Maxwell’s Demon - An Energy Conversion Experiment in Contradiction to the Second Law

xyfu

Quote

We think these comments are terrible. Move the goalposts? Beware copies/clones? Even pirate?

We have found the real original papers listed by Mr. Olias and got their titles, authors and published dates. They are shown as follows:

1. http://www.sp.uconn.edu/~terry/images/anim/ETS.html
Animation of Electron transport in Mitochondria
copyright 1997. Thomas M. Terry, The University of Connecticut.

2. http://www.nature.com/nsu/020101/020101-1.html
New state of matter made
Physicists have created a patterned liquid.
3 January 2002
PHILIP BALL

They were published in 1997 and 2002, respectively. The former relates to bi-chemistry and latter relates to some new material. They have nothing to do with thermal electrons in a vacuum tube!

Our experiment was done during 1998 and 2001, we knew nothing about these two papers. We had got most ideas about our experiment in late 1970s, and we had a paper, which described almost all the ideas related, published in ENERGY CONVERSION AND MANAGEMENT in January 1982. The editor-in-chief of the journal, Dr. Jesse C. Denton, exchanged opinions with us many times. We also take it as one of references in the paper of Maxwell’s Demon - An Energy Conversion Experiment in Contradiction to the Second Law.

The following is the title, abstract etc of the paper published in 1982.



Abstract “Maxwell’s demon”----the well known hypothesis put forward by J. C. Maxwell in 1871 has excited resonance and stormy discussion over and over among many physicists for more than a century, but never has it been realized. In this article we suggest an experiment where thermoelectrons emitted from two oxide cathodes in a specially devised vacuum tube are substituted for gas molecules in Maxwell’s vessel of two portions, while the application of a magnetic field to acting Lorentz force on the thermoelectrons offers the controlling service of the “demon”, so that electrons can only fly from one pole (A) to another (B) and a potential difference as well as an electric current can thus be gained. Through this experiment we could carry out Maxwell’s hypothesis and provide an example to break through Keivin’s formulation of the second law of thermodynamics.



Certainly, we are not so stupid to guess that Mr. Thomas M. Terry or Mr. Philip Ball has cloned our ideas.

Mr. Olias, we think you have insulted us, very impolitely.

zoobyshoe

xyfu,

I have to agree with you about this, since I couldn't find anything important about the experiment cited by Olias with the optical lattice and Bose-Einstein condensate that had the least similarity to your set up. His post struck me as strange.

xyfu

Dear Zoobyshoe ,

Thank you a lot! Actually we published our former paper early in 1982. Everyone can find it in library.

ZapperZ

1. Phillip Ball is an EDITOR of Nature. That link is a REVIEW of the paper that is cited at the END of the article. Read it again carefully. If you think that paper he is reviewing "cloned" your idea, then WRITE to Nature. Don't just slander the authors on here.

2. If you are really claiming that you have measured a system that demonstrate a Maxwell Demon, then I do not understand why you have not sent it for publication in a more prestigious journal. I mean, let's face it, "Energy Conversion and Management" is not exactly on par with Science, Nature, Phys. Rev. Lett., etc. As a physicist, I have never even heard of it, much less recall any significant physics papers that have come out of that. So you will understand that I find your claim to be highly dubious especially when such an important claim is made in a rather inconspicuous manner.

3. Olias did not insult you by any means, at least not from the way I have read his postings. One SHOULD NOT be naive enough to not expect to be challenged. Go to any physics conference and you will see skeptics towards a work or results, no matter how big or well-known the presenter is. This is the nature of the workings of physics. If you have such a thin skin to think what Olias has posted to be "insulting", then you're in for a very rough ride.

4. Olias cited an article that made use the same principle as the laser cooling technique. Such principles are no different than applying a B field to a bunch of electron gasses, only different level of complexities. It is of no surprise that charge particles can in fact be induced to lower their "temperatures" when put in this situation.

J. Maddox, Nature v.417, p.903 (2002)

But this is waaaaay different than a demonstration of Maxwell Demons!

Zz.

zoobyshoe

This can't be denied. The entity proposed by Maxwell effected a separation of high energy gas molecules from lower energy ones. The notion that you can substitute electrons for gas molecules and still be talking about the same thing is erroneous.

"...an experiment where thermoelectrons emitted from two oxide cathodes in a specially devised vaccuum tube are substituted for gas molecules in Maxwell's vessel of two portions..."

