Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
On 2006-11-14 23:02:04 +0000, "Paul" <softwarelabus@xxxxxxxxx> said:

I've already stated that the experiment merely "starts at equilibrium".
The flip of a switch of connecting the carbon resistor to the antenna
would commence the start of the experiment.

And how would you do that without breaking the isolation?

A switch.




When I nail down Richards statement then I'll provide the experiment
that accommodates all your concerns. You are concerned that _nothing_
enters or leaves the isolated system, not even gravity, LOL. Fine.

What do you think "isolated from outside" means? Its not so much the
isolation but the equilibrium. If you use varying electromagnetic or
gravitational fields to influence the system, then its no more isolated
then poking it with a stick.

The switch could be part of the system controlled by a timer. :-)




Not sure of what use such a Law is, but whatever.

Most laws describe ideal behaviour and physicists work within those boundaries

Again, show a practical use of _your_ 2nd law of thermodynamics?





Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
On 2006-11-14 23:02:04 +0000, "Paul" <softwarelabus@xxxxxxxxx> said:

I've already stated that the experiment merely "starts at equilibrium".
The flip of a switch of connecting the carbon resistor to the antenna
would commence the start of the experiment.

If something STARTS at equilibrium then it takes SOMETHING OUTSIDE it
to disturb that equilibrium. Hence you have lost the equilibrium
position. Your inability to understand why EM or gravitation should not
apply is probably part and parcel of the whole problem.

Please provide an experiment?





Eric Gisse wrote:
Paul wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Paul wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
Paul wrote:
[...]



Still waiting for you to point error in an extraordinarily simple
experiment. It seems obvious you cannot. Have a good day.

There is a reason I'm learning to be a physicist and not an engineer.
Folks like you highlight why.



So you claim the 2nd law of thermodynamics states _everything_,
including gravity and magnetic fields, must not leave the isolated
system??

When did you stop beating your wife?


Does the following break the 2nd law of thermodynamics? A hypothetical
experiment is at equilibrium at start, does not rely on anything
leaving the isolated system, but still the isolated systems net
temperature decreases to a point until a new equilibrium is reached.
IOW, the isolated system starts at room temperature, but over time the
temperature of the isolated system decreases..

Why would an isolated system at thermal equilibrium lose energy?


Please read. Again, "IOW, the isolated system starts at room
temperature, but over time the ***temperature of the isolated system
_decreases_***." I did not say the isolated system loses energy. If
the temperature decreases then the energy could remain inside the
isolated system in another form such as charging a battery.

"the ***temperature of the isolated system _decreases_***'

"I did not say the isolated system loses energy."

I find it interesting that you don't see the conflict between these two
sentences. In thermodynamics, energy is a function of temperature. So I
have to ask, to what level have you studied thermodynamics?

You cannot perceive how the temperature would decrease, but the net
energy of the isolated system remain constant. Thermal vibration is not
the only means of storing energy. Consider a capacitor as one of many
examples.




Richard Herring wrote:
In message <1163531431.027442.151620@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Paul
<softwarelabus@xxxxxxxxx> writes
Richard Herring wrote:
In message <1163522994.003853.240200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Paul
<softwarelabus@xxxxxxxxx> writes
puppet_sock@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Paul wrote:
Any true EE knows that an enclosed box at room temperature containing
air, wire, and an appropriate load can generate so-called "free energy"
24 hours a day, 365 days a year from thermal noise.
[snip]

I advise you to spend the rest of your life and every dollar you can
get hold of in experiments trying to demonstrate this.
Socks


Show the error.


"Isolated system."


So then it is clear in accordance to your above and previous posts.
Richard Herring adheres that a thermodynamic isolated system even
prohibits gravity and magnetism from escaping.

Strawman. He adheres to the accepted definition of the term.

LOL, you need to learn to read. I never said I adhere to any such
childish, ridiculous, and useless definitions of "isolated system."
:-)




Richard Herring wrote:
In message <1163531122.692486.127760@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Paul
<softwarelabus@xxxxxxxxx> writes
Richard Herring wrote:
In message <1163518186.732439.209950@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Paul
<softwarelabus@xxxxxxxxx> writes
Richard Herring wrote:
In message <1163444775.906688.99910@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Paul
<softwarelabus@xxxxxxxxx> writes
Richard Herring wrote:
In message <1163436256.228189.76090@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Paul
<softwarelabus@xxxxxxxxx> writes
jambaugh wrote:
Paul wrote:

Which experiment generates more radiation? Answer: Experiment #1
[previously corrected!]

