> >Maybe your time is before the old carbon element phones where we turned a >crank to ring the phone of whom we were calling and often found that the >noise from the 'mouth piece' element was extreme an higher that our voice >signal?
>Since these used an external current (supplied by the hand cranked >generator), I don't think this example really makes your point >very well. Well the voltage came from batteries, the crank was to ring the other persons bell :-) Yes and No. The device was a variable carbon resistor which did indeed change resistance from the sound pressure, yet conditions existed where the transmitter became impacted and of course transmitted sound dropped, yet under some of these conditions the background noise increased many db, which was a signal to hit the transmitter on the table to free the particles. Sound returned and background noise dropped. Yes there are other answers to this, but I also remember using HV low current supply and amplifier on composite carbon resistors to sort out the quite ones for high gain amps. In this case I guess we must assume the glue did not affix to all particles and they were physically moving at some micro level to generate the noise. If I remember correctly the engineers at GTE were serious about this be 'Thermal Noise'. Granted this again was under the HV potential. Correct me if I'm wrong, but under the current view of heat, is it not thought to be a vibration or oscillation of the electrons set in motion by additional energy? If this is correct, would this not then additionally manifest itself in a time varying EM field? >Furthermore, I suspect that the noise you refer to was >primarily generated by graphite particles making and breaking >contact with one another under influence from the voice itself. >IOW no voice -> no noise. However I think I have used such a >device maybe once in my lifetime, so my memory isn't all that good >on that score. -----Original Message----- From: Robin van Spaandonk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 4:58 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: 2nd law of thermodynamics is incorrect
