This graphene circuit produces energy indefinitely

[ABC2019]

He couldn't answer me because I asked him the question after his last email.

But since you admitted that you didn't know anything about thermodynamics, it's normal that you don't understand anything about his answers either. I assure you that there is no calculation of total entropy variation in his answer, moreover you are totally unable to tell me how much he would have estimated it. And he stopped answering when I presented mine to him, because he had nothing to answer. As Guy said, there is nothing rational in your arguments.

[Obamot]

Ah but you formulate it differently ... Are you in the fallacy now?
But all the same, he answered you despite the fact that he did not estimate it! It is therefore wrong to say that he did not answer you ... And this unless you did not faithfully transcribe his words.

Reread yourself again ... See if you haven't left out something in the process?
(inadvertently eh, I'm not accusing anyone ... we're just talking)

[ABC2019]

no, I asked him if my calculation of the negative entropy variation of -W / T was right or wrong according to him, he did not answer,

he did not answer the question I asked him, what is complicated to understand as a sentence?

[Obamot]

He answered you before you even asked him the question.

What's complicated to understand as a sentence?

— “We are working to answer this question in our current research effort”

[ABC2019]

He answered you before you even asked him the question.

What's complicated to understand as a sentence?

it's not complicated to understand that it's false as a sentence that's all! the 'this question' can't refer to a question I haven't asked it yet, unless it goes back in time in addition to violating the second principle!

I asked him if the entropy variation was indeed - W / T (it's a very simple calculation at the first year level, there is nothing extraordinary in it). If you claim he answered before, then what is his answer? is that good - W / T, or is it something else?

the other question for you is why you insist on discussing and pretending to be someone competent on subjects which you obviously do not understand?

[Obamot]

Read the quote ...

PS: and I wonder if you are not breaking your own promises to stop flooding here ???
In your place I would ask Cinzia Spinato from the “Catalan Institute of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology” for your comments and questions on graphene, it will be much better than an answer from me, you're right, she is more competent than me:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00463-8

[ABC2019]

Read the quote ...

the untrimmed citation is:

In your statement, you ask if we store energy.
We are not storing any energy.
This is a deeper question.
We are working to answer this question in our current research effort.

what he says there is that he is working on the question whether they could store energy (obviously they haven't done it yet since that's what would violate the 2nd principle!). It does not answer my question which was to know if the variation of entropy in the case where we would store an energy W would be - W / T, therefore negative, therefore prohibited by the 2nd principle.

It is normal that he does not answer it moreover since at that moment I had not asked it like that. What I'm saying is that when I asked it in the next email, he stopped responding. It is factual.

PS: and I wonder if you are not breaking your own promises to stop flooding here ???

what do you call doing flooding, responding to your remarks? or do you include other things?

In your place I would ask Cinzia Spinato from the “Catalan Institute of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology” for your comments and questions on graphene, it will be much better than an answer from me, you're right, she is more competent than me:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00463-8

no report, she's not talking about using graphene to produce energy, but as a sensor, it has nothing to do with a violation of the 2nd principle. I don't see why I'm going to annoy this lovely lady who didn't do anything to me, but if you want to make a fool of yourself outside of this too forum, you can do it.

[Obamot]

Yes, whether they could store energy, but without relying on a battery as such

It's just that you didn't understand what its concept is for. seeing that you were dumped, he noticed it and preferred to leave it there. This is where there is a possible fallacy on your part.

I don't think you are a physicist (maybe you did some studies, then you quit, or if you did these studies, but you have reached a certain level of incompetence! Or you have a lack of imagination!

At my modest level, I believe I have nevertheless found the answer to the mystery of the enigma of his circuit. (Or a small part). Until then, we had thought we wanted to go too far, it was better to listen to the details, it led us to too much speculation. We were sometimes not far ...

He's basically saying his thing is a battery replacement! Indeed, who says circuits or artificial prostheses implanted in the human body, says battery power - and who says battery power, says the need to recharge them and / or replace them in the long term, and therefore surgical intervention before term to avoid the of fuel...

With this circuit there would be no more need, I could be wrong but I see are “graphene lattice” like a receiver of a mini electric charge, and that once the electric charge sent thanks to the electrodes of a diodes through the skin, this would put the atoms of the graphene in agitation, and that it would be this agitation which would then cause these alternating convex / concave then again convex / concave movements and so on, movements capable of generating an electrical voltage (at places suggested by the diagram). If so, it would therefore be graphene which would produce this tension indefinitely, without fatigue of the material since using one of its properties ... either by atomic agitation (or something of this type).

I think we were deceived by a desire for sophistication that there was no need to ...

[ABC2019]

Yes, whether they could store energy, but without relying on a battery as such

although if we could store in a battery, from the moment we produced direct current, what prevents it?

It's just that you didn't understand what its concept is for. seeing that you were dumped, he noticed it and preferred to leave it there. This is where there is a possible fallacy on your part.

There is no fallacy, I just asked Mr. Thibado what the entropy variation would be according to him if we stored work W from the device that he imagines to be possible (not the one he made which don't do that). For me it is - W / T therefore negative therefore prohibited by the 2nd principle.

I had no other answer, neither from him, nor from you, nor from anyone else on this forum, and I have nowhere read another value. So while waiting for a real answer (i.e. no blah-blah-smoke-screen-oops-watch-the-rabbit-turned-into-a-dove), I stay on this value ∆S = -W / T <0 therefore impossible.

[Obamot]

Who knows ... Once again you are trying to confiscate the conclusion! Is it no longer a debate then? For some reason, they found it interesting to point out a battery in the circuit (so that the concept would understand itself without going into too much detail ...), whereas as I said I think modestly that there is no need. And as long as you are in the speculation, I would say: “Not if an exogenous electrical stimulus via electrodes is able to agitate the graphene atoms by removing all components subject to failure / s or maintenance” (this is what I would try to do as a researcher) .... This already exists at a horse dose with cardiac pacemakers which send large discharges via electrodes to stimulate a restart of the heart ... We can very well imagine that at the nanoscale in continuous operation and with tiny discharges, of the order of the threshold necessary for their experience ...

If in his place I had understood that someone was trying to get info on a sensitive subject (which is certainly worth billions of dollars if they have “understood something new”) I would be careful not to go into the matter ... especially not when faced with a gulu who strives to introduce hypotheses that he has not formulated (or which suggest that the answer could give some clue and in reveal too much) or even someone who would unfold hostile behavior?

As you are obsessed in a monomaniaic way by the search for evidence at all costs, you skip more sensitive questions which would suddenly be much more interesting, they ... And then hey, stop insulting your opponents by the gang, eh ...!