"Can the Second Law of Thermodynamics Be Circumvented?"

"Great spirits have always encountered violent oppositions from
mediocre minds." - A. Einstein

The validity of the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics
seems to be beyond question. Under the first law, the total energy content
of a
closed system must remain constant. Under the second law, the availability
of
that energy for useful purposes must always decrease or remain constant. In
effect, the First Law of Thermodynamics states that you can't win and the
Second
Law states that, furthermore, you can't break even. The First Law of
Thermodynamics is unquestionably true, energy can neither be created nor
destroyed, General Relativity not withstanding. The Second Law of
Thermodynamics
stands on less firm ground because it is a law based upon statistics. As
such,
it is in the same category as an actuarial table. An insurance company can
predict quite accurately how many people will die in a given year. They
cannot
predict who those people will be. Statistical laws are valid for large
numbers
of events; they become less significant as the number of events is reduced.
As
an example, if one patronizes a casino, he might initially win a large sum
of
money playing a slot machine, but if he continues to play he not only will
give
all his winnings back to the casino, he will sustain a significant loss. The
question then arises as to whether it is possible to by-pass the Second Law
of
Thermodynamics though the use of nanomachines. (A nanomachine is a mechanism
whose significant dimensions are measured in nanometers, the size scale of
atoms.)

One who observes Brownian motion in a microscope might
reasonably conclude that, in principle at least, a nanomachine could be
built
which would bypass the Second Law of Thermodynamics. When a liquid
containing
microscopic particles is observed, the particles are seen to be in
continuous
(Brownian) motion. That motion is caused by random thermal impacts between
the
molecules of the liquid and the particles. If the thermal motion of water
molecules can produce a visibly observable motion in particles which are at
least 10^15 times as massive, it certainly not unreasonable to believe that
suitable nanomachines could organize the effect to produce a useful
mechanical
output. The postulated nanomachines would then be able to export energy to
the
outside environment that it obtained by reducing the temperature of the
liquid.
The exported energy would be converted to heat and raise the temperature of
the
external environment as the output performed useful work. The resultant
temperature difference between the environment and the liquid will then
cause
the energy which had done useful work to flow back into the liquid to return
it
to its original temperature and allows the process to continue indefinitely.

James Clark Maxwell proposed a hypothetical perpetual motion
machine, known as Maxwell's Demon, which was not proven to be theoretically
unworkable for 75 years. In that machine, Maxwell imagined that a demon
controlled a microscopic gate between two gas filled chambers. Making use of
the
fact that, in a gas, the velocity of the molecules is random and that the
temperature of the gas is determined by the mean velocity of those
molecules,
Maxwell proposed the concept that, if an appropriate demon existed, he could
sense the speed of molecules approaching the gate and open the gate only
when a
fast molecule approached it from one side or when a slow molecule approached
it
from the other side. By operating the gate in this manner, the demon would
sort
the molecules so that one chamber contained fast molecules and the other
chamber
contained slow molecules. Since the temperature of a gas is determined by
the
mean velocity of its molecules, such a process will maintain a temperature
difference between the chambers that can be exploited to produce useful work
in
a direct violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It took 75 years
before
a rigorous proof was found which was able to show that the energy required
for
Maxwell's Demon to identify the fast and slow molecules and allow the gate
to
operate was at least as great as the energy that could be released and
Maxwell's
Demon was shown to be an unworkable concept.

There is a modification to the concept of Maxwell's Demon for
which there is, at least as yet, no valid theoretical objection. Suppose
that
the two chambers of the Maxwell's Demon example no longer rely on a demon
but
are separated by a diffusion membrane having a permeability from side A to
side
B which is higher than the permeability from side B to side A, as shown in
the
figure shown in http://einsteinhoax.com/cf153.gif . The energy required to
allow
the membrane to make the decisions it needs to make in order for it to
function
in this manner is available in the kinetic energy of the gas molecules
passing
through it. In diffusing through the membrane, molecules can provide the
energy
needed by being slowed from their average room temperature velocity of about
1300 feet per second to a much lower exit velocity. The lower velocity of
the
gas leaving the membrane means that side B is colder than the ambient
temperature. The loss of kinetic energy by the molecules as they pass though
membrane provides the energy required to operate the differential diffusion
mechanism in the membrane pores, and the membrane becomes warmer than the
ambient temperature. If the surface areas are sufficiently large, the
temperature of the gas on both sides of the membrane and of the membrane
itself
must remain close to the temperature of the environment. As a result, the
pressure in chamber B will be higher than the pressure in chamber A. That
difference in pressure can be used to operate a turbine and provide useful
output power. As the gas flowing through the turbine produces output power,
the
chambers are cooled below the ambient temperature and energy flows from the
environment to the chambers to replace the energy delivered by the turbine.
The
arrangement would extract useful energy from its environment in direct
contradiction to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Conceptually, the membrane might be constructed with pores
that were covered by spring-loaded trapdoors, as shown in the figure
http://einsteinhoax.com/cf154.gif . In this illustration, a molecule
represented
by a ball approaches the right side of the membrane at a velocity, which was
appropriate to its temperature, knock the trapdoor open, and pass through
it. A
similar molecule approaching the trapdoor from the left side would bounce
back
and not pass through to the right side. When the molecule on the right
passed
through the trapdoor, it would lose most of its kinetic energy to the
trapdoor
and exit at a low velocity. As a result, the trapdoor and the membrane would
be
heated and the molecule which passed though it would be cooled. The process
would generate a local temperature difference that would quickly be
equalized by
any reasonable level of heat transfer.

