours acting as a heat source getting cooler while
 providing electricity without some of the heat going to a cooler place, what
 makes the heat move in the first place?
 ---



 Does something sound wrong about extracting energy from a room full of
 basketballs bouncing all over the place?  Does something sound wrong about
 extracting energy from air gas molecules bouncing in a container?  Does
 something sound wrong about extracting energy from ferromagnetic atoms that 
are
 vibrating at roughly 20 trillion times per second?

 There's a well-known and well quoted physicists P.W. Bridgman, (1941), There
 are almost as many formulations of the second law as there have been 
discussions

 of it.  Even the physicists at Wikipedia display that quote in the 2nd Law 
of
 Thermodynamics wiki page.

 The 2nd law of thermodynamics varies from physicist to physicist.  Those who
 adhere to a stricter version believe there's no available entropy in a closed
 container of air at room temperature at a constant temperature.

 An electrical resistor generates electrical noise. There is no upper voltage
 crest to such noise.  The longer you wait the higher the probability the
 observer will detect a higher voltage crest of such noise.  Furthermore, 
there
 is no *true* voltage level at which an LED suddenly *completely* stops 
emitting
 photons.  Place a microvolt on an LED and wait long enough and it will emit a
 photon.  Average those photons over time caused by that small voltage and it
 will be above blackbody radiation level.  Connect a noisy resistor across a 
red
 LED and it will emit red photons.  That may not sound like a lot of energy, 
and
 it's not given one such unit (R  LED). Create a few hundred trillion of such
 units and you have a good constant visible free energy light source. Such a
 unit could be several hundred nanometers is diameter, depending on the LED's
 wavelength.




 Any experimental support for your theory?

 Yes, I have my proof. Initially I had three unique experiments that 
demonstrated
 energy extraction from ambient temperature. 1. MCE.  2. R  LED.  3. T-ray 
lens.

  The first, MCE, was ridiculously difficult to replicate for various reasons
 ranging from the nanocrystalline and amorphous cores sensitivity to external
 electromagnetic fields and the sensitive temperature sensing nature of the
 experiment. Theretofore I no longer demonstrate experiment #1 since 
experiment
 #2  #3 is sufficient. I will demonstrate such proof to any scientist who 
signs
 papers thereby promising they will dedicate a minimum amount of time per 
month
 on such research.

 Getting people to work on such research in private is one thing given live
 demonstrations to appeal their skepticism. Getting people to publicly work on
 such research is another story.  The balls already rolling. Truthfully I set 
up
 a system so not even I could halt this research at this point, which was the 
goal.



 Regards,
 Paul Lowrance






 Michel

 - Original Message -
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 12:23 AM
 Subject: Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics


 Actually I wouldn't use the term atmosphere to describe the energy 
source.
 The output of such a device would be electricity.  Lets say an appliance is
 connected to the device and energy is given the appliance.  The device, 
more
 specifically the magnetic material, would cool down. The device would cool 
down

 and reach thermal equilibrium due to thermal conduction.  So we have a 
device
 that's colder than room temperature and an appliance that is receiving 
energy.
 Most appliances simply return the energy in the form of heat.  In a 
nutshell,
 energy is flowing from the device to the appliance to the air and back to 
the
 device.

 I've posted and attempted

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

Nick Palmer wrote:
 Connect a noisy resistor across a red LED and it will emit red photons

 I don't know if anyone mentioned this before but surely the noisy
 resistor is only noisy when a current is flowing through it - which
 takes a voltage - which needs energy input to sustain it - which will
 probably at least match, and most likely exceed, the energy extractable
 from the red photons - no free lunch...

 Nick Palmer



You should read about different types of noise --

http://www.aikenamps.com/ResistorNoise.htm


Thermal voltage noise is *independent* on current.  Furthermore, there is no 
upper crest limit to *true* thermal noise.  There is free lunch for intelligent 
beings. :-)



Regards,
Paul Lowrance

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[Nick Palmer]

Paul wrote:-
You should read about different types of noise --

http://www.aikenamps.com/ResistorNoise.htm 

Well, I read this webpage. Maybe you misunderstand. When they say

The thermal noise of a resistor is equal to:
  Vt = SQRT(4kTBR)

where:

Vt = the rms noise voltage
k = Boltzmann's constant
T = temperature(Kelvin)
B = noise bandwidth
R = resistance   

you are taking this to mean that the noise voltage is generated solely by 
the temperature of the resistor whether or not there is a current flow and 
this is what the equation seems to suggest; however, this is a sound 
engineer's equation, not a physicist's. I think it means that if the 
resistor is ACTUALLY resisting current, then the noise voltage is dependent 
upon temperature and the shot noise depends upon the current. I put it to 
you that when there is no current though the resistor, there is no 
electrical noise at all. Still no free lunch.




