Eiensteinhoax offers perpetual motion machine!!!
akalaniz_at_hotmail.com
Date: 03/15/05
- Next message: Franz Heymann: "Re: What it takes to be a revolutionary thinker"
- Previous message: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: What it takes to be a revolutionary thinker"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 15 Mar 2005 07:58:58 -0800
Now, when can we expect your perpetual motion machine to be on the
market??? According to your website that you keep pasting on you
posts, using your design, you can seperate hot, faster molecules from
cooler, slower molecules in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
That means that you can create a hot reservoir and a cold one without
doing any work thanks to your clever trapdoor. Then you can use the
system to, say, drive a piston, and then start the separation process
for free again, i.e., a perpetual motion machine!!! So hurry up! Oil
is getting pricey! Don't be greedy.
>regarding your device which "violates" the 2nd law of
>thermodynamics,
>you state, "the trapdoor and the membrane would be heated and the
>molecule which passed though it would be cooled. The process would
>generate a local temperature difference which would quickly be
>equalized by any reasonable level of heat transfer."
>
>Assuming the trapdoor is able to rapidly transfer the energy it
>absorbed to the rest of the membrane, wouldn't then the heated
>membrane
>transfer the heat back to the gas molecules? The membrane, made of
>vibrating molecules, would, via thermal vibrations, and some
>radiation,
>transfer their heat back to the cooled gas to maintain thermal
>equilibrium.
>
>If the trapdoor couldn't dump its excess energy (the energy absorbed
>from a fast molecule), it, thanks to its molecular vibrations, would
>start to bounce open and close to rid itself of its excess energy.
>By
>so doing, it would on occasion allow molecules to flow both ways,
>and
>on occasion, it would swat cold (slow) molecules and heat them back
>up
>(speed them up).
>
>I think Dr. Feynman and the 2nd law of thermodynamics stand firm.
>
>AA....dumb PhD
>Yes, you are a dumb PhD! The point is that the gas molecules and the
>membrane would remain very close to each other in temperature do the
>the physical dimensions involved. This being the case, if the
>membrane had a different diffusion coeficient in the two directions,
>an exploitable pressure difference would exist between the two sides
>and the 2nd Law would be by-passed. As to Dr. Feybnmann;s arguement,
>it is only valid if the mechanism is constructed stupidly, but why
>not, he is also a PhD.
Eiensteinhoax, "It is unfortuhnate that your excessive education has
destroyed your ability to think."
I guess, given how famous you are, you have a point. Truly, todays
science, built by scientists for hundred of years is completely wrong.
We never went to the moon--it was all filmed in Hollywood. General
relativity doesn't predict the precession of the perihelion of Mercury,
the bending of light, the correct delay in echoes from Venus, nor, as
Gravity B will demonstrate, frame dragging.
By the way, have you corrected your incorrect view than QM means
relativity is wrong via EPR-like experiments. I gave you a literature
base showing that A) Bell's inequalities have been shown to not be
valid, and that B) QM and RQM can be derived from Classical Mechanics
via Brownian motion.
Alex Alaniz, PhD
It is unfortunate that your modicum of feeble voodoo has destroyed your
ability to READ THE LITERATURE. By the way, a theory in science,
unlike one in the social sciences, must predict you phenomena.
- Next message: Franz Heymann: "Re: What it takes to be a revolutionary thinker"
- Previous message: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: What it takes to be a revolutionary thinker"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|