The first theoretical objection to this type of perpetual
motion machine that the author has found in literature is that it cannot
work
because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This is hardly a valid
objection since the arrangement is specifically designed to bypass the
limitations of that law. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a statistical
law
and it is not binding on nanomachinery since such mechanisms deal with
molecules
on an individual basis and the pores of the assumed diffusion membranes
certainly qualify as nanomechanisms. (The Second Law of Thermodynamics, or
the
Law of Entropy increase if you prefer, does apply to the membrane itself and
to
the gas in the chambers since they involve large numbers of randomly
interacting
particles. It does not apply to the pores of the diffusion mechanism. Each
pore
is an independently acting nanomechanism and, as such, is not bound by the
Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy). The only other theoretical objection
that the author has found was provided in another book by Dr. Feynmann in
which
he described a nanomechanism consisting of a riverboat type of paddle wheel
mounted on a shaft inside a cylinder containing a fluid. The paddle wheel
was
bombarded by the random motion of the molecules of the fluid and caused the
shaft undergo a random rotary oscillation. To convert this motion to a
useful
output, an EXTERNAL one-way ratchet was attached to the shaft. Dr. Feynmann
then
demonstrated that the device would not work because the motion of the
ratchet
pawl would generate enough heat so that the resultant thermal molecular
motion
of the ratchet and pawl would make the pawl bounce sufficiently to render
the
one way mechanism inoperative.

From the description provided, it is obvious that, while Dr.
Feynmann is undoubtedly an excellent theoretical physicist, he is not as
effective as a design engineer. Relocating the ratchet mechanism to the
interior
of the fluid chamber must cool it close to the temperature of the fluid and
dampen its bounce. As a result, Dr. Feynmann's objections would vanish. When
the
model is modified, Dr. Feynmann probably would be forced to agree, that
unless
he could devise another objection, the concept should represent a physically
realizable device that would by-pass the Second Law of Thermodynamics. A
theoretical demonstration that the mechanism suggested by the author cannot
work
requires a proof that the permeability of all possible diffusion membranes
must
be the same in both directions. Deriving such a proof may be particularly
difficult because the pores of the required membrane are allowed to extract
energy from the molecules that pass though them. CONSIDERABLE EFFORT IS
JUSTIFIED IN DEVELOPING SUCH A PROOF. IF THAT PROOF CANNOT FOUND, THE
POSSIBILITY OF BUILDING A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE OF THE SECOND KIND IS NOT
FOOLISH AND AN ALL OUT EFFORT TO DEMONSTRATE IT IS JUSTIFIED. IF IT CAN BE
BUILT, SOCIETY WOULD HAVE AN INEXHAUSTIBLE A AND POLLUTION FREE SOURCE OF
ENERGY
THAT PROBABLY COULD BE SIZED FOR THE SMALLEST HOMES AND THE LARGEST
FACTORIES.

Please do not bombard the writer with the foolish objection
that the proposed mechanism can't work because it would violate the Second
Law
of Thermodynamics, it is designed to do just that, and please don't raise
the
objection that it can't work because the overall entropy of the Universe can
never be decreased. In this regard, the proposed mechanism is entropy
neutral.

The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax/hoax.htm ("The Einstein Hoax" {1997});
http://einsteinhoax/gravity.htm; ("Gravity" {1987}); and
http://einsteinhoax/relcor.htm ("Corrections to Special Relativity" {1997}).
EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE
WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND
IT MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.

All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm .

Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not
monitored on a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the
same
courtesy as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of
our
parts, please do not raise objections that are not related to material that
you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.

E-mail:-

The material at the Website has been posted continuously for
over 5 years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF
THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals
who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without questioning it.
If
anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered,
the
material at the Website will be withdrawn. Challenges to date have revealed
only
the responder's inadequacy with one exception for which a correction was
provided.

