Thanks for your enlightened reply, I'm curious about such things. Here's a specific application I'm thinking about:
Given that infinite free energy is available ( which is certainly is, since we know E=MC2, and it's just an engineering detail how to take advantage of that, and engineers always solve such problems ) , here's a practical application: Lets also assume that there exists a mechanical device that absorbs power without getting hot (Steorn claims such a thing) . Maybe it's possible to build a heat sink that absorbs energy without getting hot. Is it feasible to build a laptop computer or cell phone with an Intel Core1000 processor that dissipates 1kW, but somehow can remain cool without charring your breeches? If I recall my thermodynamics, a heat engine dissipates the same heat ( calories ) as the source supplies, just at a lower temperature -- is that correct? Maybe one could run a heat engine feeding a universal absorber and have the cold side not get too hot -- but then the heat would have to go somewhere. A problem seems to be that the temperature difference between the source, around 90?c and the cold side, say 40?c doesn't yield much efficiency ( 50/300 = 16% ). Is there a practical way to use these potential new technologies to keep the cool so to speak? A solution would have enormous practical significance. Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale Arizona US ( Anxiously awaiting the arrival of 50?c outside air temperature -- but the dew point is -40 degrees so it's cool :-) ) > -----Original Message----- > From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] > Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2011 2:29 PM > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Subject: RE: [Vo]:The Rossi device is not a heat pump > > From: Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. > > * > * Assume there's a device that can absorb energy, whether > mechanical, electrical, or thermal, but not get hot -- the energy is sent > to some unspecified alternate universe let us say for the sake of > argument.... For the sake of this argument, assume that such a device > exists....How useful is this? > > First there is a differentiation which is needed. Is the material in > question a superconductor of heat, like the "Qu-tubes" or is it actually > absorbing heat and staying cold ? If it is the later, and there is no > obvious endothermic reaction which benefits, then a guess - which is as > much philosophical as it is based on thermodynamic issues, is that it > gains something of equal net energy, but lower energy density. > > IOW: first off - there is a hierarchy of energy "varieties" but this is > poorly defined at present. "Heat", defined as phonon vibration, would be > at the low end, but not the lowest. Above that (or overcalling) are > photons, but in their own hierarchy based on wavelength: RF, IR, visible, > UV, EUV, ex-ray, gamma. Above that is "emf" in the form of electrical > current or equivalent. Above that ? ... probably "matter" and high energy > gammas will condense into matter on occasion. But your question really > goes to the other end of the scale: sub-heat, so to speak. > > Below "heat" is where you would look to see what repercussions follow from > a with a material which is a heat sink at ambient. It would probably gain > "the next lower form of energy." One possibility goes back to Frank > Grimer's concept of "compreture" - in that an object can lose heat and > gain pressure and maintain a net balance. But that does not apply here. > > Another possibility for the general identity of that next lower form of > energy can be simplified as "potential energy" and this covers a wide > range of possibilities. There are hierarchies there as well - but if a > material sheds heat to another dimension, it may gain potential energy in > some form. > > I know your next question, but I'll let others jump in to test the water > on that one... since 'anti-gravity' is a subject that generally makes me > too light-headed to keep a straight face. Can you spell "Casimatter"? > > Jones > >
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
