2nd "law" violations > Heat to mechanical energy conversion

Duncan s' Paradox

(1/2) > >>

dieter:
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.

memoryman:
The second law HAS been 'violated' already (see prof. Daniel Sheehan). The law only applies to statistically large numbers.

TinselKoala:

--- Quote from: memoryman 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.

--- End quote ---

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.

memoryman:
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.

pomodoro:
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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page