That's very close to falsifying the record. The text I quoted looked
like this:
===================================================
Which experiment generates more radiation? Answer: Experiment #2
===================================================


How dare you. I clearly placed "[previously corrected!]"




Sure about that? ;-)

Yes, I am sure about that. Experiment #1. Did you see my typo
correction within minutes after posting? Perhaps you want to be a j---.

No, it should be obvious that when I posted I had not seen your
correction.

It is courteous to view a person's entire picture / post before
commenting or criticizing.

<sigh>

I _had_ read your entire post. I'm not a mind-reader, so I don't see how
you could expect me to know that you were about to post a correction.

Your post came _after_ both my posts.

On _your_ server, maybe. Usenet propagation is not superluminal.

[...]

And that's what we call a non sequitur. Since, as you pointed out, there
are many formulations of the 2nd Law, perhaps you should clarify matters
by posting the one you are using, and then explain exactly which part of
it you think is contradicted.

Then you agree such an experiment contradicts some interpretations of
the 2nd law, right?

Not any of the correct ones.

Just as I thought, which is clearly why I require predictions from QM
physicists prior to performing my sub-photon experiment. A clear and
precise prediction which you were obviously afraid to make and commit
to, as evident in our other thread. My present mistake was in not
nailing you down before hand. Now you are attempting to weasel your way
out by insinuating a thermodynamic isolated system even prohibits
gravity and magnetism from escaping.

Strawman. I haven't said anything about gravity or magnetism.

I have to laugh at your level of mentality ... a person who believes
name-calling actually hurts an individual or achieves something
positive, LOL. Just curious, are you a person who desires the negative
human emotional aspects of humanity? I firmly believe in trying ones
best to be positive.

Your definition of "isolated system" does not pertain to magnetism or
gravity??? Yes or No. If yes, then you are saying no gravity or
magnetism could leave the isolated system?




Later on in this thread I will
comment how ridiculous and useless such a law would be.

An isolated system, by definition, is one which doesn't exchange matter
or _energy_ with its surroundings.

So by your definition, no matter or energy can leave an isolated
system?

Could you please provide your definition of equilibrium? Does your
definition of equilibrium include that everything must remain
unchanged?




In your experiment, by your own
admission, the antenna radiates energy away. Ergo, it is not an isolated
system and your "disproof" of the 2nd Law fails. QED.


ROFL. You still haven't looked up "strawman", have you?

I sure have. Maybe you haven't. Referring to a person as a Strawman is
an insult by my standards, but it wouldn't surprise me if no word were
an insult by your standards.

Why do you assume it refers to a person, and not to his argument?

When you open a sentence *to a person* such as, "Strawman, bla bla
bla." you are calling that person a strawman.

Princeton shows three definitions. Look up their first definition -->
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=strawman
"S: (n) front man, front, figurehead, nominal head, straw man, strawman
(a person used as a cover for some questionable activity)"

I have even seen definitions that refer to a strawman as a "dummy."

Do you get some form of emotional satisfaction when you call people
strawman? Just trying to understand you.





That's why dear
Richard an oscilloscope can display power across a load if you merely
pre-enter the loads resistance. :-)

So if I have a signal generator connected to a 50 ohm resistor via a
coaxial cable, with a T-connector in the middle, and I let you use your
oscilloscope to measure the voltage across it, do you think you can tell
me which way the energy is travelling?

Yes, I can tell you which way the energy is traveling?

What, with only a single voltage measurement?

Yes, I can tell you if energy is leaving or entering the antenna.
There's a difference between the wave and the direction energy is
traveling. You clearly stated, "energy is traveling".


So Richard, could you please provide us with a clear and precise
experimental example of an isolated system at equilibrium? :-)


Regards,
Paul

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
    ... out by insinuating a thermodynamic isolated system even prohibits ... I haven't said anything about gravity or magnetism. ... It pertains to matter and energy. ... You still haven't looked up "strawman", ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: 2nd law of thermodynamics in question
    ... Richard Herring wrote: ... It pertains to matter and energy. ... with only a single voltage measurement? ... experimental example of an isolated system at equilibrium? ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Does it move?
    ... >> One has to be careful in specifying the forces. ... > Perhaps because we were not considering an isolated system? ... > Not to mention free of external energy gains. ... >> momentum system. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Owens Two-Phase Model of Earth Expansion
    ... I'm referring to the laws of entropy and conservation of mass and energy. ... >The second law of thermodynamics states that in any isolated system, ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: transforming energy infinite
    ... > won't effect this device as it cannot possibly destroy an existing ... You can not extract energy from an isolated system. ...
    (sci.physics)
Quantcast