On 02/08/2010 01:07 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > -----Original Message----- From: Stephen A. Lawrence > > Jones Beene wrote: > > > >> I have lost the citation from a few weeks ago that claimed that >> below a threshold of about 10 nm, the expected blackbody frequency is >> upshifted for nanostructures, in general. > >> SAL: If I understand you, and if this is true, then it's a >> violation of the second law of thermodynamics. > > No, not if other parts of the structure compensate, so that the net > energy is unchanged.
Your description makes this sound like a local surface phenomenon. In that case, I can coat the whole thing with identical nanoparticles, and the argument that other parts of the structure will somehow compensate is nulled out. I suspect the answer's actually somewhat simpler: Small particles are "invisible" to wavelengths which are on the order of the particle size or longer. Consequently, nanostructures don't just cease to radiate at long wavelengths -- they also become transparent to those wavelengths. And that's all that's needed to avoid a second law violation. > > IOW sub-radiance compensates for super-radiance so that net energy > is conserved. This what Brian Ahern calls energy "localization". It > is usually a surface effect, and that is due to nanostructure. > > This all goes back to simulations done by Fermi, Pasta and Ulam on > one of the first supercomputers at LANL. According to Brian, they > simulated a one-dimensional array of masses connected by ideal > springs obeying Hooke's Law. They gave the system x-amount of > vibrational energy and then followed oscillators over time. The > simulation showed that all of the masses got the same amount of > vibrational energy. This was important as it verified one of the most > basic tenets of statistical Thermodynamics. However, this is NOT the > end of story, and they quickly found exceptions to the rule. I'm not going to pretend I can follow the reasoning here. Sorry... > Ulam changed the equation from F = -k1X to F = -k1x + k2X*2. He > kept the constant k2 small so that he was adding only a small > nonlinear component. Surprisingly, even a small amount of > nonlinearity caused the energy to become highly localized. A small > number of the masses went into permanent large amplitude oscillations > and the remaining masses became 'vibrationally cold'. Note: there is > no violation of CoE – at least not until abnormally large vibrations > are able to cause another reaction – such as LENR (possibly). > > Later all of this was picked up in the context of LENR by Preperata > and has been called DPSR = Dicke-Preparata Super-radiance. Robert > Dicke is the original genius behind it all, prior to LENR. Here is an > earlier posting on vortex (which you commented on, so don't say you > never heard of it :) > > _http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg22621.html_ > > There's another argument (from Brian): The text you quote here is very slightly paraphrased version of what I said in the post to which you're responding, up to and including the placement of the parentheses. Since I typed that in off the top of my head, as a paraphrase of something I'd said previously on one of my web pages (which was also off the top of my head, quoting nobody else) I find it surprising to read that the following text originated with Brian Ahern. Seems like a remarkable coincidence. > When two objects with > different surface characteristics are placed next to each other in a > uniformly hot oven and a dichroic filter is placed between them, if > one radiates more strongly at the filter's peak reflection frequency > than the other, their relative temperatures will change. (The one > which radiates more strongly at the mirror's reflection frequency > will "see" more radiation coming in than the other object, and so > will get warmer.) Now the next sentence, which seems to have been appended to my words, is not from me, and in fact I don't understand it. > You can analogize that to a single layered material > with a surface that has greater vibrational mobility. > But alas, I still have not found the paper in question, but am still > looking. Here is one that is close: > > _http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0953-8984/15/7/308_ > > Jones >