Nick Palmer

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

Terry Blanton wrote:
 Gnorts Vorts!

 While some things must remain on the QT, I was reading that TB
 (Bearden, not me) claims that his MEG gets cool when it's pumping
 power.  Would any Vorts care to speculate how an OU device would take
 heat from the environment?

 Terry



Hi,

The how has been my entire research over the past several years.  Presently 
I'm writing a near atomic scale magnetic simulation program that will not only 
show people via animation how ambient temperature energy is moved from magnetic 
material to an appliance, but hopefully the simulation will reveal an efficient 
method using inexpensive common magnetic cores such as silicon iron.


Can you please quote where Bearden claims the MEG gets cool or perhaps a link to 
the quote?


Thanks,
Paul Lowrance

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[Terry Blanton]

On 2/26/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Can you please quote where Bearden claims the MEG gets cool or perhaps a link to
the quote?


I think the exact statement was MEG created negative entropy in one of
the O(3) electrodynamics papers.  I'll look for the citation.

Terry

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[Michel Jullian]

Paul the how question may be premature, the last I remember you had 
convincingly shown that total magnetic field energy increased when two magnets 
got attracted to each other, in addition to their kinetic energy increasing, 
but couldn't the sum of these two energy increases be exactly equal to the 
energy you must expend to separate them in the first place?

Michel


- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics


 Terry Blanton wrote:
  Gnorts Vorts!
 
  While some things must remain on the QT, I was reading that TB
  (Bearden, not me) claims that his MEG gets cool when it's pumping
  power.  Would any Vorts care to speculate how an OU device would take
  heat from the environment?
 
  Terry
 
 
 
 Hi,
 
 The how has been my entire research over the past several years.  Presently 
 I'm writing a near atomic scale magnetic simulation program that will not 
 only 
 show people via animation how ambient temperature energy is moved from 
 magnetic 
 material to an appliance, but hopefully the simulation will reveal an 
 efficient 
 method using inexpensive common magnetic cores such as silicon iron.
 
 Can you please quote where Bearden claims the MEG gets cool or perhaps a link 
 to 
 the quote?
 
 Thanks,
 Paul Lowrance

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

Please read the plea for help in this research at the bottom of this post.


Michel Jullian wrote:
 Paul the how question may be premature, the last I remember you had 
convincingly shown that total magnetic field energy increased when two magnets 
got attracted to each other, in addition to their kinetic energy increasing, but 
couldn't the sum of these two energy increases be exactly equal to the energy 
you must expend to separate them in the first place?



Michel, you are correct, as far as I know it requires the same energy to 
separate the magnets.  Actually it should require more energy to separate since 
there's always some energy loss such as radiation.


Personally the idea of getting something from nothing has always been 
unattractive.  Therefore my research has always been about capturing ambient 
temperature energy. IOW, atoms, electrons, molecules are moving and vibrating at 
room temperature-- electron velocity ~1/200 c.  The average temperature of our 
planet is obviously sustained by the Sun. Therefore it's been my goal to capture 
that ambient temperature energy.


I've simulated this far too many times in my head, which is one reason I'm 
coding the simulation software.  The idea is that a magnetic avalanche consists 
of magnetic atoms rotating and precessing in a avalanche. Such a rotating 
magnetic field of each rotating atom generates radiation. Nearly all of such 
radiation is absorbed by the magnetic material.  Such radiation causes the 
magnetic material to heat up, which is first half of the MCE (Magnetocaloric 
effect) process. When the applied field is removed the aligned magnetic moments 
want to say in alignment, and therefore it requires energy to break the magnetic 
moment alignments.  It is known that magnetic materials near absolute zero 
Kelvin stay aligned without any applied field.  The reason the magnetic moments 
in magnetic materials at room temperature break alignment is due to ambient 
temperature. This removes energy from the magnetic materials ambient 
temperature, which is why magnetic materials cool down when the applied field is 
removed.


The idea is to capture enough of such radiation to overcome all losses while 
providing enough energy to self-sustain the machine while providing useful 
energy output.


