Author Topic: A Challenge to Thermodynamic Theory (Read 19384 times)

sm0ky2 · « **on:** June 03, 2011, 06:32:28 AM »

I present this challenge to the OU-skeptics, and those individuals whom subscribe to the mythology of thermodynamic theory.

The following equation describes the energy potential ( in Joules) between two (equal) static charges of opposite polarity.

E = 1/2 CV^2
[ where C is the capacitance of the charged objects and
V is the magnitude of the charge in Volts]

When the objects are 'discharged', the energy is equal to the total potential energy bewteen the two charged objects, minus all applicable losses, as described by the theory of conservation of energy.
--------------------------------------------------------------

You are hereby challenged to define, describe, and/or explain the photolumiscent energy (in the form of photons) released by the discharge, which can exceed the total potential energy between the two charged objects up to or exceeding a power of x10^6.

This is real energy in the form of photons, which can be discretely measured using a photosensitive screen, and (partially) converted into electricity using a photovoltaic cell.

1) Where does this energy come from?

2) how is it considered to be "conservative"?

3) What implications or problems does it reveal with respect to thermodynamic theory?

I look forward to your participation in this discussion,

Sm0ky2

fritznien · « **Reply #1 on:** June 03, 2011, 07:19:57 AM »

OK news to me.
as measured by who? and with what equipment? do you have a link?
a million what?
that should be enough questions for now.
i have discharged some wicked caps, got some neat burns on the tools and seeing spots.
didn't notice anything strange in the energy output tho.
fritznien

sm0ky2 · « **Reply #2 on:** June 03, 2011, 08:27:03 AM »

the light is incoherent, eminating in every direction, and in a multitude of frequencies ranging from infrared to ultraviolet. We are (for the moment) ignoring the energy released in frequencies outside of the range of light, as well as heat and sound.

The light energy can be measured as a whole, in lumens, and the energy approximated by comparison with current lighting technology.

or along particular frequency ranges, to obtain a more accurate measurement.

it can be measured using a portion of the exposure area around the 'spark', then calculated cyllindrically at a constant distance around the point of origin, by methods used to measure the energy of lasers.

a prism seperates the light into frequency-bands, corresponding to the index refraction of the glass, and the bands are recorded onto a photosensitive screen, which when examined can be used to determine an approximate number of photon-impacts, across each freqency-band.

A more accurate count can be attained using photomultiplier tubes, or a photodiode array.

The point of this, is to show that across the sparkgap,
the whole of the original (electrical) energy is transmitted to the source (minus losses), and that the light energy created by the spark is not a portion of the original energy.
it is "extra".

onthecuttingedge2010 · « **Reply #3 on:** June 03, 2011, 04:10:49 PM »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multipactor

sm0ky2 · « **Reply #4 on:** June 03, 2011, 07:14:51 PM »

Thank you OTC,

While the multipactor-effect may not pertain to the particular phenomena of this thread, it does help to demonstrate some of the innacuracies in thermodynamic theory.

The over-all purpose of creating this thread, is to share the information of commonly overlooked discrepancies of therodynamic theory, and to show that it should no longer be considered physics "laws", but rather downgraded to a Theory.

Most of the research done in this field pertains to phenomena in the energies of light, heat, electricity, magnetism, and radiation.

A lot of the obstacles we encounter, are due to the acceptance and "religious-like" belief system surrounding Thermodynamic Theory, of standardized academics, and the leaders of the scientific community. Which, in my personal opinion, is non-scientific behavior.

The reason any scientific theory becomes (and remains) a "law", is because it has not yet been contradicted by difinitive experimentation.
When a scientist refuses to engage in, or even examine such experimentation and evidence, he or she has violated the code of
scientific ethics.

The foundations of science, are and have always been centered around experimentation, proof, evidence, skepticism of commonly accepted belief systems, and the search of true knowedge.

As it pertains to the theories of Thermodynamics, many scientists have moved from a scientific-viewpoint, into a religious-like belief system that shatters the very nature of science, and limits the advancement of human knowledge.