Egral wrote:
"Can the Second Law of Thermodynamics Be Circumvented?"


Thanks for registering "The Einstein Hoax" at crank dot net.
http://www.google.com/search?q=einst...Awww.crank.net

Egral wrote:

"Can the Second Law of Thermodynamics Be Circumvented?"

"Great spirits have always encountered violent oppositions from
mediocre minds." - A. Einstein

Oh the delicious irony of that quotation!

[snip 260 lines of ignorant crap]

http://www.freefarts.com/farts.html
Move cursor over blinkers to hear Retic's lecture.

Psychotic ineducable boring spammer retic (Ernest Wittke),

You see yourself this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete6.jpg
The entire remainder of the planet sees you this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete3.png

http://www.edu-observatory.org/cranks.html
http://www.pagetutor.com/idiot/idiot.html

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.swf
http://www.****inggoogleit.com/
http://www.meninhats.com/d/20040430.html
http://www.you-moron.com/
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...uthor%3Awittke
http://b5.sdvc.uwyo.edu/bab5/snds/argcstpd.wav

http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
http://www.firehead.org/~jessh/film/kubrick/Kubrick-Psycho.html
http://www.naturalchild.com/elliott_barker/prisons.html

The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999)
[snip]

Hey, stooopid spammer Ernest Wittke - Do you want EVIDENCE? Each of
the 24 GPS satellites carries either four cesium atomic clocks or
three rubidum atomic clocks in orbit, with full relativistic
corrections being applied. NAVSTAR Block II GPS satellites (currently
being launched as replacements) have two rubidium and two cesium
atomic clocks.

Internal inconsistencies in SR (meaning inconsistencies of a purely
mathematical logical nature) automatically lead to contradictions in
number theory, itself, and arithmetic, since the mathematics of
Minkowski geometry is equiconsistent with the theory of real numbers
and with arithmetic.

http://optoelectronics.perkinelmer.com/content/Datasheets/rfs2f.pdf

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html
Mathematics of gravitation
http://wugrav.wustl.edu/people/CMW/update98.pdf
http://www.astro.northwestern.edu/AspenW04/Papers/lorimer1.pdf
http://www.vallis.org/publications/tesidott.pdf
Equivalence Principle testing
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0111236
Geometric structure of reality
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0103044
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307140
GR structure, especially Part 4/p. 7
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html
http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html
Relativity in the GPS system
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
Amer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004)
falling light
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/flying_clock_math.pdf
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012
Hafele-Keating Experiment
http://www.hawaii.edu/suremath/SRtwinParadox.html
http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/twins.html
Twin Paradox
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-5/index.html
http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1473_1.asp
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0405160
Black hole evaporation
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0409089
Spin-2 gravitons have problems
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.strings/msg/ba31a00f5f26277a
(so does the proposal)
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411113
http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 261101 (2004)
Nordtvedt Effect
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403292
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310723
WMAP + Sloane Digital Sky Survey
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404175
Dark matter candidates
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll/frames.html
Carroll on what it all means.

Special Relativity is physics on a topologically trivial Lorentzian
manifold with a metric whose curvature tensor is zero. This is a
perfectly diffeomorphism-invariant condition and does not require
any particular coordinate choice. It is invariant under
the full group of diffeomorphisms. The Poincare group is
the group of *isometries* of the metric in special relativity.

The Special Relativity metric is *non-dynamical* (unlike GR). It
defines the coupling *constants* of your theory. If you change the
metric in any nontrivial way you are changing your theory. An
operation can only be called a "symmetry" of a special-relativistic
(non-gravitational) theory if it preserves the metric, and therefore
the symmetry of special-relativistic theories is the Poincare group
only. General Relativity (gravitation) has a dynamic metric.

NIM A 355 537 (1995)
Physics Letters B 328 103 (1994)
Physical Review Letters 64 1697 (1990)
Physical Review Letters 39 1051 (1977)
Physical Review 135 B1071 (1964)
Physics Letters 12 260 (1964)
Europhysics Letters 56(2) 170-174 (2001)
General Relativity and Gravitation 34(9) 1371 (2002)

http://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/ae_1905_error.htm
http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/finkelstein/relativity.pdf
Longitudinal and transverse mass
Physics Today 58(3) 34 (2005)
Time passage, equator vs. poles

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0306076.pdf
http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm
http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm
http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

If anyone
provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
material at the Website will be withdrawn.

Right, like your head has ever been withdrawn from your ass - even
when you ****.



--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...
[snip crap]
Idiot.
Androcles