The above is a vague description of my research and cannot possibly convey what 
I've learned, as the technique of extracting this energy is very complex. A 
researcher in this field will initially see interesting concepts such as 
vibrating atoms have no rotation preference. Example, lets say the coil 
influences more magnetic moments to rotate in a clockwise rotational direction 
in the avalanches. Although there is a great deal of rotational friction in 
common magnetic materials, you will note that vibrating atoms do no have a 
rotational preference. IOW, consider a single atom that we'll call X.  A 
neighboring atom could influence a counter-clockwise rotational force on atom X. 
 Next, another neighboring atom could influence a clockwise rotational force on 
atom X.  The average rotational force on atom X is zero.


Such a researcher will also understand *saturated* magnetic material absorbs 
appreciably less radiation.  Another key note to such research is understanding 
the magnetic entropy in magnetic material during various situations. For 
example, a fully saturated magnetic toroid at absolute zero Kelvin has zero 
internal magnetic entropy.  Magnetic material at Curie temperature has close to 
maximum internal magnetic entropy.   The amount of magnetic entropy at say 300K 
greatly varies from material to material. I theorize nanocrystalline and 
amorphous magnetic materials possess relatively high magnetic entropy at room 
temperatures.  The idea is to influence maximum magnetic entropy followed by an 
energy extraction technique. On many occasions I have attempted to mentally 
simulate the MEG.  Such mental simulations indicate the precise permanent magnet 
within the MEG will greatly increase the magnetic entropy within the magnetic 
material. Hopefully my simulation will confirm this and lead to an improved 
design that will work on common silicon iron. One concern is that such energy 
would mostly come from the inner core, which would cause rapid inner core 
temperature changes. Such temperature changes would require a circuit that 
adapts to such changes to maintain COP  1.0.


That's an outline.  What boggles my mind is physicists publicly ignore this 
research. Why?  It sure would be nice if other qualified physicists would 
publicly contribute to this research. IMHO the evidence is as clear as day this 
is a source of free energy obtainable with present technology.  My only 
purpose posting now a days is to gain help in this research.  No offense 
intended to cold fusion and ZPE research, but it boggles my mind why people 
would continue such unknown territory when there's a guaranteed alternative. All 
that's required is a strong 

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

Jones Beene wrote:
 OK the cooling results shown are intriguing but not conclusive


We should note that JNL merely measured the temperature drop in the wires. Note 
that the wires are stationary, but the magnetic material is spinning. JNL did 
not directly measure any temperature changes in the magnetic material. 
Completely stagnate air is a good thermal insulator, but the slightest air 
currents makes air a bad thermal insulator.  A spinning disc as in the case of 
JNL's Newman replication obviously would cause air circulation.  If the energy 
is coming from the magnetic material, as I suspect, then the magnetic material 
would cool down, which would quickly transfer to the surrounding air, in which a 
small percentage would transfer to the surrounding wires. The air would receive 
most of the cooling effect.


It would be more interesting if JNL could somehow measure temperature changes 
directly on the spinning magnetic material.  He could use a thermal gun.



Regards,
Paul Lowrance

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[Michel Jullian]

For calculus I can't help for lack of time I am afraid. Maybe you could 
consider using software for that, Mathematica does wonders at solving tricky 
integrals and such.

Besides I must admit I don't understand much of what you're writing, knowing 
very little about magnetism. I understand your aim is to use magnetic material 
as a kind of heat pump to draw heat from the atmosphere, but that's about all. 
Maybe you should make your explanations shorter and more practical. Suppose 
your theory works as you expect, can you briefly describe the energy extraction 
device workings, order of magnitude of the size, the form of energy it would 
output? (heat, electricity?)

Michel

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 7:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics


 Please read the plea for help in this research at the bottom of this post.
 
 
 Michel Jullian wrote:
  Paul the how question may be premature, the last I remember you had 
 convincingly shown that total magnetic field energy increased when two 
 magnets 
 got attracted to each other, in addition to their kinetic energy increasing, 
 but 
 couldn't the sum of these two energy increases be exactly equal to the energy 
 you must expend to separate them in the first place?
 
 
 Michel, you are correct, as far as I know it requires the same energy to 
 separate the magnets.  Actually it should require more energy to separate 
 since 
 there's always some energy loss such as radiation.
 
 Personally the idea of getting something from nothing has always been 
 unattractive.  Therefore my research has always been about capturing ambient 
 temperature energy. IOW, atoms, electrons, molecules are moving and vibrating 
 at 
 room temperature-- electron velocity ~1/200 c.  The average temperature of 
 our 
 planet is obviously sustained by the Sun. Therefore it's been my goal to 
 capture 
 that ambient temperature energy.
 