It is only those of us who are brave enough to look them in the eye and tell them "the world is not flat!", who can free mankind from this prison.

fritznien · « **Reply #5 on:** June 03, 2011, 07:20:52 PM »

Interesting article onthecuttingedge2010, nothing about OU in it, and its about electrons in a vaccum.
outside of a photomultiplier tube i don't think it applies.

sm0ky2 i have a general knowledge of light ,photons,spectrum and energy,power and its
measurement. what i lack is an understanding of how an arc is OU.
it seems to me that you are on the one hand avoiding any solid information and on the other needlessly
complicating things. if i short out a cap thru an arc how dose any energy get back to source?
why not put the arc in an insulated photon tight container and measure the heat directly?
is there any difference between sources of electricity? my arc welder puts out a great arc.
how do you know these things would sum up my questions.
fritznien

sm0ky2 · « **Reply #6 on:** June 03, 2011, 08:35:03 PM »

@ fritz

how the energy gets back to the source, is a matter of design, and has nothing to do with this type of experiment.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

For the purpooses of measurement of the energy in the system, the electrical energy arriving at the destination is the energy potential between the two seperated charges. This can be converted directly to heat through a load (at a point between the two leads before or after the spark gap) and this energy cooincided to the energy potential of the separated charges (minus applicable losses).

But again, i stress the fact that the light energy released from the actual spark (while proportional to the amplitude of the charge, and the impedence of the medium) is completely independent of the electrical energy of the actual charge. And a measurement of this light energy, when added to the electrical energy of the discharge results in a value greater than the potential energy of the initial seperated charges.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Bear in mind, that there are additional energy values released from the spark (referenced above) that are not being taken into account here, in the form of sub-light and hypo-light frequencies, RF, and also soundwaves as a result of the spark. We can discuss the energy value of those emmanations individually, after we resolve the originally proposed problem of the light energy.

Poit · « **Reply #7 on:** July 03, 2011, 07:12:51 PM »

Hi Sm0ky2,
Thought provoking. Personally I like to point out that scientists (at large) do not understand everything there is to know about magnetism (any scientist worth his/her salt will admit to this) and because of this I do not believe we (humans) can define a finite "law" of thermodynamics when we admit to not know everything about the subject. It's a flaw in basic problem solving.

It would be akin to making a road rule/law and not fully understanding how a 4 stroke engine works, how could we know if the "law" will actually make the roads safe?

Poit

fritznien · « **Reply #8 on:** July 03, 2011, 08:38:55 PM »

Quote from: Poit on July 03, 2011, 07:12:51 PM

Hi Sm0ky2,
Thought provoking. Personally I like to point out that scientists (at large) do not understand everything there is to know about magnetism (any scientist worth his/her salt will admit to this) and because of this I do not believe we (humans) can define a finite "law" of thermodynamics when we admit to not know everything about the subject. It's a flaw in basic problem solving.

It would be akin to making a road rule/law and not fully understanding how a 4 stroke engine works, how could we know if the "law" will actually make the roads safe?

Poit

i don't have to know how the engine works, i just have to know how the car behaves.
these are 2 differant things.
when you can show something, anything that defies thermodynamics or COE then your cooking.
remember up til now nothing has, despite the claims.
until then the whitecoats will laugh at you.
fritznien

Poit · « **Reply #9 on:** July 03, 2011, 09:09:21 PM »

Don't you think its a bit ironic that in the centre of our milky way is a large black hole that the stars (including our own sun) revolves around and in turn our planet revolves around our sun. Why I call this ironic is this, black holes are considered to violate (nearly) all our known laws of physics. (this is by the same people who promote the "laws" of thermodynamics)

So, if it wasn't for something that violates the laws of physics, we wouldn't exist! Think about that for a second!

fritznien · « **Reply #10 on:** July 04, 2011, 12:38:33 AM »

Quote from: Poit on July 03, 2011, 09:09:21 PM

Don't you think its a bit ironic that in the centre of our milky way is a large black hole that the stars (including our own sun) revolves around and in turn our planet revolves around our sun. Why I call this ironic is this, black holes are considered to violate (nearly) all our known laws of physics. (this is by the same people who promote the "laws" of thermodynamics)

So, if it wasn't for something that violates the laws of physics, we wouldn't exist! Think about that for a second!

try again, black holes are standard physics as predicted by relativity.
yes they are very strange but hawking is the grand old man of physics not a crackpot to the mainstream.
fritznien

Poit · « **Reply #11 on:** July 04, 2011, 04:29:06 AM »

Quote from: fritznien on July 04, 2011, 12:38:33 AM

try again, black holes are standard physics as predicted by relativity.
yes they are very strange but hawking is the grand old man of physics not a crackpot to the mainstream.
fritznien

So your saying that a blackhole violates NONE of the known laws of physics? none at all? because if you arn't my point stands

fritznien · « **Reply #12 on:** July 04, 2011, 07:41:53 AM »

