This graphene circuit produces energy indefinitely

[ABC2019]

So it's very, very cool that it works before our eyes! Thank you to this major breakthrough for a better future!

it's very very cool but we are still not going to bet 1000 euros on it by risking losing them, chicken

[eclectron]

And here it is, it's done and it works:
https://eepower.com/news/newly-develope ... graphene/#
https://arkansasresearch.uark.edu/the-p ... -graphene/

Rather than developing his circuit, Thibado should have spent his time convincing an obtuse troll by email.
Fortunately he did not care about the parasite sucking time and energy that we have here, capable of calculations in thermodynamics but incapable of understanding, rather capable of the contrary in fact .... you have to review your ABC my guys

Well done to Thibado and his team!

Well, it's not the Grail either, the energy is weak and will remain so, but the principle is exciting.

[Obamot]

So it's very, very cool that it works before our eyes! Thank you to this major breakthrough for a better future!

it's very very cool but we are still not going to bet 1000 euros on it by risking losing them, chicken

Too ambitious I already told you. Rather than a chicken try the kellogg's choco or better the krisprolls (without fucking everywhere)

[ABC2019]

And here it is, it's done and it works:
https://eepower.com/news/newly-develope ... graphene/#
https://arkansasresearch.uark.edu/the-p ... -graphene/

Rather than developing his circuit, Thibado should have spent his time convincing an obtuse troll by email.

Thibado didn't have to spend a lot of time "convincing an obtuse troll". I sent him the same demonstration that I also posted to you, which takes a few lines:

a system at a temperature T which produces an electrical energy W from a heat Q taken from its environment lowers the entropy of the Universe by -W / T. And since the second principle says that the entropy variation can only be positive, it contradicts the second principle.

It's still rare to be able to give such a short and simple argument in physics;).

So if my argument is wrong, it was very easy for him to answer, in a few lines: "you are wrong Mr. ABC, your calculation is wrong, the variation of entropy of the Universe is not - W / T but ...... "(fill in the blank).

Ah but oddly it is just at this moment that he stopped answering, whereas he had sent me before several much longer mails of blah blah on his system !! and I haven't heard from him again after writing this to him!

And just as oddly not a single one of you could explain to me either why my calculation was wrong and what was the correct value of the variation of entropy of the Universe !!

And even more strangely we find on the same conclusion on all the texts of thermodynamics which all conclude, without exception, that the conversion of heat into work at a temperature is impossible because that would lower the entropy of the Universe, obviously by doing the exact same calculation, which for someone who knows thermo is as basic as saying that 2 + 2 = 4.

And of course even more bizarrely none of you is ready to win 1000 euros by betting against me ...

It's a lot of weirdness all the same ...

[Obamot]

Thibado sent you for a walk saying that you were introducing your fantasies into HIS works and you find it hard to swallow it, right?

(like you do here, or you lend others thoughts that are not theirs ...)

[ABC2019]

Thibado sent you for a walk saying that you were introducing your fantasies into HIS works and you find it hard to swallow it, right?

not at all, he told me that it did not violate the second principle, I told him that if in my opinion, it violated him, showing him for what:
because the second principle says that ∆S> 0 and that the calculation that I exposed to it showed that ∆S = -W / T <0 and therefore that it is contradictory. And he stopped answering me at that point. He didn't speak of fantasy or error; he did not correct the calculation for me; and he gave me no other value. He simply cut off all contact and did not respond.

In the scientific standards that I know, I call it a demonstration that he was wrong.

In yours, which I don't know, I don't know what you call it.

And to be honest, I don't care.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

In the scientific standards that I know, I call it a demonstration that he was wrong.

In your fantasies yes. In reality you wallowed.

[ABC2019]

In the scientific standards that I know, I call it a demonstration that he was wrong.

In your fantasies yes. In reality you wallowed.

but of course, and you obviously know the right result for ∆S, but you're not going to give it here, because you don't have only that to do, and I just have to look for it myself, and then besides it is everywhere on the internet?

And Thibado the same, he didn't answer me because he had a swimming pool, and it's not interesting anyway?

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

And Thibado the same, he didn't answer me because he had a swimming pool, and it's not interesting anyway?

Thibado had work, him, and he found you uninteresting, it's true. He's right, the guy! Anyway, I'm not going to spend my day answering a guy like you.

[ABC2019]

And Thibado the same, he didn't answer me because he had a swimming pool, and it's not interesting anyway?

Thibado had work, him, and he found you uninteresting, it's true. He's right, the guy!

but of course, at the beginning, he sent me 3 or 4 emails of a page explaining to me why his invention was super interesting, and when I showed him in black and white that it would violate the second principle, everything suddenly, bang, he had a lot of work and completely stopped answering!

Anyway, I'm not going to spend my day answering a guy like you.

well here is finally an intelligent word, you see when you want ...