PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-05-23, 08:13:44
News: Forum TIP:
The SHOUT BOX deletes messages after 3 hours. It is NOT meant to have lengthy conversations in. Use the Chat feature instead.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
Author Topic: SEMP AI Smart Electromagnetic Generator (AISEG)  (Read 11574 times)

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1872
How would carbonised iron differ from soft ferrite in terms of the remanent magnetism? If you applied a DC pulse to carbonised iron and soft ferrite, how different would the magnetic decay be? Would it be orders of magnitude different?

From Wikipedia:
The answer to your question is I don't know.  I guess few people do know, the reason being that in soft ferrites used in transformers the decay time is not of interest as it doesn't directly affect the performance.  The ideal soft ferrite has no remanence, the BH curve is a line that passes through the origin where B and H =0.  However all known soft materials do have some remanence and its only effect in normal transformers is to determine the width of the BH loop and therefore the energy loss per cycle.  If the ferrite has single domain grains that have dimensions of a few nanometers then according to that Neel formula the ferrite would have the decay time in milliseconds that SEMP found.  Some ferrites are manufactured by grinding down to grains that are single domains but I suspect they are much larger then the nanometer size required for that fast decay.  I think the SEMP carbonizing process creates the small domain size certainly at the surface of the iron where the carbon creates the domains at the molecular level.  So it is likely that current ferrites have decay times that are orders of magnitude different from the carbonized iron.  But has anyone ever measured the remanence decay in ferrites?

Smudge
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 5
@Smudge,

Some info you might find relevant to your take on this device.

I implemented a similar principle when designing my take on Figuera's device.

This link is to JLN labs 2sgen page. If you scroll to the bottom of the page, there are 2 pdfs under "Interesting documents to read" related to ferrites, heat, and energy extraction.

http://jnaudin.free.fr/2SGen/indexen.htm
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2666
In my opinion there may be another more plausible explanation.

It is well known that most amateur FE inventors usually attributed an energy gain to obvious sources like the atmosphere or ground. However most of these same inventors who continued there research later claimed they were mistaken. They devised ways to negate the need for an antenna or ground connection and the device still worked. They also isolated the devices ruling out external EM fields and ambient heat as the source of energy.

Case in point, Moray generated 20kW output from a circuit using switches, vacuum tubes and air core coils enclosed in a 24" x 16" wooden box. While this device did use an antenna later devices didn't require one.

The point being, almost all these inventors really had no idea where the energy came from and simply made something up to placate others or so they could patent. It's simply human nature to keep moving forward and sort out the details later.

Let's think about it, what better way to protect an intellectual property than to give details they know would lead everyone on a wild goose chase ie. a futile pursuit or search. This giving the inventors time to raise more funds, do more research and write better patents.

Here's another clue, most amateur FE inventors used iron cores but almost all senior inventors having more experience moved to air core coils. By amateur I mean, one lacking the skills or insight of others with more experience. More experienced FE inventors used iron cores in there voltage step up/step down transformers while the heart of the device used larger air core coils. In my opinion this rules out any effects related to an energy gain in iron cores or from heat specifically.

AC




---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 18
Thank you Smudge for decoding the SEMP patents and the AISEG information. Your white paper shows a possibility for a unique device that may be possible to replicate, especially as there's nothing 'exotic' about the makeup of the AISEG that couldn't be tackled, except for the special heat treated iron core.

There are full service shops out there for carburizing, and there are many low cost methods for DIY heat treating. Because we don't know the exact heat treating process it may take many trials (expensive if using a service), so DIY ...

Thanks to phoneboy for linking to the JLN Labs 2SGen material as contained within it is a test method ( http://jnaudin.free.fr/2SGen/html/s2genep7en.htm) to measure the ratio between the magnetization energy and the demagnetization energy of a pulsed coil. The test is for both states on one coil, but I think the test could be split across two coils (input and output). Or there are other test methods?

Core heat treatment, demagnetization test, adjust core heat treatment, demagnetization test, repeat and continue until success or surrender.

Just enough information available to incline one to cautiously investigate and experiment ...

