ABC Machine Poll

[Ahmed]

Thank you for your comments.
You will note that on the second point concerning the weakness of the work mentioned, I had taken care to specify: "if it exists". I had in fact in memory a story of a kettle supposed to produce slightly more heat than the quantity of electricity injected ("the Dumas effect"), a performance which was due only to rudimentary measuring devices, a misunderstanding of this domain and perhaps very strong assumptions ...
Indeed, a tiny quantity of something can conceal an immense potential, except obviously if this small quantity requires a significant investment, which prohibits the multiplication in mass. Your example of chloroplasts is the perfect counter-illustration.

[eclectron]

no no, these effects are not "often very weak". They are of zero power. It is important to understand this.

this is wrong, the graphene veil vibrates in an organized movement (not regular but organized) at a frequency of the order of KHz.
There is indeed production of a work from thermal fluctuations.

[ABC2019]

no no, these effects are not "often very weak". They are of zero power. It is important to understand this.

this is wrong, the graphene veil vibrates in an organized movement (not regular but organized) at a frequency of the order of KHz.
There is indeed production of a work from thermal fluctuations.

said the totally incompetent guy who can't even solve a classic first-year thermodynamic problem, and has never been able to quantify the change in entropy once he has produced this famous "job" ....

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Strengthened by his inability to demonstrate anything, the jocrisse hardens his tone and is no longer anything other than the demeaning of the other. Magnificent !

[ABC2019]

Fortified by his inability to demonstrate anything ...

MDR ... I demonstrated to you that if a system produced a work W from a source at a single temperature T, the entropy of the Universe decreases by -W / T, and that is impossible because the 2nd principle says that it cannot decrease but at best remain constant, or increase.

Everything explained there and it has been known for more than 150 years:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuxième_ ... odynamique

what more do you need as a demonstration? the difference between "increasing" and "decreasing" may be too complicated for you? How do you say then ... when you fill your bathtub by opening the tap, with the plug closed, the water level increases, and when you close the tap, and you open the plug, the level decreases. Is it clearer like this ?

but hey if you are unable to understand the demonstrations given to you, you will never be convinced, that's for sure ...

[Remundo]

people will not be receptive to the 2nd principle of thermodynamics, which is well established in practice, and indeed theoretically is based on statistics.

there are nevertheless sometimes kinds of "thing (e) s" which produce a little orderly work unexpectedly, but in general it can be explained by internal imbalances, eg of temperature (but not exclusively). These imbalances causing flows and / or conversions (of matter or energy) from which a part can be taken.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

but hey if you are unable to understand the demonstrations given to you, you will never be convinced, that's for sure ...

Never convinced by a guy who talks about what he doesn't know, which did not exist 150 years ago (graphene nanotubes), who admits it himself, no, never indeed.

[ABC2019]

I said impossible to extract work from a single temperature source , we totally agree.

Obviously the proof requires that it be the same temperature everywhere so that if W = QQ '> 0, then the entropy variation (Q'-Q) / T is necessarily negative. If it is not the same temperature, you can very well have QQ '> 0 but Q' / T'-Q / T> 0 too. The maximum efficiency is (1-T '/ T) so it will be "low" but not zero if T' is a little below T.

The impossibility is of course only demonstrated if T = T '.

[ABC2019]

Never convinced by a guy who talks about what he doesn't know, which did not exist 150 years ago (graphene nanotubes), who admits it himself, no, never indeed.

that means that you are impervious to the notion of fundamental principle of physics. Galileo stated that all the laws of physics remained the same when moving at constant speed, regardless of that speed (i.e. an experiment will always give you the same result as you do in a TGV, in the train station, or in a space probe going to Mars.)

He didn't know electricity, relativity, or particle physics, and yet that holds true with all the new physics that was invented afterwards. The fundamentals are VERY powerful.

If you don't accept them, it's because you think you live in a Harry Potter world where anything is possible. Except that we never built anything by believing that, whereas by respecting the principles of physics, we built all the devices that you use, including the computer on which you type. It also made it possible to send a probe on Mars which will land in a few hours if we did not make a mistake while building it.

Believing in the principles of physics makes you much more powerful than not believing in them.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Except that today, everything is shattered. Dark matter, multiverse, dark energy, etc, etc ... Only there are some who do not even want to consider new possibilities. I didn't say "I believe it", but I didn't say "I don't believe it" either. Doubt is in order, except for psychorigides.