In any case you're not the first one to challenge the 2nd law, some famous names have tried before you it seems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
If I was you I would study their work in depth, if only to make sure I don't duplicate it. E.g. have you looked into Feynman's brownian ratchet thought experiment BTW, and if so have you understood why it couldn't work according to him? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_ratchet Michel ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 2:05 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics > Michel Jullian wrote: > --- > > Ok I remember you mentioned something of the sort now. So the hard bit is > > to > make the material convert its thermal energy contents to electrical energy > obviously, the rest follows. > > > > Known thermoelectric devices e.g. thermocouples need temperature > differentials, what makes you think you don't need one? Something feels wrong > about that material of yours acting as a heat source getting cooler while > providing electricity without some of the heat going to a cooler place, what > makes the heat move in the first place? > --- > > > > Does something sound wrong about extracting energy from a room full of > basketballs bouncing all over the place? Does something sound wrong about > extracting energy from air gas molecules bouncing in a container? Does > something sound wrong about extracting energy from ferromagnetic atoms that > are > vibrating at roughly 20 trillion times per second? > > There's a well-known and well quoted physicists P.W. Bridgman, (1941), "There > are almost as many formulations of the second law as there have been > discussions > of it." Even the physicists at Wikipedia display that quote in the 2nd Law > of > Thermodynamics wiki page. > > The 2nd law of thermodynamics varies from physicist to physicist. Those who > adhere to a stricter version believe there's no available entropy in a closed > container of air at room temperature at a constant temperature. > > An electrical resistor generates electrical noise. There is no upper voltage > crest to such noise. The longer you wait the higher the probability the > observer will detect a higher voltage crest of such noise. Furthermore, > there > is no *true* voltage level at which an LED suddenly *completely* stops > emitting > photons. Place a microvolt on an LED and wait long enough and it will emit a > photon. Average those photons over time caused by that small voltage and it > will be above blackbody radiation level. Connect a noisy resistor across a > red > LED and it will emit red photons. That may not sound like a lot of energy, > and > it's not given one such unit (R & LED). Create a few hundred trillion of such > units and you have a good constant visible "free energy" light source. Such a > unit could be several hundred nanometers is diameter, depending on the LED's > wavelength. > > > > > > Any experimental support for your theory? > > > Yes, I have my proof. Initially I had three unique experiments that > demonstrated > energy extraction from ambient temperature. 1. MCE. 2. R & LED. 3. T-ray > lens. > The first, MCE, was ridiculously difficult to replicate for various reasons > ranging from the nanocrystalline and amorphous cores sensitivity to external > electromagnetic fields and the sensitive temperature sensing nature of the > experiment. Theretofore I no longer demonstrate experiment #1 since > experiment > #2 & #3 is sufficient. I will demonstrate such proof to any scientist who > signs > papers thereby promising they will dedicate a minimum amount of time per > month > on such research. > > Getting people to work on such research in private is one thing given live > demonstrations to appeal their skepticism. Getting people to publicly work on > such research is another story. The balls already rolling. Truthfully I set > up > a system so not even I could halt this research at this point, which was the > goal. > > > Regards, > Paul Lowrance > > > > > > > > > > Michel > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 12:23 AM > > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics > > > > > >> Actually I wouldn't use the term "atmosphere" to describe the energy > >> source. > >> The output of such a device would be electricity. Lets say an appliance is > >> connected to the device and energy is given the appliance. The device, > >> more > >> specifically the magnetic material, would cool down. The device would cool > >> down > >> and reach thermal equilibrium due to thermal conduction. So we have a > >> device > >> that's colder than room temperature and an appliance that is receiving > >> energy. > >> Most appliances simply return the energy in the form of heat. In a > >> nutshell, > >> energy is flowing from the device to the appliance to the air and back to > >> the > >> device. > >> > >> I've posted and attempted to explain how the MEG works. Such attempts at > >> explaining the process have been a waste of time. Even a simple outlined > >> explanation of the MCE process seems to be a waste of time. It just seems > >> most > >> physicists are uninterested. Perhaps they disbelieve ... who knows why. I > >> feel > >> like a legitimate unheard person shouting "Wolf." > >> > >> Regards, > >> Paul Lowrance > >> > >> > >> > >> Michel Jullian wrote: > >>> For calculus I can't help for lack of time I am afraid. Maybe you could > >> consider using software for that, Mathematica does wonders at solving > >> tricky > >> integrals and such. > >>> Besides I must admit I don't understand much of what you're writing, > >>> knowing > >> very little about magnetism. I understand your aim is to use magnetic > >> material > >> as a kind of heat pump to draw heat from the atmosphere, but that's about > >> all. > >> Maybe you should make your explanations shorter and more practical. > >> Suppose > your > >> theory works as you expect, can you briefly describe the energy extraction > >> device workings, order of magnitude of the size, the form of energy it > >> would > >> output? (heat, electricity?) > >>> Michel > >>> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > >>> Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 7:09 PM > >>> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics > >>> > >>> > >>>> Please read the plea for help in this research at the bottom of this > >>>> post. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Michel Jullian wrote: > >>>>> Paul the "how" question may be premature, the last I remember you had > >>>> convincingly shown that total magnetic field energy increased when two > >>>> magnets > >>>> got attracted to each other, in addition to their kinetic energy > >>>> increasing, > >> but > >>>> couldn't the sum of these two energy increases be exactly equal to the > >>>> energy > >>>> you must expend to separate them in the first place? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Michel, you are correct, as far as I know it requires the same energy to > >>>> separate the magnets. Actually it should require more energy to > >>>> separate > since > >>>> there's always some energy loss such as radiation. > >>>> > >>>> Personally the idea of "getting something from nothing" has always been > >>>> unattractive. Therefore my research has always been about capturing > >>>> ambient > >>>> temperature energy. IOW, atoms, electrons, molecules are moving and > >> vibrating at > >>>> room temperature-- electron velocity ~1/200 c. The average temperature > >>>> of our > >>>> planet is obviously sustained by the Sun. Therefore it's been my goal to > >> capture > >>>> that ambient temperature energy. > >>>> > >>>> I've simulated this far too many times in my head, which is one reason > >>>> I'm > >>>> coding the simulation software. The idea is that a magnetic avalanche > consists > >>>> of magnetic atoms rotating and precessing in a avalanche. Such a rotating > >>>> magnetic field of each rotating atom generates radiation. Nearly all of > >>>> such > >>>> radiation is absorbed by the magnetic material. Such radiation causes > >>>> the > >>>> magnetic material to heat up, which is first half of the MCE > >>>> (Magnetocaloric > >>>> effect) process. When the applied field is removed the aligned magnetic > moments > >>>> want to say in alignment, and therefore it requires energy to break the > >> magnetic > >>>> moment alignments. It is known that magnetic materials near absolute > >>>> zero > >>>> Kelvin stay aligned without any applied field. The reason the magnetic > moments > >>>> in magnetic materials at room temperature break alignment is due to > >>>> ambient > >>>> temperature. This removes energy from the magnetic materials ambient > >>>> temperature, which is why magnetic materials cool down when the applied > >> field is > >>>> removed. > >>>> > >>>> The idea is to capture enough of such radiation to overcome all losses > >>>> while > >>>> providing enough energy to self-sustain the machine while providing > >>>> useful > >>>> energy output. > >>>> > >>>> The above is a vague description of my research and cannot possibly > >>>> convey > what > >>>> I've learned, as the technique of extracting this energy is very > >>>> complex. A > >>>> researcher in this field will initially see interesting concepts such as > >>>> vibrating atoms have no rotation preference. Example, lets say the coil > >>>> influences more magnetic moments to rotate in a clockwise rotational > >>>> direction > >>>> in the avalanches. Although there is a great deal of rotational friction > >>>> in > >>>> common magnetic materials, you will note that vibrating atoms do no have > >>>> a > >>>> rotational preference. IOW, consider a single atom that we'll call X. A > >>>> neighboring atom could influence a counter-clockwise rotational force on > >> atom X. > >>>> Next, another neighboring atom could influence a clockwise rotational > force on > >>>> atom X. The average rotational force on atom X is zero. > >>>> > >>>> Such a researcher will also understand *saturated* magnetic material > >>>> absorbs > >>>> appreciably less radiation. Another key note to such research is > understanding > >>>> the magnetic entropy in magnetic material during various situations. For > >>>> example, a fully saturated magnetic toroid at absolute zero Kelvin has > >>>> zero > >>>> internal magnetic entropy. Magnetic material at Curie temperature has > close to > >>>> maximum internal magnetic entropy. The amount of magnetic entropy at > >>>> say > 300K > >>>> greatly varies from material to material. I theorize nanocrystalline and > >>>> amorphous magnetic materials possess relatively high magnetic entropy at > >>>> room > >>>> temperatures. The idea is to influence maximum magnetic entropy > >>>> followed > by an > >>>> energy extraction technique. On many occasions I have attempted to > >>>> mentally > >>>> simulate the MEG. Such mental simulations indicate the precise permanent > >> magnet > >>>> within the MEG will greatly increase the magnetic entropy within the > >>>> magnetic > >>>> material. Hopefully my simulation will confirm this and lead to an > >>>> improved > >>>> design that will work on common silicon iron. One concern is that such > >>>> energy > >>>> would mostly come from the inner core, which would cause rapid inner core > >>>> temperature changes. Such temperature changes would require a circuit > >>>> that > >>>> adapts to such changes to maintain COP > 1.0. > >>>> > >>>> That's an outline. What boggles my mind is physicists publicly ignore > >>>> this > >>>> research. Why? It sure would be nice if other qualified physicists would > >>>> publicly contribute to this research. IMHO the evidence is as clear as > >>>> day > this > >>>> is a source of "free energy" obtainable with present technology. My only > >>>> purpose posting now a days is to gain help in this research. No offense > >>>> intended to cold fusion and ZPE research, but it boggles my mind why > >>>> people > >>>> would continue such unknown territory when there's a guaranteed > >>>> alternative. > >> All > >>>> that's required is a strong fundamental understanding of > >>>> electromagnetism, > >> which > >>>> I could teach to even a child within a few weeks time. I am good at > >>>> computer > >>>> programming and deep thinking, but my Calculus is somewhat rusty, which > >>>> has > >>>> already delayed my research over two months. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> Paul Lowrance >
