ABC Machine Poll

[eclectron]

my machine is macroscopic, it is not microscopic: I don't know what's in it

If you don't know what's inside, then anything is possible and why not a system which exploits thermal fluctuations and which respects the second principle, already mentioned above.
It hardly generates anything but it generates ...

I wouldn't change my mind for no reason ....

[ABC2019]

my machine is macroscopic, it is not microscopic: I don't know what's in it

If you don't know what's inside, then anything is possible and why not a system which exploits thermal fluctuations and which respects the second principle, already mentioned above.
It hardly generates anything but it generates ...

I wouldn't change my mind for no reason ....

show me an exposition of the second principle which says that "anything is possible" and that "a system which exploits thermal fluctuations" can produce work, even "virtually nothing", but not zero, from a monothermal source so please .

The reason you might change your mind, it might be that it's not written anywhere that the second principle says that, and so you might admit that in fact you don't really know what the second principle says. ?

It's as if I asked you that article 3 of the American constitution says, and that you give me something that is absolutely not what article 3 of the American constitution says, well that just means that you don't know article 3 of the american constitution, do you?

[ABC2019]

well until you look for a source that says a monothermal machine could produce work "under certain conditions", let's get back to the problem of temperature fluctuations.
If you think it's due to the fact that it's microscopic, we're going to take something super microscopic: an oxygen molecule from the atmosphere. One can hardly find more microscopic.
I don't know if you know but the vibrational energy of a molecule like O2 is according to quantum mechanics of the genus (n + 1/2) hf where f is the vibrating frequency and h the Planck constant. The "quantum" of energy hf is for the O2 molecule about 0,2 eV or 3,2 e-20 J.

When this molecule is in an atmosphere at temperature T, it undergoes collisions which can randomly excite its vibration. It can be found in the ground state n = 0, or with "one quantum" n = 1, or two quanta n = 2, etc ...

statistical physics tells you that the probability of being in a state n is proportional to the Boltzmann factor exp (-E / kT) = exp (- (n + 1/2) hf / kT). Basically the probability varies as [exp (-hf / kT)]ⁿ.
I have checked unless I am mistaken if we take T = 1000 K, the probability of being in state n is approximately 0,9.10^-n or,
90% of the time in state n = 0
9% of the time in state n = 1
0,9% of the time in state n = 2 etc ....

So here you are "observing" the state of an O2 molecule in a gas at 1000 K (a flame for example), it will be 10 ns in the state n = 0, then 1 ns in the state n = 1, then will return 5 ns in state n = 0, then 0,2 ns in state n = 1, then 0,01 ns in state n = 2, etc, etc ...

statistically on average it will occupy these states with the above probabilities, but of course it will transit randomly between these levels.

Note that at absolute zero, it would remain in level n = 0 all the time.

So clearly his state of vibration fluctuates. His energy fluctuates. But can we say that its temperature fluctuates?

i.e. in the previous story, can you give me his "temperature" at every moment?

[Remundo]

the Nyquist powers supplied by the resistors are really low,

but above all we can ask ourselves 2 problems
1) what must be connected there so that this power is really transmitted to another dipole?

I believe that ABC had already argued in this direction. Only a cooler resistor can receive Nyquist power from a hotter resistor. And here we are faced with a dithermal process.

2) now imagine that we plug in a perfect capacitor, what happens? Well, the resistor generates a Nyquist current which will charge the capacitor until its voltage is equal to the Nyquist voltage. Here it is no longer a ditherme process: the resistance acts as a thermoelectric generator thanks to the thermal and / or radiative energy that it receives from the environment. We could have a similar reasoning with a perfect coil.

For me the powers of Nyquist are almost unusable by their weakness, but above all, it is not an energy that comes from nowhere, it is an "electrical noise" emanating from the thermal agitation of the material, it- even resulting from a radiative and / or thermal equilibrium with the environment.

And I think the returns are not great if we had fun calculating PNyquist / Pthermique received!