In the attached image I've circled the JLN Labs mag/demag circuit.


tak

   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1987
The magnetization energy is easily derived from the BH characteristic and does not depend significantly on heat.  I do not see this as a Maxwell demon...

...As I state in my paper this could be thermal whereby the system draws in heat energy from its surroundings...   

These statements are contradictory. A device that draws its energy from a single thermal bath, such as the environment, is a Maxwell demon.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1872
These statements are contradictory. A device that draws its energy from a single thermal bath, such as the environment, is a Maxwell demon.
The natural demagnetization that is driven thermally (not driven electrically) but delivers electrical energy is a Maxwell demon.  The magnetization that is driven electrically and absorbs electrical energy is not a Maxwell demon.    Where is the contradiction in my statements?

Smudge
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1872
@ tak22

Thank you for your interest, you are the only person here who has shown willingness to do any follow up work.  Sadly I am 90 years old in April this year and in no position to do any work on this.

That JLN  and Zaev work uses magnetization and demagnetization that are both driven electrically, and looks for total electrical energy output from both the mag and demag stages that exceeds the total energy input for both stages.  The SEMP system does not work like that.  The SEMP demag stage is not driven electrically, there is no electrical energy supplied during that stage.  Yes the work you propose will lead to core material that is optimised for Zaev's overunity systems and that is a good thing, but it may not reach material optimised for the SEMP system.  What is needed is some method for determining the natural decay time of Brem, and the problem there is the only means we have of measuring Brem is by destroying it, so we can't easily obtain a plot of Brem against time.

Smudge
   
Newbie
*

Posts: 18
What is needed is some method for determining the natural decay time of Brem, and the problem there is the only means we have of measuring Brem is by destroying it, so we can't easily obtain a plot of Brem against time.

Thanks Smudge. Yes I am interested in prodding myself and others to do follow up work!

Maybe determining the natural decay time is just a 'nice to know' value? If we can measure the energy taken from the output coil and it's greater in a 'magic iron core' vs a control core, then all is good? SEMP has isolated input and output coils, so use the JLN measurement circuit on the output coil to show energy out? More magic, faster Brem decay, more output? Electronics is a weak knowledge area for me.

tak
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1987
The natural demagnetization that is driven thermally (not driven electrically) but delivers electrical energy is a Maxwell demon.  ...

Smudge
It's not a Maxwell demon. It would have to provide useful power and be maintained without depletion.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1872
F6 posted this reply on another bench https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4587.msg110319#msg110319
Quote
I haven't heard that room temperature demagnetizes with the possibility of recovering energy at the same time, unless the ferromagnetic material was initially hotter than room temperature because it had just been magnetized.
If one studies the Neel equation in post #73 it tells you that ferromagnetic material consisting of single domain particles at room temperature will demagnetize exponentially with time, having a time constant that can be many years (permanent magnets) or fractions of a second (currently an unknown feature not used to any purpose).  It should be clear to anyone skilled in electromagnetics that a decay of remanent magnetization in fractions of a second can induce voltage into a coil and drive current through a load, hence recovering some energy.  Those same skilled people would likely accept that this one-shot energy pulse could occur at a hot temperature near the Curie point of the material.  To then create a series of output pulses that yielded a useful average is clearly impracticable, the repetition frequency would be too low and the energy cost in heating and cooling would ensure overall efficiency close to zero.  Whether the one-shot pulse input energy needed to magnetize is less than the one-shot output energy is a moot point not worth considering.  Not surprisingly, also not considered is how near the Curie point would this impracticable system have to be.  As F6 implies, the ferromagnetic material would have to be initially hotter than room temperature.  And that begs the question, what is hot?

The Neel equation uses a thermal energy given by KT, where K is Boltzmann’s constant and T is temperature, and here it is absolute temperature in degrees Kelvin.  That answers our question, an ambient temperature of 20°C is 293°K hot.  Our ferromagnetic material is 293 degrees hot, and that is 29% of the way towards the Curie point of electrical steel.  Now the possibility that a ferromagnetic material can have a demagnetization time constant of milliseconds at room temperature is not pie-in-the-sky nonsense, such a material can exist.  With such a material we can have a continual series of one-shot electrical magnetizing pulses each followed by thermally driven demagnetizing that delivers an electrical energy output pulse, and the average output is useful, this is practicable.  Note that although this is thermally driven, there are not two thermal baths, only the one.  Perhaps this points to the thermal agitation that creates the field decay being linked to quantum uncertainty, and this system is linked to the active aether that Tesla called the wheelwork of nature.
 