Quote from: Poit on July 04, 2011, 04:29:06 AM

So your saying that a blackhole violates NONE of the known laws of physics? none at all? because if you arn't my point stands

the only things you know about black holes is what guys like Steven hawking tell you.
they get it from relativity. so far no one has found any holes in GR.
when they do it will be rewritten or superseeded like newtons law of universal gravity.
the point i am making is not that the physics books are perfect, far from it.
the point is you are going to need more than claims to update them.
you need hard repeatable data. not crap in a utube video.
when you have a real self runner, by the hundred, not just some jerk like mylow with a crappy vid and endless mouth.
then you got something.
please note an expert in the field says doing magic tricks for the camera is "BULLSHIT"Penn&teller
he should know.so who are you going to beleave the guys who tell you life will be beautiful all the time and never delivers, or
the guys who actually make things that work. even if not as well as we would like.
fritznien

pauldude000 · « **Reply #13 on:** February 24, 2012, 05:02:17 PM »

I am glad to see serious thought being given to such conceptual discrepancies. Many of the problems you see stem from outdated or inapplicable notions to begin with.

Conservation of energy within a system is dependent upon the postulated concept of 'closed systems', and is true only conditionally upon a closed system.

However, I have yet to see any system that is truly closed! Not even ONE!

All real systems are subject to extraneous energy, of one form or another, whether you speak of this extraneous energy as electromagnetic or various field energies. Experiments have been attempted in the past to remove all energy from a system (by cooling to 0 degrees kelvin, I.E. absolute zero), and this led to the discovery of what is called now commonly called ZPE or Zero Point Energy.

I have frustrated the heck out of EE's and physicists before, but am not trying to antagonize anyone.

For the EE's reading, consider this: If an electronic circuit is closed, then explain why anything would need to be shielded from external RF......... ? (A minor 'for instance'.)

For the physicists: Concerning even simple Newtonian physics, the classical models are far too simplified and account for only a small handful of the possible vectors and factors. A magnet holding papers to a refrigerator door is continually doing real work, supporting not only it's own mass, but the mass of the papers against a constant downwards acceleration of 9.18 meters per sec per sec.

By very definition it is "perpetual motion", depending upon a persons definition. I state this as a magnet working against the load of gravity by internal magnetic energy is as close to a closed system as is possible in reality. Perpetual motion is NOT frowned upon in physics OUTSIDE a closed system, as you find with wind generators, solar cells, ocean wave powered generators, and yes magnets, etc., etc.

Many concepts simply fall flat, such as the concept of 'perpetual motion = impossible' since the concept of a 'closed system' is what is flawed. The closed system hypothesis is as dead as the flat earth theory, and just as inaccurate.

I do not wish this to seem as a rant, which it is not nor is it intended to be anything but a statement of the obvious, so I shall stop here.

Paul Andrulis

pauldude000 · « **Reply #14 on:** February 24, 2012, 05:18:36 PM »

This is a P.S. for smokey... (Forgot to mention it.... sorry

Be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak. Thermodynamics as a whole does have some value, even if parts of it are flawed or even just plain silly. I can say the same for any branch of science I have perused, to a point. (Some branches in their entirety smack more of religion than science.)

Finding errors in logic is easy, just look for circular reasoning and multiple definitions. You will find numerous examples. That is why I am an amateur EX-physicist, and not an EX amateur physicist.

Prove all things, and kick the garbage to the curb.

Paul Andrulis

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: A Challenge to Thermodynamic Theory (Read 19384 times)

sm0ky2

A Challenge to Thermodynamic Theory

fritznien

Re: A Challenge to Thermodynamic Theory

sm0ky2

Re: A Challenge to Thermodynamic Theory

onthecuttingedge2010

Re: A Challenge to Thermodynamic Theory

sm0ky2

Re: A Challenge to Thermodynamic Theory

fritznien

Re: A Challenge to Thermodynamic Theory

sm0ky2

Re: A Challenge to Thermodynamic Theory

Poit

Re: A Challenge to Thermodynamic Theory

fritznien

Re: A Challenge to Thermodynamic Theory

Poit

Re: A Challenge to Thermodynamic Theory

fritznien

Re: A Challenge to Thermodynamic Theory

Poit

Re: A Challenge to Thermodynamic Theory

fritznien

Re: A Challenge to Thermodynamic Theory

pauldude000

Re: A Challenge to Thermodynamic Theory

pauldude000

Re: A Challenge to Thermodynamic Theory