 I've simulated this far too many times in my head, which is one reason I'm 
 coding the simulation software.  The idea is that a magnetic avalanche 
 consists 
 of magnetic atoms rotating and precessing in a avalanche. Such a rotating 
 magnetic field of each rotating atom generates radiation. Nearly all of such 
 radiation is absorbed by the magnetic material.  Such radiation causes the 
 magnetic material to heat up, which is first half of the MCE (Magnetocaloric 
 effect) process. When the applied field is removed the aligned magnetic 
 moments 
 want to say in alignment, and therefore it requires energy to break the 
 magnetic 
 moment alignments.  It is known that magnetic materials near absolute zero 
 Kelvin stay aligned without any applied field.  The reason the magnetic 
 moments 
 in magnetic materials at room temperature break alignment is due to ambient 
 temperature. This removes energy from the magnetic materials ambient 
 temperature, which is why magnetic materials cool down when the applied field 
 is 
 removed.
 
 The idea is to capture enough of such radiation to overcome all losses while 
 providing enough energy to self-sustain the machine while providing useful 
 energy output.
 
 The above is a vague description of my research and cannot possibly convey 
 what 
 I've learned, as the technique of extracting this energy is very complex. A 
 researcher in this field will initially see interesting concepts such as 
 vibrating atoms have no rotation preference. Example, lets say the coil 
 influences more magnetic moments to rotate in a clockwise rotational 
 direction 
 in the avalanches. Although there is a great deal of rotational friction in 
 common magnetic materials, you will note that vibrating atoms do no have a 
 rotational preference. IOW, consider a single atom that we'll call X.  A 
 neighboring atom could influence a counter-clockwise rotational force on atom 
 X. 
  Next, another neighboring atom could influence a clockwise rotational force 
 on 
 atom X.  The average rotational force on atom X is zero.
 
 Such a researcher will also understand *saturated* magnetic material absorbs 
 appreciably less radiation.  Another key note to such research is 
 understanding 
 the magnetic entropy in magnetic material during various situations. For 
 example, a fully saturated magnetic toroid at absolute zero Kelvin has zero 
 internal magnetic entropy.  Magnetic material at Curie temperature has close 
 to 
 maximum internal magnetic entropy.   The amount of magnetic entropy at say 
 300K 
 greatly varies from material to material. I theorize nanocrystalline and 
 amorphous magnetic materials possess relatively high magnetic entropy at room 
 temperatures.  The idea is to influence maximum magnetic entropy followed by 
 an 
 energy extraction technique. On many occasions I have attempted to mentally 
 simulate the MEG.  Such mental simulations indicate the precise permanent 
 magnet 
 within the MEG will greatly increase the magnetic entropy

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

Actually I wouldn't use the term atmosphere to describe the energy source. 
The output of such a device would be electricity.  Lets say an appliance is 
connected to the device and energy is given the appliance.  The device, more 
specifically the magnetic material, would cool down.  The device would cool down 
and reach thermal equilibrium due to thermal conduction.  So we have a device 
that's colder than room temperature and an appliance that is receiving energy. 
Most appliances simply return the energy in the form of heat.  In a nutshell, 
energy is flowing from the device to the appliance to the air and back to the 
device.


I've posted and attempted to explain how the MEG works. Such attempts at 
explaining the process have been a waste of time.  Even a simple outlined 
explanation of the MCE process seems to be a waste of time. It just seems most 
physicists are uninterested. Perhaps they disbelieve ... who knows why.  I feel 
like a legitimate unheard person shouting Wolf.


Regards,
Paul Lowrance



Michel Jullian wrote:
 For calculus I can't help for lack of time I am afraid. Maybe you could 
consider using software for that, Mathematica does wonders at solving tricky 
integrals and such.


 Besides I must admit I don't understand much of what you're writing, knowing 
very little about magnetism. I understand your aim is to use magnetic material 
as a kind of heat pump to draw heat from the atmosphere, but that's about all. 
Maybe you should make your explanations shorter and more practical. Suppose your 
theory works as you expect, can you briefly describe the energy extraction 
device workings, order of magnitude of the size, the form of energy it would 
output? (heat, electricity?)


 Michel

 - Original Message -
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 7:09 PM
 Subject: Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics


 Please read the plea for help in this research at the bottom of this post.


 Michel Jullian wrote:
 Paul the how question may be premature, the last I remember you had
 convincingly shown that total magnetic field energy increased when two 
magnets
 got attracted to each other, in addition to their kinetic energy increasing, 
but

 couldn't the sum of these two energy increases be exactly equal to the energy
 you must expend to separate them in the first place?


 Michel, you are correct, as far as I know it requires the same energy to
 separate the magnets.  Actually it should require more energy to separate 
since
 there's always some energy loss such as radiation.