The ratio of the two energy pulses is now no longer moot.  We know how to assess the input pulse energy, but how do we assess the output energy?  If we wish to use our electromagnetic knowledge involving inductance and current, what inductance value should we use?  If our remanent field is close to saturation, we know that the inductance is very low, the material has lost its high permeability and will have a value close to 1.  Also, we know that by Lenz’s law the output current will attempt to stop the demagnetizing thus holding the field close to this low inductance regime.  Since this field decay is not driven electrically, it is quite possible that the output energy exceeds the magnetizing input energy where the high permeability, high inductance ensures that the remanent field is reached with very small input current and very little energy.

Why has this possibility not been considered before?  The history of magnetic material development has followed various paths none of which has searched for fast remanent field decay.  For permanent magnets and for magnetic recording the efforts have been in the opposite direction, retention of the field.  For transformer cores the aims have been to extend frequency response and to minimise core loss, the latter leading to smaller remanent fields.  For normal transformer operation the thermally driven decay time constant has been of no interest hence there is little evidence for this characteristic.  Perhaps the difficulty in measuring this parameter in closed magnetic paths is another reason for the paucity of data.  The ideal material for this new application is a high remanent field with a fast decay time-constant, and to date there has been no research into creating such material.

The superparamagnetic material obeying the Neel formula is an array of single domain particles.  Some ferrites cores are made of such particles, the ferrite material is ground down to a fine dust where the grain size is a single domain.  This material is put into a mould to create say a ring core, a toroidal current then aligns each grain dipole and the material is fired to produce a ring core with aligned domains that can flip to an alternative polarity if so desired.  This creates highly anisotropic material that has desirable properties along the easy axis.  But I guess no one has been interested in its remanent decay time constant.

Smudge     
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1690
Smudge and all,

Here is a quote from a translated Russian paper titled 'THE PATH TO FUEL-FREE ENERGY LAYS THROUGH UNDERSTANDING THE OPERATION OF THE MAGNETIC CIRCUIT OF ELECTRICAL MACHINES' published in the Russian Physical Society.

"The work [5] describes the experimentally obtained excess of energy at the output of the transformer by 13.8 times compared to the energy supplied to the input of the transformer. That is, in this work Nikolai Emelyanovich Zaev (1925 – 2007), [6] proved that a device designed like a conventional transformer can be a source of energy if there is an isolation between the output and the input. In the experiments described in [5], this decoupling of the output and input was carried out by separating in time the process of supplying current to the primary winding of the transformer to magnetize the magnetic core and the process of taking energy from the secondary winding when connecting a load during demagnetization of the magnetic core."

Notice the bold statements I've highlighted which seems to give another means of separating core magnetization and demagnetization.

The paper is attached below.

Edit:  I'd like to give credit to EF member 'straggl3r' for bringing this and other Russian docs to attention.

