Originally posted by gambon
I have ,where are yours?
You have so far picked four of five entire pages , apparently at random, that mostly makes broad accusations that supports you views. I am referring
to the type of sourcing where specific claims are being made and or supported so that we can discuss specific issues.
Apart from the ones that actually reinforce my point..!!!!lolol
You claim that they support your point but since you claimed that the first law negates the possibility of over-unity i provided the following source
to indicate that it does not in fact claim anything as specific for a usual thermodynamic system:
The internal energy is just a form of energy like the potential energy of an object at some height above the earth, or the kinetic energy of an
object in motion. In the same way that potential energy can be converted to kinetic energy while conserving the total energy of the system, the
internal energy of a thermodynamic system can be converted to either kinetic or potential energy. Like potential energy, the internal energy can be
stored in the system. Notice, however, that heat and work can not be stored or conserved independently since they depend on the process. The first
law of thermodynamics allows for many possible states of a system to exist, but only certain states are found to exist in nature. The second law of
thermodynamics helps to explain this observation.
If a system is fully insulated from the outside environment, it is possible to have a change of state in which no heat is transferred into the
system. Scientists refer to a process which does not involve heat transfer as an adiabatic process. The implementation of the first law of
thermodynamics for gases introduces another useful state variable called the enthalpy which is described on a separate page.
In this source it's stated that the conservation of energy in a given thermodynamic system is dependent on whether it is a isolated, closed, or open
system. If we can with great confidence establish that a system is in fact isolated we may presume that the energy in it will be conserved but since
that determination can not be made as easily as you suggest, or at all, there does not in our knowledge exist a truly isolated system in the universe.
In fact we have no evidence that shows conclusively that the Universe itself must be isolated or closed.
Second Law of Thermodynamics - Increased Entropy
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is commonly known as the Law of Increased Entropy. While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of
matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. How so? Usable energy is inevitably used for productivity, growth and repair. In the process, usable
energy is converted into unusable energy. Thus, usable energy is irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy.
"Entropy" is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed or isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy decreases
and unusable energy increases, "entropy" increases. Entropy is also a gauge of randomness or chaos within a closed system. As usable energy is
irretrievably lost, disorganization, randomness and chaos increase
Interestingly this source states clearly that conservation requires perfect knowledge of the system in question and then broadly presumed that the
universe i such. Since i am not aware of the evidence this claims rests on i must disregard it as just so much more ignorant posturing about knowledge
not in evidence.
Applying this knowledge to nature, physicists found that the total entropy change (change in S) always increases for every naturally occurring
event (within a closed system) that could be then observed. Thus, they theorized, disorder must be continually augmenting evenly throughout the
universe. When you put ice into a hot cup of tea (aristocrats of the Victorian era were constantly thinking of tea), heat will flow from the hot tea
to the cold ice and melt the ice in the beloved beverage. Then, once the energy in the cup is evenly distributed, the cooled tea would reach a maximum
state of entropy. This situation represents a standard increase in disorder, believed to be perpetually occurring throughout the entire universe.
In the above example it is pointed out that entropy increases in a closed system without giving us any examples of what are and what is not
representative of a closed system.
You pick (inaccurate )sources to suit your beliefs in the matter.
I can understand that you do not like my beliefs but i can tell you that my beliefs are in fact based on what i have read and not the other way round.
I understand you are , just like me, attracted to making blanket statements about the lack of evidence presented by anyone but as you may or may not
have noticed i am in fact supplying sourced references that at least provides you with the basis for my claims.
Tell you what ,You show me the holes in the relevant equations /laws that let these devices exist
There are many 'holes' in modern equations and maxwell in fact were far closed to then truth than many scientist in the field are today! If you want
to discuss specific claims by Maxwell that is fine but just remember that the equations commonly used today are vast simplifications of what he
originally came up with. It is in that rewriting and simplification that much knowledge and understand were lost and why the laws seem to support
current views but in no way actually forbids over-unity systems.
Well may I ask you the same with reference to your evasiveness in the previous quote..Just what exactly do you believe?
Love you ...
I believe that the first over unity systems, devices and processes where observed in Maxwell's time but since the 'source' of the vast energy in
question could not be established respected scientist obscured references to it to protect their standing in the science establishments of the time
just as they are protecting their standing today by avoiding any discussion of what energy really IS. What would you have done if a similar situation
having tried to establish the source of the energy flow that is commonly wasted in modern applications? For instance:
In the battery, the Poynting vector is outward, indicating
the direction of energy flow. ~Note the sensitivity of this
result to the sense of the current through the battery.! In the
vicinity of the conducting wires and next to the positive terminal
of the battery, S is parallel to the wire. Perhaps surprisingly,
S is directed from the battery on both sides of the
battery. Along the resistor R, the change of direction of E
outside the resistor causes S to change as well, gradually
turning from parallel to perpendicular to the resistor axis
~and entering it!, at its middle point ~zero surface charge!.
account obviously does not explain much about the circuit.
Indeed, in the Feynman lectures we read:4
‘‘We ask what happens in a piece of resistance
wire when it is carrying a current. Since the wire
has resistance, there is an electric field along it,
driving the current. Because there is a potential
drop along the wire, there is also an electric field
just outside the wire, parallel to the surface ~Fig.
27-5!. There is, in addition, a magnetic field
which goes around the wire because of the current.
The E and B are at right angles; therefore
there is a Poynting vector directed radially inward,
as shown in the figure. There is a flow of
energy into the wire all around. It is of course,
equal to the energy being lost in the wire in the
form of heat. So our ‘‘crazy’’ theory says that the
electrons are getting their energy to generate heat
because of the energy flowing into the wire from
the field outside. Intuition would seem to tell us
that the electrons get their energy from being
pushed along the wire, so the energy should be
flowing down ~or up! along the wire. But the
theory says that the electrons are really being
pushed by an electric field, which has come from
some charges very far away, and that the electrons
get their energy for generating heat from
these fields. The energy somehow flows from the
distant charges into a wide area of space and then
inward to the wire.’’ ~emphasis added!.
However, the result of such an application
and the resulting energy transfer in the circuit apparently did
not satisfy Feynman. He wrote: ‘‘this theory is obviously
nuts, somehow energy flows from the battery to infinity and
then back into the load, is really strange.’’4 Feynman, however,
did not persist and left the problem for others to find a
reasonable explanation. Can we say more about energy transfer
in this simple circuit?
Where is that widely acknowledged energy coming from ( if conservation is presumed in a standard circuit) and how and why is it being written out of
our standard equations?