[ABC2019]

I'm going to tell you a little anecdote ... I have a friend who is fond of amateur astronomy and a physics teacher. He was in Africa (he also travels a lot there where he spent several years), and it happened that there was to be a lunar eclipse in a few days. He was asked if he could do a little class on eclipses in front of science students (not bush villagers eh!); He does it with pleasure, explains the principle, the frequency etc ... and at the end asks if there are any questions. And there a hand rises: "Thank you sir for all these explanations. But I would like to know sir, because here we don't really like eclipses anyway, would there be no way to prevent the eclisp from happening? " He sighs a little, says no, it's an astronomical phenomenon, that there's nothing we can do about it, and there a second hand rises: "I would like to know sir, if we can't prevent it, Couldn't we just shorten its duration a bit? " .

Well that makes you smile but in fact you are doing the same thing: "well the second principle forbids to produce work but still is it that there is no way to produce a little bit?" .

So the answer as with eclipses is no. The second principle says that the work is strictly zero. Not "just a little bit", because as I pointed out if you produced even a few nWs from a microscopic device, nothing would prevent billions of them from being combined like transistors in a computer to produce W's. , then pile up thousands of them to produce kW, at least "in principle", And the second principle says that it is impossible. The average power produced by a completely monothermal system is zero, that's all.


So every time you find "something" there is a ball in it. Always.

For the Remundo "thing", obviously the voltage fluctuations across a resistor are random and back and forth, so it's not going to charge at all when plugged into a capacitor. And if we put a rectifier device as proposed by eclectron, this rectifier device will itself have its thermal noise which will make it work erratically for such low voltages, and again it will not charge anything at all. Or you need a perfect device that only works at absolute zero, or at least at very low temperature, but it will tend to heat up and the work required to keep it at very low temperature will be greater than or equal to what you can. hope to collect, and the total balance will always be negative or zero.

[ABC2019]

And I think the returns are not great if we had fun calculating PNyquist / Pthermique received!

if all the components are at the same temperature, as I explained, the result is very simple: zero.

[eclectron]

For me the powers of Nyquist are almost unusable by their weakness, but above all, this is not an energy that comes from nowhere, it is an "electrical noise" emanating from the thermal agitation of the material, itself resulting from a radiative and / or thermal equilibrium with the environment.

And I think the returns are not that great

I am not saying anything else, but it is possible! so vote 2 ....

[eclectron]

Well that makes you smile but in fact you are doing the same thing: "well the second principle forbids to produce work but still is it that there is no way to produce a little bit?" .

It makes the fool smile ...
Thermal fluctuations are precisely not monothermal even if macroscopically it is indeed monothermal.
Since microscopically it is not monothermal, it does not contradict the second principle of exploiting these thermal fluctuations .... 50 times .... and last time .

[ABC2019]

Well that makes you smile but in fact you are doing the same thing: "well the second principle forbids to produce work but still is it that there is no way to produce a little bit?" .

Except that thermal fluctuations are precisely not monothermal even if macroscopically it is indeed monothermal.
Since microscopically it is not monothermal

I detailed for you what the fluctuations of a microscopic system, a molecule, look like. If you think it's not monothermal, then tell me how you calculate the temperature of the molecule "every moment", and the value you find. What is the value for you of "temperature" when it is in the state of vibration n = 0, n = 1, n = 2, etc ....?

[ABC2019]

Otherwise eclectron I suggest you select from the following list the items that you think concern you, specifying the values ​​in red if necessary:

- I'm sure I'm right
- I know statistical physics well and I am able to demonstrate for example the Boltzmann distribution, explain what a partition function is, etc ...
- what I say is consistent with what is explained in the following course, available on the internet, (link to insert, page, paragraph))
- what I say is consistent with the experimental results published in (article reference, authors, journal, year) which measure a small useful power from a monothermal source (the measured power was XX W (specify))
- I'm sure I'm right