Regards,
Pm
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1872
Thank you Pm for this.  I found this interesting
Quote
After Gennady Vasilyevich Nikolaev (1935 – 2008) redesigned standard transformers at one of the enterprises in Yekaterinburg, the enterprise began to pay an order of magnitude less for electricity. When the electricity supply company learned that the enterprise had not curtailed production, but continued to operate on the same scale, they went to court and after a court ruling, the transformers were cut up and removed from the territory of the enterprise, and standard transformers were installed in their place. G.V. Nikolaev was fired from the enterprise. That is, the method used by G.V. Nikolaev to release the energy of the magnetic fields of domains remained unknown.
I have been convinced for many years that the internal magnetic dipoles responsible for ferromgnetism (referred to as circular molecular currents in that paper) can be a source of energy.  I am familiar with a number of Zaev's papers but this is the first time I have come across Ruchkin or Nikolaev.  The high COP's quoted are borne out by my current theoretical work where the separation between magnetization and demagnetization are in the time domain as done by SEMP.  I can get ridiculously high COP's so before publishing my findings I am examining the assumptions that could be wrong.  One assumption is that the input energy needed to move from a fully or partially demagnetized state B to fully magnetized Bsat is given by (Bsat-B)*Hc/2 multiplied by the volume of the core where Hc is the coercive force.  This says Hc is a constant that does not increase if the remanant magnetism has a fast decay, which is at odds with the presumption that the thermal agitation causing the decay will affect the magnetizing process and will increase Hc.  While that presumption will satify the adherents to Conservation of Energy, it seems practical evidence shows it not to be true.  SEMP claim Hc is reduced by their carbonizing process, not increased.  I have turned my attention to assuming the excess energy coming out of the ferromagnetic material reduces the heat energy in the material, which seems reasonable as we know this demagnetization is a thermal effect.  I am currently modifying my spreadsheet that computes things at a series of small time increments to include the temperature drop of the material at each time step.  So far this is looking good as I am getting small fractions of a degree at each time step, so the possibility of this system converting environmental heat into electrical energy looks good.  Clearly the cooling of the core material can be offset by thermal conduction of heat energy from the outside environment.  I think this overlooked area of EM needs to be actively researched.

Smudge   
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1690
Smudge,

Here are two more Russian papers, one on the subject and the other interesting.

Regards,
Pm
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1987
@Smudge

I always enjoy reading you because there's enthusiasm, ideas, facts and logic.
But I don't understand your method. Are you hoping to demonstrate OU using the classical formalism of physics? If so, you won't have found the OU, but an error in the equations of physics which, as everyone knows, guarantee the conservation of energy.
If I can understand a physical phenomenon that could produce free energy, such as tapping into an almost inexhaustible new source, it's not the conventional equations of physics that would demonstrate this, but experimentation. And then we'll have to see whether the equations of physics are wrong, or whether it's just that we hadn't integrated the hidden source of energy.
If I assume you're in the latter case, which I'm not sure you are, then what do you think the hidden source is? Where would the supposed OU come from? What will be depleted when used?  Or is your idea that of a type 1 perpetual motion machine?



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1987

Regarding the Russian papers, I'd like someone to explain to me how an electron in a secondary circuit can be sensitive to the electric or magnetic field of an electron in the primary circuit, without the electron in the primary circuit detecting the electron in the secondary circuit.

According to Maxwell's electromagnetism, this is impossible. According to special relativity, which is totally compatible with electromagnetism, it's also impossible, and it's even easier to understand why: it's impossible to distinguish source from load, it's a question of simple relative motion between charges and an arbitrary convention for saying what's "source" and what's "load", or what's "primary" and what's "secondary".

These articles claiming huge COPs, which I had already seen a few years ago, seem to me highly far-fetched.

Asymmetrical coupling between coils is possible by mechanical means:
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.213903
But as mentioned, it's "circumventing", and if you include the rotating part in the energy balance, everything still conforms to classical electromagnetism.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1872
@F6,
I am following the known laws that give the electrical energy needed to magnetize a closed transformer core using known Bsat and Hc. I then allow Brem to decay with time while, during that decay, voltage is induced into a coil connected to a load resistor.  Lenz's law means the current there creates a field opposes the decay, hence slows down that decay.  I find the energy into the resistor exceeds the magnetization energy when the resistor falls below a certain value.  If this does really happen then there must be a source for the excess energy.  Since the decay of Brem is a thermal effect I see the heat energy stored in the core as the source, and the core temperature must fall.  To continually obtain excess energy by repeating the mag/demag process the core must have thermal energy supplied to it from the outside environment.  Thus this could be a new means of doing that, converting thermal energy into electrical energy.  No new physical laws are needed, it is simply doing something that has not been done before.  You may  claim that getting electrical energy out cannot exceed the electrical energy in on the basis that the energy is first converted to magnetic energy then converted back the other way from magnetic to electric.  I would point out that transformers do not work that way, the electrcal energy per cycle in and out far exceeds magnetic energy in the core.  The laws of physics do not preclude the magnetic field being the carrier between thermal agitation input driving load current opposing that input in a similar manner to AC primary current driving AC secondary load current that opposes.