 Personally the idea of getting something from nothing has always been
 unattractive.  Therefore my research has always been about capturing ambient
 temperature energy. IOW, atoms, electrons, molecules are moving and 
vibrating at

 room temperature-- electron velocity ~1/200 c.  The average temperature of 
our
 planet is obviously sustained by the Sun. Therefore it's been my goal to 
capture

 that ambient temperature energy.

 I've simulated this far too many times in my head, which is one reason I'm
 coding the simulation software.  The idea is that a magnetic avalanche 
consists
 of magnetic atoms rotating and precessing in a avalanche. Such a rotating
 magnetic field of each rotating atom generates radiation. Nearly all of such
 radiation is absorbed by the magnetic material.  Such radiation causes the
 magnetic material to heat up, which is first half of the MCE (Magnetocaloric
 effect) process. When the applied field is removed the aligned magnetic 
moments
 want to say in alignment, and therefore it requires energy to break the 
magnetic

 moment alignments.  It is known that magnetic materials near absolute zero
 Kelvin stay aligned without any applied field.  The reason the magnetic 
moments
 in magnetic materials at room temperature break alignment is due to ambient
 temperature. This removes energy from the magnetic materials ambient
 temperature, which is why magnetic materials cool down when the applied 
field is

 removed.

 The idea is to capture enough of such radiation to overcome all losses while
 providing enough energy to self-sustain the machine while providing useful
 energy output.

 The above is a vague description of my research and cannot possibly convey 
what
 I've learned, as the technique of extracting this energy is very complex. A
 researcher in this field will initially see interesting concepts such as
 vibrating atoms have no rotation preference. Example, lets say the coil
 influences more magnetic moments to rotate in a clockwise rotational 
direction
 in the avalanches. Although there is a great deal of rotational friction in
 common magnetic materials, you will note that vibrating atoms do no have a
 rotational preference. IOW, consider a single atom that we'll call X.  A
 neighboring atom could influence a counter-clockwise rotational force on 
atom X.

  Next, another neighboring atom could influence a clockwise rotational force

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[Michel Jullian]

Ok I remember you mentioned something of the sort now. So the hard bit is to 
make the material convert its thermal energy contents to electrical energy 
obviously, the rest follows.

Known thermoelectric devices e.g. thermocouples need temperature differentials, 
what makes you think you don't need one? Something feels wrong about that 
material of yours acting as a heat source getting cooler while providing 
electricity without some of the heat going to a cooler place, what makes the 
heat move in the first place?

Any experimental support for your theory?

Michel

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 12:23 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics


 Actually I wouldn't use the term atmosphere to describe the energy source. 
 The output of such a device would be electricity.  Lets say an appliance is 
 connected to the device and energy is given the appliance.  The device, more 
 specifically the magnetic material, would cool down. The device would cool 
 down 
 and reach thermal equilibrium due to thermal conduction.  So we have a device 
 that's colder than room temperature and an appliance that is receiving 
 energy. 
 Most appliances simply return the energy in the form of heat.  In a nutshell, 
 energy is flowing from the device to the appliance to the air and back to the 
 device.
 
 I've posted and attempted to explain how the MEG works. Such attempts at 
 explaining the process have been a waste of time.  Even a simple outlined 
 explanation of the MCE process seems to be a waste of time. It just seems 
 most 
 physicists are uninterested. Perhaps they disbelieve ... who knows why.  I 
 feel 
 like a legitimate unheard person shouting Wolf.
 
 Regards,
 Paul Lowrance
 
 
 
 Michel Jullian wrote:
  For calculus I can't help for lack of time I am afraid. Maybe you could 
 consider using software for that, Mathematica does wonders at solving tricky 
 integrals and such.
 
  Besides I must admit I don't understand much of what you're writing, 
  knowing 
 very little about magnetism. I understand your aim is to use magnetic 
 material 
 as a kind of heat pump to draw heat from the atmosphere, but that's about 
 all. 
 Maybe you should make your explanations shorter and more practical. Suppose 
 your 
 theory works as you expect, can you briefly describe the energy extraction 
 device workings, order of magnitude of the size, the form of energy it would 
 output? (heat, electricity?)
 
  Michel
 
  - Original Message -
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 7:09 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics
 
 
  Please read the plea for help in this research at the bottom of this post.
 
 
  Michel Jullian wrote:
  Paul the how question may be premature, the last I remember you had
  convincingly shown that total magnetic field energy increased when two 
  magnets
  got attracted to each other, in addition to their kinetic energy 
  increasing, 
 but
  couldn't the sum of these two energy increases be exactly equal to the 
  energy
  you must expend to separate them in the first place?
 
