ABC Machine Poll

[eclectron]

So if for my part I willingly agree to the 2nd principle in thermodynamics, I remain a little circumspect in other aspects of nature which do not systematically converge towards disorder.

However, I do not dream of making a monothermal engine. What the 2nd principle says, physically, is that only imbalances physicocical quantities can generate usable ordered work.

In addition: by only looking at the temperature, which by definition is related to the standard deviation of a particle speed distribution, inevitably, by averaging everything, we become myopic.
We no longer see the thermal agitation in its detail.
This thermal agitation is random, but the randomness occasionally creates conditions which seem locally organized.
the monatomic veil of graphene vibrates to the rhythm of these random "organizations".
This vibration is almost regular and the graphene veil coupled with thermal agitation can be likened to an engine.

[reinoso]

However, I do not dream of making a monothermal engine.

Mr Thibado never claimed to have manufactured a monothermal engine, he even said the opposite in his answer

but when a minus (without significant publication to his credit) allows himself to be treated as a crook (and on several occasions)
I jump to the ceiling ( I repeat again that we should enforce this forum a minimum of ethics)

[Christophe]

( I repeat again that we should enforce this forum a minimum of ethics)

Scientific ethics you mean?

[reinoso]

( I repeat again that we should enforce this forum a minimum of ethics)

Scientific ethics you mean?

yes a little more ethics ... especially scientific
but it can be more general with more courtesy or otherwise ...

[reinoso]

( I repeat again that we should enforce this forum a minimum of ethics)

Scientific ethics you mean?

yes a little more ethics ... especially scientific
but it can be more general with more courtesy or otherwise ...

I especially think of certain (more than 5000 posts) with more than half in pure denigration and often insults on people
having publications (therefore more or less recognized)

[Ahmed]

The self-organization of dissipative structures, whether they are non-living or living and although, by definition, producers of negentropy in no way contravene the second law of thermodynamics, since they do not do so without a sample initial energy (hence their qualifier of dissipative).

[Remundo]

So if for my part I willingly agree to the 2nd principle in thermodynamics, I remain a little circumspect in other aspects of nature which do not systematically converge towards disorder.

However, I do not dream of making a monothermal engine. What the 2nd principle says, physically, is that only imbalances physicocical quantities can generate usable ordered work.

In addition: by only looking at the temperature, which by definition is related to the standard deviation of a particle speed distribution, inevitably, by averaging everything, we become myopic.
We no longer see the thermal agitation in its detail.
This thermal agitation is random, but the randomness occasionally creates conditions which seem locally organized.
the monatomic veil of graphene vibrates to the rhythm of these random "organizations".
This vibration is almost regular and the graphene veil coupled with thermal agitation can be likened to an engine.

yes it's an interpretation

it is not impossible that small, locally not too chaotic vibrations can extract something, perhaps with the help of strange things (perhaps a quantum effect with graphene and electrons).

Some hoped to have superconductivity by circulating electrons in carbon nanotubes. Graphene is a flat version of a tube if I may say so, leaving a flat space of freedom for electrons between the hexagonal layers of carbon.

after here are some ideas thrown like that.

We must already see if the experiment is reproducible and if we actually extract energy from the system.

Getting excited on the 2nd principle is useless.

[ABC2019]

after here are some ideas thrown like that.

We must already see if the experiment is reproducible and if we actually extract energy from the system.

there is no problem with the experiment described in the article, I was in agreement with Thibado, it does not violate any principle of course (otherwise it would have made much more noise than that!), and does not produce neither work nor net heat, therefore nothing recoverable. So it is surely reproducible, no problem with that.

But no, we do not extract any energy from the system precisely.

The problem is what he tells reporters he would like to do with (which has never been observed or published), and incidentally the answers he gave me that show he doesn't have the seemed to have perceived the problem with what he proposed to do. But when he stopped answering, he probably started to realize it;).

Getting excited on the 2nd principle is useless.

well a little bit anyway, since the second principle is equivalent to the impossibility of having a perpetual motion of the 2nd kind (we transform heat into work which is redissipated in the form of heat, and the loop is closed, we start again indefinitely), it would still be huge for it to be violated.

[ABC2019]

The self-organization of dissipative structures, whether they are non-living or living and although, by definition, producers of negentropy in no way contravene the second law of thermodynamics, since they do not do so without a sample initial energy (hence their qualifier of dissipative).

to be precise, they take negentropy in "ordered" form, and dissipate it by producing entropy, but taking advantage of it to maintain an organization (a structure) as long as this dissipation occurs.

When dissipation stops, the structure breaks down. For a living being, it's called death.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

When dissipation stops, the structure breaks down. For a living being, it's called death.

And reincarnation, eh?