Smudge

(Typed on my phone so may have typos)
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1872
Regarding the Russian papers, I'd like someone to explain to me how an electron in a secondary circuit can be sensitive to the electric or magnetic field of an electron in the primary circuit, without the electron in the primary circuit detecting the electron in the secondary circuit.
Because there is an intermediary that takes over, the direct electric or magnetic field from one electron to the other is of no consequence.

Quote
According to Maxwell's electromagnetism, this is impossible. According to special relativity, which is totally compatible with electromagnetism, it's also impossible, and it's even easier to understand why: it's impossible to distinguish source from load, it's a question of simple relative motion between charges and an arbitrary convention for saying what's "source" and what's "load", or what's "primary" and what's "secondary".

If you want to invoke Maxwell you need to consider much more than simple primary electron to secondary electron action, the intermediary huge number of interactions is far more complex. 

Smudge
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1987
...The laws of physics do not preclude the magnetic field being the carrier between thermal agitation input driving load current opposing that input in a similar manner to AC primary current driving AC secondary load current that opposes.
...

The laws of physics, in particular thermodynamics, forbid this. Electromagnetism does not prohibit it, but only at the level of each individual charge. On the other hand, the random thermal motion of particles prevents them from cooperating to obtain a macroscopic effect that would enable useful work to be done. The laws of physics guarantee the conservation of energy. It's not a question of physics, but of the pure mathematical logic of the formalism utilized to express these laws.
I'm not saying that the idea is bad, I'm saying that it can't be justified by the laws of physics.

Because there is an intermediary that takes over, the direct electric or magnetic field from one electron to the other is of no consequence.
 
If you want to invoke Maxwell you need to consider much more than simple primary electron to secondary electron action, the intermediary huge number of interactions is far more complex. 

Intermediaries only complicate engineering issues, not matters of principle.
When there's an intermediary, all you have to do is break down the analysis: [source] <=> [intermediary] and [intermediary] <=> [load].
As the principles apply to each pair, the intermediary brings nothing new but blurs the visibility. The paper I've already quoted is exemplary in this respect. The coupling between coils is asymmetrical, and we could claim victory - we've got a "magnetic diode", we'll be able to break the conservation of energy! But not at all. When you break the system down into two parts, coil 1 <=> rotating part and rotating part <=> coil 2, everything is explained and in the end you have nothing new, just a clever system for practical applications, but still strictly respecting the laws of physics and the conservation of energy.



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1872
@F6,

The Curie magnetic pendulum is a perpetual motion machine that works.  It could be used to do useful work e.g. by a ratchet mechanism raising a weight.  Clearly it is very inefficient but if the heat energy supplied were free you would get free energy.  So here we have thermal energy influencing the magnetization of ferromagnetic material that by your reasoning cannot work.  What do you say to that?

Smudge
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2666
F6FLT
Quote
The laws of physics, in particular thermodynamics, forbid this. Electromagnetism does not prohibit it, but only at the level of each individual charge. On the other hand, the random thermal motion of particles prevents them from cooperating to obtain a macroscopic effect that would enable useful work to be done. The laws of physics guarantee the conservation of energy. It's not a question of physics, but of the pure mathematical logic of the formalism utilized to express these laws.
I'm not saying that the idea is bad, I'm saying that it can't be justified by the laws of physics.

Nonsense and to a large extent your assertion has already been proven false by meta and nano materials.
https://physics.aps.org/articles/v8/127
Exorcising Maxwell’s Demon

Yours is an outdated concept which Feynman touched on supposing we could never build a small enough lever to act on the atomic level. This relating to Maxwell's notion of a demon small enough to cherry pick or discriminate individual energy levels. Note this is 18th century thinking by old men using outdated and flawed concepts.

The moment I heard scientists were building atomic scale machines it became obvious to me that Feynman was misguided and wrong. The only objection he had was that we could not interact on that level but now we are in fact doing just that.

