Dave, Yes, a lot of stationary random processes will result in arbitrarily large deviations from the mean, given unlimited time. I think the Fermi(-Ulam) acceleration Ahern cites is different. Given the proper system parameters, acceleration can be certain and (almost) monotonically increasing.
One particularly interesting case is given in - "Phase Space Interpretation of Exponential Fermi Acceleration" http://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.3509.pdf - where a table of length 'L' is enclosed by elastic walls, and has a rigid bar of length L/2 oscillating in a parallel motion parallel to the long side of the table, while an elastic billiard ball 'B' bounces chaotically, (pseudo-)randomly from the walls to the bar, i.e., +----------------------------------------+ | /\ | | / \ ^ | | / \ | | | / / =========+========= | |/ / =========+========= | |\ / | | | \ / v | | B | +----------------------------------------+ The ball 'B' will accelerate exponentially under certain circumstances. The ball extracts energy from the bar in an apparent (but not real) violation of the 2nd Law. In the real world, something will break the acceleration. -- Lou Pagnucco David Roberson wrote: > I have seen many instances where the instantaneous value of a noisy system > can be many times larger than the average or RMS. Thermal noise is a > perfect example. I suspect that rogue ocean waves are in this category. > The amount of time during which the extreme amplitude excursion occurs > falls off rapidly as the peak amplitude increases. > > It is possible to focus waves into a large peak by carefully timing many > small sources. A parabolic reflector accomplishes this function with > electromagnetic waves. The same feature can be had with ultrasonic > sources. Phased array systems do this quite nicely as well. > > Perhaps the occurrence of wave functions automatically results in peaks > and valleys as the various signals interfere. These activities do not > result in breaking of any conservation laws that I am aware of. > > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: pagnucco <pagnu...@htdconnect.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Wed, Sep 5, 2012 3:12 pm > Subject: [Vo]:Ahern's ILENRS-12 Presentation - "Energy Localization" > > > Jed Rothwell just posted ILENRS-12 presentations at: > > http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1097 > > Brian Ahern's presentation "Energy Localization" proposes that Fermi > acceleration (F-A) can intensely concentrate energy on the nanoscale. > > His example of spring coupled point masses seems to circumvent the 2nd Law > of Thermodynamics, by focusing rather than diffusing kinetic energy. > > As in endothermic chemical reactions, this is (probably) just an apparent > violation of the 2nd Law, except occurring at nuclear/particle scales. > > F-A appears in many contexts involving elastic and conservative energy > exchanges, and can result in extremely large, highly localized energy > exchanges. It can be driven by internal or external stimuli - mechanical, > acoustic or electromagnetic. It breaks down when energy leaks from a > closed system by dissipation or inelastic collisions. > > If the inelastic collisions that stop F-A involve particle or nuclear > reactions, then maybe some LENR results - perhaps explaining > electron-capture, some fissions or fusions? > > Some of the reported successful LENR experiments, e.g., Brillouin, > Energetics, seem to conform to the F-A model. If so, they could be very > sensitive to shapes and spectra of the the stimuli. > > Opinions/criticisms welcome. > > -- Lou Pagnucco > > > >