 
  Michel, you are correct, as far as I know it requires the same energy to
  separate the magnets.  Actually it should require more energy to separate 
  since
  there's always some energy loss such as radiation.
 
  Personally the idea of getting something from nothing has always been
  unattractive.  Therefore my research has always been about capturing 
  ambient
  temperature energy. IOW, atoms, electrons, molecules are moving and 
 vibrating at
  room temperature-- electron velocity ~1/200 c.  The average temperature of 
  our
  planet is obviously sustained by the Sun. Therefore it's been my goal to 
 capture
  that ambient temperature energy.
 
  I've simulated this far too many times in my head, which is one reason I'm
  coding the simulation software.  The idea is that a magnetic avalanche 
  consists
  of magnetic atoms rotating and precessing in a avalanche. Such a rotating
  magnetic field of each rotating atom generates radiation. Nearly all of 
  such
  radiation is absorbed by the magnetic material.  Such radiation causes the
  magnetic material to heat up, which is first half of the MCE 
  (Magnetocaloric
  effect) process. When the applied field is removed the aligned magnetic 
  moments
  want to say in alignment, and therefore it requires energy to break the 
 magnetic
  moment alignments.  It is known that magnetic materials near absolute zero
  Kelvin stay aligned without any applied field.  The reason the magnetic 
  moments
  in magnetic materials at room temperature break alignment is due to ambient
  temperature. This removes energy from the magnetic materials ambient
  temperature, which is why magnetic materials cool down when the applied 
 field is
  removed.
 
  The idea is to capture enough of such radiation to overcome all losses 
  while
  providing

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

Michel Jullian wrote:
---
 Ok I remember you mentioned something of the sort now. So the hard bit is to 
make the material convert its thermal energy contents to electrical energy 
obviously, the rest follows.


 Known thermoelectric devices e.g. thermocouples need temperature 
differentials, what makes you think you don't need one? Something feels wrong 
about that material of yours acting as a heat source getting cooler while 
providing electricity without some of the heat going to a cooler place, what 
makes the heat move in the first place?

---



Does something sound wrong about extracting energy from a room full of 
basketballs bouncing all over the place?  Does something sound wrong about 
extracting energy from air gas molecules bouncing in a container?  Does 
something sound wrong about extracting energy from ferromagnetic atoms that are 
vibrating at roughly 20 trillion times per second?


There's a well-known and well quoted physicists P.W. Bridgman, (1941), There 
are almost as many formulations of the second law as there have been discussions 
of it.  Even the physicists at Wikipedia display that quote in the 2nd Law of 
Thermodynamics wiki page.


The 2nd law of thermodynamics varies from physicist to physicist.  Those who 
adhere to a stricter version believe there's no available entropy in a closed 
container of air at room temperature at a constant temperature.


An electrical resistor generates electrical noise. There is no upper voltage 
crest to such noise.  The longer you wait the higher the probability the 
observer will detect a higher voltage crest of such noise.  Furthermore, there 
is no *true* voltage level at which an LED suddenly *completely* stops emitting 
photons.  Place a microvolt on an LED and wait long enough and it will emit a 
photon.  Average those photons over time caused by that small voltage and it 
will be above blackbody radiation level.  Connect a noisy resistor across a red 
LED and it will emit red photons.  That may not sound like a lot of energy, and 
it's not given one such unit (R  LED). Create a few hundred trillion of such 
units and you have a good constant visible free energy light source. Such a 
unit could be several hundred nanometers is diameter, depending on the LED's 
wavelength.





 Any experimental support for your theory?


Yes, I have my proof. Initially I had three unique experiments that demonstrated 
energy extraction from ambient temperature. 1. MCE.  2. R  LED.  3. T-ray lens. 
 The first, MCE, was ridiculously difficult to replicate for various reasons 
ranging from the nanocrystalline and amorphous cores sensitivity to external 
electromagnetic fields and the sensitive temperature sensing nature of the 
experiment. Theretofore I no longer demonstrate experiment #1 since experiment 
#2  #3 is sufficient. I will demonstrate such proof to any scientist who signs 
papers thereby promising they will dedicate a minimum amount of time per month 
on such research.


Getting people to work on such research in private is one thing given live 
demonstrations to appeal their skepticism. Getting people to publicly work on 
such research is another story.  The balls already rolling. Truthfully I set up 
a system so not even I could halt this research at this point, which was the goal.