Substitute electrons for gas molecules? Any resemblence to Maxwell's entity is pretty much delusional.

The fact electrons can be deflected in a desired direction by a magnetic field is not a mystery, and not new, and does not contradict the 2nd law. It doesn't have anything to do with the 2nd law to begin with.

Olias

Two things are apparent, ONE we both understand the meaning of the word 'Insulting'. TWO we both understand the word ' impolitely.

The post by me above needs some deep inquisitive exploration as to Why? and in the Relevence or Context.


This:http://www.nature.com/nsu/020101/020101-1.html

Has about as much to do with your paper as, as your paper has to do with Maxwells Demons, pretty evident I would have thought?

This:http://www.sp.uconn.edu/~terry/images/anim/ETS.html
shows the connection between isolated and connected systems, as about as experimentally viable as your system is to the surrounding 'air'.

Every Electron that hops-skips-jumps, depends on its enviroment, if it is within a connecting enviroment that is governed by the 2nd Law, then your understanding of the 2nd Law needs re-defining, not a redefinition of the Second Law?

Still, I do not take back my posting, but I will State that I have no Qualifications, so therefore you can use my lack of understanding to save face, but then again it may just be that I understand the 2nd Law just a tad more than yourself.

Olias

Have you considered the implication if you could achieve this with the Crooke Radiometer !!

Interesting!

Link if you do not know what I am suggesting:http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/on-l...s/1920-410.asp

Olias

Actually I posted the wrong link, its here:http://128.148.60.98/physics/demopag...emo/4d2010.htm

If you could achieve the experiment with a rotational axis, then you should produce motion within the vacuum tube?

Olias

Easy when you know how !

xyfu

Quote
Originally posted by Olias

Have you considered the implication if you could achieve this with the Crooke Radiometer !!
Interesting!



Thanks for offering the information about Crooke Radiometer. We read the introduction and catched how it works, in both the cases of high vaccum and very high vaccum.

Nevertheless, we still can not be enlightened by the Radiometer on why our experiment is not in contradiction to the second law.

Anyway, thank you for your offering.

OscarM

Xinyong.

If you are correct, you will win the Nobel ;-)

I think that if you make the magnetic field bigger the orbit of electrons were closer and you could miniaturize the ZX1

It will be necessary to put a lot of plates in parallel for make an interesant current.
¿Are you trying to make this?

OscarM

xyfu

Dear Mr. OscarM

Thank you for the fine discussion. As to your doubt, let me try to explain as follows.

The two Ag-O-Cs cathodes can be regarded as settled on the surface of an insulated base, shown as follows. A and B are two Ag-O-Cs electrodes, IIIIIIII is some insulation material, such as mica or quartz, and symbol × represents the magnetic field:




So, both the two electrodes can only eject electrons upwards. Then, due to the action of the magnetic field, every electrons, once leaves the electrodes and enters into the vacuum, turns to the right continuously and moves along a circle path, and very quickly, it returns back to the electrodes in less a circle. Its falling point is always a little drifted to the right. So, a part of electrons ejected by A near the interval between A and B, may fly overpass the interval and fall into B, but no electrons ejected by B can fly overpass the interval and fall into A.

Much clear figures of the paths of the electrons are shown in our arxiv paper, Fig.3 and Fig. 4. Please click http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0311104.

X Y Fu

xyfu

The discussion about Maxwell’s demon and the related test has already lasted for about twenty-five days. Many people contributed their interesting opinions, most of which are valuable or helpful. We thank Physics Forum and all the participants very much. Nevertheless, it looks as if the discussion is a little divergent. In order to focus the attention in a better way on the most important problems, we list here again some main points of Maxwell’s demon and our experiment as follows, including some important quotations as reference. It amounts total five points.

1. The second law of thermodynamics.
2. Maxwell’s original idea, the first model.
3. Ehrenburg et al, the second model.
4. Replace electrons to molecules.
5. The problem of energy.


In 1850 and 1851, Clausius and Kelvin established the second law of thermodynamics. They presented two famous equivalent statements of this law.

According to this law, all practical processes in nature are irreversible, proceeding from useful energy to waste one, like a one-way traffic. And the universe is thus destined to go forward to its eventual state, the “heat death.”

Such a law sounds strange. Nevertheless, numerous of observations and experiments confirm its validity. Few people dare to think that the “universe traffic” should be a round way one.


