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: <[email protected]>
> 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: <[email protected]>
>>> 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 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 fundamental understanding of electromagnetism,
>> which
>>>> I could teach to even a child within a few weeks time. I am good at
computer
>>>> programming and deep thinking, but my Calculus is somewhat rusty, which has
>>>> already delayed my research over two months.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Paul Lowrance