Regards,
Paul Lowrance







 Michel

 - Original Message -
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 12:23 AM
 Subject: Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics


 Actually I wouldn't use the term atmosphere to describe the energy source.
 The output of such a device would be electricity.  Lets say an appliance is
 connected to the device and energy is given the appliance.  The device, more
 specifically the magnetic material, would cool down. The device would cool 
down
 and reach thermal equilibrium due to thermal conduction.  So we have a device
 that's colder than room temperature and an appliance that is receiving 
energy.
 Most appliances simply return the energy in the form of heat.  In a nutshell,
 energy is flowing from the device to the appliance to the air and back to the
 device.

 I've posted and attempted to explain how the MEG works. Such attempts at
 explaining the process have been a waste of time.  Even a simple outlined
 explanation of the MCE process seems to be a waste of time. It just seems 
most
 physicists are uninterested. Perhaps they disbelieve ... who knows why.  I 
feel
 like a legitimate unheard person shouting Wolf.

 Regards,
 Paul Lowrance



 Michel Jullian wrote:
 For calculus I can't help for lack of time I am afraid. Maybe you could
 consider using software for that, Mathematica does wonders at solving tricky
 integrals and such.
 Besides I must admit I don't understand much of what you're writing, knowing
 very little about magnetism. I understand your aim is to use magnetic 
material
 as a kind of heat pump to draw heat from the atmosphere, but that's about 
all.
 Maybe you

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[Michel Jullian]

In any case you're not the first one to challenge the 2nd law, some famous 
names have tried before you it seems: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

If I was you I would study their work in depth, if only to make sure I don't 
duplicate it. E.g. have you looked into Feynman's brownian ratchet thought 
experiment BTW, and if so have you understood why it couldn't work according to 
him?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_ratchet

Michel

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 2:05 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics


 Michel Jullian wrote:
 ---
  Ok I remember you mentioned something of the sort now. So the hard bit is 
  to 
 make the material convert its thermal energy contents to electrical energy 
 obviously, the rest follows.
 
  Known thermoelectric devices e.g. thermocouples need temperature 
 differentials, what makes you think you don't need one? Something feels wrong 
 about that material of yours acting as a heat source getting cooler while 
 providing electricity without some of the heat going to a cooler place, what 
 makes the heat move in the first place?
 ---
 
 
 
 Does something sound wrong about extracting energy from a room full of 
 basketballs bouncing all over the place?  Does something sound wrong about 
 extracting energy from air gas molecules bouncing in a container?  Does 
 something sound wrong about extracting energy from ferromagnetic atoms that 
 are 
 vibrating at roughly 20 trillion times per second?
 
 There's a well-known and well quoted physicists P.W. Bridgman, (1941), There 
 are almost as many formulations of the second law as there have been 
 discussions 
 of it.  Even the physicists at Wikipedia display that quote in the 2nd Law 
 of 
 Thermodynamics wiki page.
 
 The 2nd law of thermodynamics varies from physicist to physicist.  Those who 
 adhere to a stricter version believe there's no available entropy in a closed 
 container of air at room temperature at a constant temperature.
 
 An electrical resistor generates electrical noise. There is no upper voltage 
 crest to such noise.  The longer you wait the higher the probability the 
 observer will detect a higher voltage crest of such noise.  Furthermore, 
 there 
 is no *true* voltage level at which an LED suddenly *completely* stops 
 emitting 
 photons.  Place a microvolt on an LED and wait long enough and it will emit a 
 photon.  Average those photons over time caused by that small voltage and it 
 will be above blackbody radiation level.  Connect a noisy resistor across a 
 red 
 LED and it will emit red photons.  That may not sound like a lot of energy, 
 and 
 it's not given one such unit (R  LED). Create a few hundred trillion of such 
 units and you have a good constant visible free energy light source. Such a 
 unit could be several hundred nanometers is diameter, depending on the LED's 
 wavelength.
 
 
 
 
  Any experimental support for your theory?
 
 
 Yes, I have my proof. Initially I had three unique experiments that 
 demonstrated 
 energy extraction from ambient temperature. 1. MCE.  2. R  LED.  3. T-ray 
 lens. 
  The first, MCE, was ridiculously difficult to replicate for various reasons 
 ranging from the nanocrystalline and amorphous cores sensitivity to external 
 electromagnetic fields and the sensitive temperature sensing nature of the 
 experiment. Theretofore I no longer demonstrate experiment #1 since 
 experiment 
 #2  #3 is sufficient. I will demonstrate such proof to any scientist who 
 signs 
 papers thereby promising they will dedicate a minimum amount of time per 
 month 
 on such research.
 
