ABC Machine Poll

[ABC2019]

on the one hand nothing of this "new physics" contradicts the great principles of physics, any more as I told you that nuclear physics or relativity did not contradict them.

On the other hand for the moment these are essentially hypotheses: dark energy machines, you will show me when you have seen one .... but even if it exists, it will not contradict the second principle.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

On the other hand for the moment these are essentially hypotheses: dark energy machines, you will show me when you have seen one .... but even if it exists, it will not contradict the second principle.

Well let's see, môssieur is sure.

[Remundo]

I am not going to look for "dark energy", if anyone can define it.

the debate is undoubtedly badly posed ...

1) are we here for or against the 2nd principle?

2) or do we want to discuss serenely any machines from which we extract something unexpectedly?

For the 1) the fact of arching on the 2nd principle does not get very far. The 2nd principle is acquired, OK.

But for the 2), understanding fine or new things within the material would be much more constructive.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

I'm neither for nor against the second principle, I'm just saying that there are "principles" that have been shattered throughout the history of discoveries and that we are not at the end of our surprises. We are far from having understood everything, analyzed everything, explored everything. And then there's God in all of this (no, I'm kidding ...).

[ABC2019]

I am not going to look for "dark energy", if anyone can define it.

the debate is undoubtedly badly posed ...

1) are we here for or against the 2nd principle?

2) or do we want to discuss serenely any machines from which we extract something unexpectedly?

what do you call "unexpectedly"?
If you admit the second principle, we know very well what it takes to extract work (electrical energy for example). We need an out of equilibrium system which reaches its equilibrium state by lowering its free enthalpy G = U + pV -TS.
The non-equilibrium systems which can release free enthalpy are for example:
* hydrocarbons in the presence of oxygen (stable state: CO2 + H2O)
* high water that can descend (hydroelectric dams): stable state, water at minimum altitude
* moving fluids; winds, sea currents etc ... stable state: still fluid
* solar photons which can degrade in infrared.
* any difference in temperature, salinity, etc ... can in principle provide energy, the stable state being equal temperatures, salinity, etc ...
* nuclei less stable than iron which can crack if they are heavier, or merge if they are lighter, iron being the core of minimum energy: stable state, iron.
* generally any redox couple which can undergo a spontaneous redox reaction (battery principle)

well there are a certain number of them, most of them are already known, we have already tried just about everything, retaining the most productive; after big surprises are always possible, but still quite improbable ....

[ABC2019]

I'm neither for nor against the second principle, I'm just saying that there are "principles" that have been shattered

You can still believe in science fiction. What is not admissible is to claim that something does not violate a principle, when it is false, it does violate it. This is what is unforgivable with Thibado as a physicist, to claim that what he seeks to do would not violate any known principle, when it is false, that would violate them. At this level it is professional misconduct, and therefore incompetence.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

I'm neither for nor against the second principle, I'm just saying that there are "principles" that have been shattered

You can still believe in science fiction. What is not admissible is to claim that something does not violate a principle, when it is false, it does violate it. This is what is unforgivable with Thibado as a physicist, to claim that what he seeks to do would not violate any known principle, when it is false, that would violate them. At this level it is professional misconduct, and therefore incompetence.

It's you who is saying it.

[ABC2019]

I'm neither for nor against the second principle, I'm just saying that there are "principles" that have been shattered

You can still believe in science fiction. What is not admissible is to claim that something does not violate a principle, when it is false, it does violate it. This is what is unforgivable with Thibado as a physicist, to claim that what he seeks to do would not violate any known principle, when it is false, that would violate them. At this level it is professional misconduct, and therefore incompetence.

It's you who is saying it.

he implicitly confirmed it by stopping to answer me when I demonstrated it to him, otherwise he had no reason not to correct my error. And no one else told you what was wrong in my reasoning, which I remind you is nothing more than what is repeated in all thermo lessons.

I remind you of the link if you forgot it

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

"Any transformation of a thermodynamic system takes place with increase in global entropy including the entropy of the system and the external environment. We then say that there is entropy creation. "

(nowhere is it written that this is only valid for "traditional thermal machines")

We also find one of the historical statements of the second principle of thermodynamics by considering the case where
TC = TF
In this case, the efficiency is zero and the motor therefore does not provide any work. This constitutes Thomson's statement of the second principle:

« A system in contact with a single source can, during a cycle, only receive work and provide heat. »
- William Thomson, 1852

William Thomson, ennobled Lord Kelvin, who gave his name to the absolute temperature scale. Nobody noticed that he had been wrong for 150 years except eclectron, you realize!

[Obamot]

That remains your hypothesis ... I absolutely do not see why, on the contrary, he would not have told you:
- “Ah yes sorry you are right ..." [And so on]

So maybe it's you who are wrong ...

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Impossible, it would go against the second commandment.