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: <[email protected]>
> 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: <[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