Here are some more clues...
https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/202212/plants.cfm
New Models Expand Thermodynamics to Humidity-Driven Engines That Mimic Plants

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a16045/evaporation-engine/
Here Is the World's First Engine Driven by Nothing But Evaporation

Here we can see intelligent minds at work that can actually evolve. We are not separate from nature but an integral part of it. Can your glorious physicists build a seed which extracts energy from it's environment for decades, which can grow, self-repair and self-engineer itself resulting in a 300 foot tree?. In fact, they are completely ignorant as to why this happens and have zero insight how to replicate it. So ya, we have a very long way to go before we can start patting each other on the back on how clever we are.

AC





---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   

Newbie
*

Posts: 44


---------------------------
“Never interrupt someone doing what you said couldn't be done.” -- Amelia Earhart
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 258
"Falling water drops power LEDs"
https://physicsworld.com/a/falling-water-drops-power-leds/

The article just claims it is conversion of gravitational potential energy, but doesn't really offer evidence.

Here is the paper - which is rather more circumspect about the origins of the power.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-1985-6.epdf?sharing_token=2CE4W2eQkdfO1JWrhhLhrNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Oic35Arf_rjxvOyqSqJsyRUVgVtjzGTDm5Bz1Kp5ynWw_SjEqIYpBJJmR_rxMziEXg_Fv0jTybdLtfWIdeHWua2DAHrI_zDwlON4xQsqzz8ejtAwcgOEk-Vop3dq4DqB4hIw8s1e2MrTjoft5Ypx7CFP6L50ghwWDSUnGnEEo3BgpyR3tHCkt_R-YFrKk49h4%3D&tracking_referrer=physicsworld.com

If you look for TENG or triboelectric nanogenerators you will find much more of these. Again we see a case of where a form of "friction" can produce a form of electric potential energy which then can be turned into electric kinetic energy by dropping it across a load to heat the environment. Yet no exact measurements are ever made in how much "rubbing power" this really cost and instead baseless assumptions are made like "the source is gravity or people walking over a TENG". Now TENGs are not very power dense and depend a lot on the surface areas (I barely got any power on mine), but we shouldn't be limited to only the triboelectric effect to extract energy, there is a whole world of magnetism out there that can do something very similar. TENGs will be useful when we attain full mastery of the world of friction.

Because when we do the power density can be frightening:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-25753-7



"Negative" friction should finally be seen for what it really is. A limitless source of energy in the short term and perhaps the answer to everything in the long run.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGUDResR96M
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1987
F6FLT
Nonsense and to a large extent your assertion has already been proven false by meta and nano materials.
https://physics.aps.org/articles/v8/127
Exorcising Maxwell’s Demon
...

Before talking about nonsense, you should at least understand the papers you yourself offer.

Maxwell demons actually seem to be a good possibility of bypassing the laws of thermodynamics, I have always said it, but not the others (because the energy is always conserved, the demon of Maxwell or not. If you believe the opposite, I will explain to you why).
And no so-called "Maxwell demon" defaulting the laws of thermodynamics was produced.

It is well expressed in your paper:
"This doesn’t mean that the second law is breakable, but rather that physicists need to find a way to carefully formulate it to describe specific situations. In the case of Maxwell’s demon, for example, some of the entropy production has to be identified with the information gained by the demon."

So your comments are as radical as they are false, and certainly false because they are radical, whereas in science doubt must be the rule, and proof by observation and measurement of real phenomena must be demanded.
We've also seen your delirious objections in electromagnetism, where you spoke of the absolute reality of the magnetic field when it's a notion relative to the observer. It's not by making fanciful interpretations or cherry-picking in a literature that you have no mastery of at all, that you can hope to bring me contradiction, contradiction that I'm ready to accept when there's a minimum of logic and facts  C.C.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1987
...
Because when we do the power density can be frightening:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-25753-7
...

Very impressive !   O0


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Jr. Member
**

Posts: 94
This is how the Wimshurst and even Van der Graaf electrostatic machines work. It's possible that Testatica worked that way too.
   
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-05-23, 08:13:44