 Getting people to work on such research in private is one thing given live 
 demonstrations to appeal their skepticism. Getting people to publicly work on 
 such research is another story.  The balls already rolling. Truthfully I set 
 up 
 a system so not even I could halt this research at this point, which was the 
 goal.
 
 
 Regards,
 Paul Lowrance
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Michel
 
  - Original Message -
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
  Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 12:23 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics
 
 
  Actually I wouldn't use the term atmosphere to describe the energy 
  source.
  The output of such a device would be electricity.  Lets say an appliance is
  connected to the device and energy is given the appliance.  The device, 
  more
  specifically the magnetic material, would cool down. The device would cool 
  down
  and reach thermal equilibrium due to thermal conduction.  So we have a 
  device
  that's colder than room temperature and an appliance that is receiving 
  energy.
  Most appliances simply return the energy in the form of heat.  In a 
  nutshell,
  energy is flowing from the device to the appliance to the air and back to 
  the
  device.
 
  I've posted and attempted to explain how the MEG works. Such attempts

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[Jones Beene]

Blast-from-the past (9 years ago): and shall we dare to revisit 
everyone's (especially Jed's) favorite pseud-o-U Claimant: (Joe N, not 
Jean L N)


http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/NMac0709.htm

JLN sez: The purpose of this test is to check for changes in the 
entropy of the (Newman) Machine


Side note: This was not Newman's machine per se, but an improved version 
built by Naudin/David ...and... the Motor ran for four minutes+ with NO 
(zero, nada, zilch) power input !


...and everyone, including moi, thought, at the time, that it was a sham 
or error, due to Newman (Souffle's) over-reaching bad attitude (tin cup 
extended) and the other self-serving and inflammatory comments made on 
Vortex and elsewhere.


... did Naudin use good technique ? Hmmm... this part is not rocket 
science ... JLN: I have used a dual probes digital thermometer 
(resolution 0.1 degree Celsius) :


- The first temperature probe has been used as reference for the lab 
temp (21.5 degrees Celsius)

- The second temperature probe has been glued directly on the Newman's coil.

I have waited one hour before starting the test for equalizing the 
temperatures ( LabTemp = 21.5 degrees, Coil Temp = 21.5 degrees)


The test has been conducted during one hour. [graph shown]

Again: This was for the Motor which ran for four minutes with NO (zero, 
nada, zilch) power input !


OK the cooling results shown are intriguing but not conclusive - as this 
is not a huge drop and only slightly over the resolution of the probes. 
However, there should have been substantial coil heating instead of 
cooling and there is no good reason to suspect thermoelectric 
(Peltier-Seebeck) cooling:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peltier-Seebeck_effect

Therefore, I for one, want to go on record as saying that this motor was 
probably (arguably) running in a slight OU mode for most of those 4 
minute, unless it was acting as an antenna for local power mains,


...or whatever (after all JNL's lab is on the premises of EDF) ...and 
also that if not an antenna, then the temperature drop, small as it was, 
was proof of negentropy - and very likely to have been related to ZPE 
extraction.


How is that for equivocation? err... no snide remarks, my vocation is 
not equivocation g




Terry Blanton wrote:

Gnorts Vorts!

While some things must remain on the QT, I was reading that TB
(Bearden, not me) claims that his MEG gets cool when it's pumping
power.  Would any Vorts care to speculate how an OU device would take
heat from the environment?

Terry

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[Terry Blanton]

On 2/25/07, Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


...or whatever (after all JNL's lab is on the premises of EDF) ...and
also that if not an antenna, then the temperature drop, small as it was,
was proof of negentropy - and very likely to have been related to ZPE
extraction.


Yes, this is where I was heading.  If one can extract from Dirac's sea
of negative energy, you must provide the heat of evaporation.  Could
the electron's magnet moment be just the sort of pump required?

Terry

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[Terry Blanton]

On 2/25/07, Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

On 2/25/07, Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 ...or whatever (after all JNL's lab is on the premises of EDF) ...and
 also that if not an antenna, then the temperature drop, small as it was,
 was proof of negentropy - and very likely to have been related to ZPE
 extraction.

Yes, this is where I was heading.  If one can extract from Dirac's sea
of negative energy, you must provide the heat of evaporation.  Could
the electron's magnet moment be just the sort of pump required?

Terry

Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics

[Terry Blanton]

On 2/25/07, Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


 Yes, this is where I was heading.  If one can extract from Dirac's sea
 of negative energy, you must provide the heat of evaporation.  Could
 the electron's magnet moment be just the sort of pump required?


My fingers are not completely connected to my brain today.  I have
just committed a Bushism as in today's Doonesbury.  I should have said
magnet(ic) moment.

Terry