On 02/08/2010 03:38 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen A. Lawrence > >> I'm not going to pretend I can follow the reasoning here. Sorry... > > > Well, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. > > If it helps to slake your thirst for nano-insight on this subject, here is > the same story from a different slant - the breakdown of Planck's "law" at > the nanoscale: > > http://www.physorg.com/news168101848.html > http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=11917.php > > > "For the first time, however, MIT researchers have achieved this feat, and > determined that the heat transfer can be 1,000 times greater than [Planck's] > law predicts." > > Note: no one suggests a violation of CoE,
CoE has *nothing* to do with the issues here. CoE is first law. We're talking about second law. > and therefore greater emission on > the nano-structured surface (superradiance) will be compensated elsewhere. Jones, you snipped all but the bit where I said I didn't understand the analogy with oscillators. (Do you understand it?) In any event it's an analogy, nothing more, and doesn't directly address the issue of blackbody radiation and second law violations. In particular, you snipped this question: How do you propose to "compensate" the alleged violation by subradiance "elsewhere" if an object is uniformly coated with nanoparticles? Where is "elsewhere"? Do you know the answer? You also snipped the observation that nanoparticles won't radiate long wavelengths, but also won't absorb them, so a surface consisting of nanoparticles will be transparent to long wavelengths. Did you overlook that, or dismiss it? You also snipped the bit where I questioned your apparent attribution of my argument (very slightly paraphrased) to someone else. Did you overlook that? > That can't be too difficult to grasp, once you get past the false belief > that Planck's "law" is really a Law, instead of a general observation that > proved correct within the limitations of its relevant time frame. As you may not have noticed, I wasn't quoting Planck's law. Rather, I gave the argument, based directly on the second law of thermodynamics, which you attributed to Brian Ahern. The conclusion is that if you can make a surface which radiates a different spectrum from a normal blackbody, but is none the less not transparent or reflective at the "missing" wavelengths, then you can build a perpetual motion machine of the second kind using that surface. Do you understand that? > > >
