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.
> > 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; 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.
And pulling useful energy from a single thermal pool is absolutely a
violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
> 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.
