Cookies-law

Cookies help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
http://www.overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please leave this website now. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 495056
  • *Total Topics: 14567
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 2
  • *Guests: 184
  • *Total: 186

Facebook

Author Topic: Duncan s' Paradox  (Read 3670 times)

Offline dieter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 951
Duncan s' Paradox
« on: June 07, 2016, 07:46:33 AM »
After a forum search it appeared to me this was nowhere mentioned, so I add this here:

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan's_Paradox

Must read.
Even wikipedia, admitting second law breakdown!

I have saved the page locally, for in case the apes will censor it.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Duncan s' Paradox
« on: June 07, 2016, 07:46:33 AM »

Offline memoryman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 660
Re: Duncan s' Paradox
« Reply #1 on: June 07, 2016, 09:23:51 PM »
The second law HAS been 'violated' already (see prof. Daniel Sheehan). The law only applies to statistically large numbers.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13578
Re: Duncan s' Paradox
« Reply #2 on: June 07, 2016, 11:47:03 PM »
The second law HAS been 'violated' already (see prof. Daniel Sheehan). The law only applies to statistically large numbers.

Yeah, right. Many of the references cited in the Wiki article on the Duncan's Paradox are papers by Sheehan. But he still buys his electricity from the grid.

Offline memoryman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 660
Re: Duncan s' Paradox
« Reply #3 on: June 08, 2016, 01:45:09 AM »
tk, he did not claim a practical application of his work. The output is probably in the micro Watt range.
It may never be scalable.

Offline pomodoro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 717
Re: Duncan s' Paradox
« Reply #4 on: June 08, 2016, 02:46:11 AM »
This principle is very similar to that of the Karpen pile, where an unreactive electrode preferentially gathers a higher concentration of oxygen on its surface, like a sponge, generating a slightly  different potential to that of another electrode of the same metal or another passive metal. Is it in violation of the second law? Only if it can be shown that the total entropy has decreased then it is. It cant be hard to prove because the thermodynamics of adsorbtion of gases onto surfaces has been well studied for over 100 years. For the Duncan device it seems to me that the metals need to be heated to a high temperature, which already implies a huge waste of heat for any practical purpose. The Karpen pile is a more elegant example. Its important to remember that a process that gets cold or takes energy from the environment doesn't imply a violation of the second law at all. This is a very common rookie mistake.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Duncan s' Paradox
« Reply #4 on: June 08, 2016, 02:46:11 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Gabriele

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 249
    • Formerelax
Re: Duncan s' Paradox
« Reply #5 on: June 08, 2016, 09:19:52 PM »
Its important to remember that a process that gets cold or takes energy from the environment doesn't imply a violation of the second law at all. This is a very common rookie mistake.

Which are these cases?

Offline pomodoro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 717
Re: Duncan s' Paradox
« Reply #6 on: June 09, 2016, 05:13:25 AM »

The Karpen pile is a classic example in the OU community and any other endothermic process doing work. Another is the  expansion of a liquefied gas through a turbine to generate more work than used to compress it in the first place after  allowing it to cool to room temperature before expanding. Lots of heat is taken from the environment and the gas cylinder greatly cools.

The second law is often stated in plain language, in such terms as "Water can only flow uphill", "The amount of work obtained from a fixed quantity of heat given up by a heat engine operating in a reversible cycle between two temperatures approaches zero  as the temperature difference approaches zero",  to the more descriptive statement by Lord Kelvin  “it is impossible to construct an engine, which is operating in a cycle produces no other effect except to external heat from a single reservoir and do equivalent amount of work. There are literally dozens of similar definitions, which lead to confusion.

However, the definitive Second law definition is that for a process to be possible, without externally applied work, that is, spontaneously, the total entropy must have increased.  This is the ultimate definition of the second law.  The total Entropy is the Entropy of the system + Entropy of the environment caused by the process.  Or ΔStotal > 0   ie: ΔSenvironment +ΔSsystem > 0.  ΔS means the change in entropy.


Without boring readers, it can be shown from the Gibbs free energy equation that  ΔSenvironment = -ΔHsystem/T.   ΔH is the change in enthaply from the process, which is the Energy difference plus any work from changes in volume, which amounts to pΔV work at constant pressure (air pressure). Note here that any other work that is not due to pΔV needs to be added here, lets call this W.  W is zero most of the time because these formulas only work at constant temperature, and heat engines need a change in temperature ΔT,  however if a system can perform work, which doesn't require a ΔT, (after all pΔV is work, but requires no ΔT) then it need to be added.  This W being greater than zero in the real world is not common as we know.
So we now have:

ΔStotal= -(ΔHsystem+W)/T + ΔSsystem

Remembering that if ΔStotal >0 the process can spontaneously go ahead, and also remembering that a ΔH that is positive means an endothermic, or cooling process, we can plainly see that as long as ΔSsystem is quite large, we can remove heat from the environment (ΔHsystem+W), possibly get some work, W and still have an entropy change that is positive.  In other words, heat is removed from the environment, but work is done.  Another classic example, without any work though, is the dissolution of ammonium nitrate. The water gets very cold, endothermic, but the process is still covered by the second law, because the ΔSsystem is huge. The trick for 'OU' is to discover a process capable of doing work without a  temperature difference.

 

 


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Duncan s' Paradox
« Reply #6 on: June 09, 2016, 05:13:25 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Gabriele

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 249
    • Formerelax
Re: Duncan s' Paradox
« Reply #7 on: June 09, 2016, 05:45:14 PM »
It is more than a couple of years i'm theoretically experiment systems seems to violate 2nd law of thermodynamic. The system is a contaniner with a low heat capacity gas at very low pression at the vapour pressure point at the base. It is clear that 1 meter up from the base the gas pressure is a little lower. From my computations the theoric energy needed to liquefy with an heatpump the gas at 1m of height is about an half the energy obtained let falling the liquid for 1m. It seems less dense the gas is,more is the difference from Ein and Eou

This is the calculator i use to find variables in pressure and temperature https://www.irc.wisc.edu/properties/

But can be a systematic error

Offline dieter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 951
Re: Duncan s' Paradox
« Reply #8 on: June 13, 2016, 10:34:50 PM »
Well, whether it violates the 2nd law or not, I let judge the physicists, and they obviously seem to think so.

Also, an aperatus having one surface with a tendency to disintegrate H2 and an other surface with a tendency to recombine 2H is not operating in the microwatt range when you consider the active area is only 2D, but multiplied by a third dimension becomes rather substancial. Esp. considering the molecular expansion forces of H2/2H in a confined space.

Alternatively, considering a permanent temperature diffrence that can easily drive a stirling engine with no fuel whatsoever.

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at:


OneLink