Hi,
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > > Paul wrote: > > Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >> Why aren't people more clear about the steorn motor and say that > > >> it gets colder as it creates mechanical power? > > > > > > Because it doesn't. It's a magnetic motor -- > > > permanent-magnet-based engine -- and there's no mechanism for it > > > to "steal heat" from the environment, nor any evidence whatsoever > > > that it does so. > > > > That's not a true statement. Permanent magnets are magnetic > > materials with relatively high coercivity. When one studies MCE > > (Magnetocaloric effect) they learn about such effects such as micro > > and nano magnetic avalanches, etc. It is possible to rob ambient > > energy from magnetic materials as I have my proof in way of highly > > sensitive temperature measurements with certain magnetic materials. > > Maybe, but as far as I can make out the Steorn motor is a "classic" > magmo in which specific orientations of permanent magnets in varying > magnetic fields are used to gain macroscopic kinetic energy from the > macroscopic (fixed) fields of the permanent magnets. That's based on > the notion that the force generated by a permanent magnet is > non-conservative. It has nothing to do with stealing internal energy > from the magnet. > > If you feel my statement about the Steorn motor is false, I'd > appreciate it if you could show some documentation (like, text from > their website, maybe) indicating that the Steorn motor uses the MCE to > steal thermal energy from the magnets (made of exotic materials?). > > As someone pointed out, a Steorn motor "run backwards" would cool > things off, converting thermal energy into nothing. But a Steorn > motor "run frontwards" warms things up, generating thermal energy > from nothing. That's just it. As far as I'm aware Steorn has yet to release any appreciable details. We do not know how competent, sensitive, or accurate their temperature tests were. > > > It's type-1 perpetual motion: violation of the first law, which > > > is conservation of energy. If the Steorn motor works, then a > > > Steorn motor operating in a closed environment will warm up that > > > environment. > > > > > > You're talking about type-2 perpetual motion: violation of the > > > second law, with energy moving "uphill" against a thermal > > > gradient. If your idea for diode arrays works, then when it's > > > operating in a closed environment, it will make no net difference > > > to the temperature of that environment. > > > > That's simply not true. An LED connected to a resistor generates > > photons. > > Energy is conserved in this scenario; Indeed, which is why I stated, " you are essentially converting the kinetic energy in ambient temperature to potential energy in the battery" > the energy from the photons > comes from the "noise" electric current, and the resistor cools > slightly as the photons are generated due to the net slowing of the > conduction electrons, but the photons are carrying energy, which when > converted back to heat warms the environment up again. Perhaps you missed the part regarding the photons being focused on the solar cell, which is connected to a battery. Again, kinetic ambient energy is being converted to potential energy in the battery and the net temperature drops. > And pulling useful energy from a single thermal pool is absolutely a > violation of the second law of thermodynamics. ... Sorry, I become unglued when discussing the 2nd law. :-( Wikipedia has a nice quote from Physicists P.W. Bridgman, (1941) "There are almost as many formulations of the second law as there have been discussions of it." It depends how rigid you adhere to the 2nd law. It's a "works most of the time" law. The law should only apply to random unintelligence such as natural thermal occurrences, etc. By means of intelligence the 2nd law is breakable-- for example, the design of LED's. Although that's not to suggest there are no natural 2nd law violations. No offense intended to anyone, but it's the most ridiculous and blind sighted thought to believe one cannot extract usable energy from moving and vibrating objects regardless if they are planets, basketballs, molecules, or even atoms. > > All LED's dissipate energy below the forward voltage, as there's no > > lower limit. Furthermore, there's no upper crest voltage limit to > > *real* noise. The photon energy emitted from the LED comes from the > > resistors ambient energy. If you focus the photons on a solar cell, > > and connect the solar cell to a battery then you are essentially > > converting the kinetic energy in ambient temperature to potential > > energy in the battery, which does *indeed* drop the overall > > temperature with in the closed system. :-) > > OK, you're right about that. Until the energy in the battery is used > again, the average temperature of the system will be lower. You're > converting thermal energy to chemical energy. In the case of most batteries, sure, although it's still PE. In the case of say a capacitor, which is essentially a battery, it's not chemical. Regards, Paul Lowrance ____________________________________________________________________________________ 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news