In 1871, the prominent British physicist James Clerk Maxwell firstly challenged this law. The following is his original words.


Maxwell is a great prophet in the history of physics. He had predicted displacement current, electromagnetic waves, distribution law of the speed of molecules in a gas, the crisis of the classical physics (hydrogen heat capacities at different temperatures), and so on, and all these predictions were verified one by one, ten years, thirty years, and even fifty years after his death. We think that there is still an important prophecy of his not yet verified so far, the prophecy about the demon. It is very likely that this one is his greatest prophecy.

In Maxwell’s conceiving, the demon allows only the swifter molecules to pass from A to B, and only the slower ones to pass from B to A, and the system will change from a state in which both the temperature and the pressure are everywhere the same, to a new state in which the temperature of B is higher than that of A.

This may be referred to as the first model of the demon, (see Fig.1. *)


The following words are quoted from W Ehrenburg’s general review about the history of Maxwell’s demon, showing a second model.

By the first model, a difference in temperature is finally obtained. This is a process opposite to heat transfer.

By the second model, a difference in pressure is finally obtained. This is a process opposite to gas free expansion.

In traditional thermodynamic, both heat transfer and gas free expansion are very typical and essential irreversible processes.

We approve of Ehrenberg’s opinion that the second model is much easier to realize than the first model, (see Fig.2 *).


Very similar to the gas molecules, thermal electrons ejected by a cathode in a vacuum tube obey Maxwell’s speed distribution law, too. Nevertheless, electrons are much easier to harness than neutral molecules. In our design and experiment, we replace electrons to neutral molecules.

In a vacuum tube, two Ag-O-Cs cathodes A and B are settled on an insulated base, as shown in the following diagram:


where IIII is some insulation material, such as mica or quartz.

According to A H Simmer et al, Ag-O-Cs cathodes, due to their lowest work function, eject thermal electrons considerably at room temperature.

The technique of photoelectric tubes and photoelectric multipliers demands an Ag-O-Cs cathode a lower thermal electron emission. If the thermal electron emission is high, the tube or the multiplier is of bad quality. In our experiment, quite contrary, higher thermal electron emission is expected.

When a stable uniform magnetic field is applied to the tube in the direction parallel to the interval between cathodes A and B (perpendicular to this paper and entering it), part of the electrons ejected by A can fly overpass the interval and fall into B, and no any electron ejected by B can fly overpass the interval and fall into A.

Such a working method coincides with Ehrenberg’s second model, (see Fig.3 and Fig.4 *).

The one-way transfer of electrons results in immediately a charge aggregation, with B positively charged and A negatively charged, and a corresponding electric potential difference is established between B and A. The device can thus supply electric power to an exterior load.


One may ask, where comes from this electric power?

It comes from the heat extracted from the surrounding air.

As soon as A is positively charged and B negatively charged, a static electric field appears

above the interval between A and B. The direction of the electric field is such that it impedes the succeeding electrons to fly from A to B. Nevertheless, the electrons have thermal energy, or speed. The electrons overcome the impediment and fly from A to B. In so doing, they slow down, and their “temperature” falls down (slightly), resulting in a drop down (very slight) of the temperature of the whole tube. The tube then extracts heat from the surrounding air to compensate its temperature drop. The whole process converts heat extracted from the air to electric power to supply an exterior load, without producing any other effects.

It is clear and simple that the energy here is conserved. What’s new and important in this experiment is Maxwell’s idea of converting waste energy into useful energy. We think we have realized his dream.



* Note: Fig.1 through Fig.4 are in our arxiv paper Realization of Maxwell’s Hypothesis,

http://www.arxiv.org/physics/0311104

OscarM

have Someone could replicate your experiment?

xyfu

Nobody replicated the experiment so far.

There were two people, one in Arizona and the other in Los Angeles, asked us whether they could get a duplicate of our test tube FX1. We are managing to make some duplicates now.

Anyone who is familiar with vacuum techniques, espeicially those who is familia with the technique of Ag-O-Cs production, can make similar tubes to FX1 easily. We think that they can even make better tubes than ours, and do the experiment with better instruments.

xyfu

The Problem of Magnetic Field (1)




We think that the above argument is false.

In whatever cases, a magnetic field exerts on a moving electron only a Lawrence force , which is always perpendicular to the velocity of the electron. So it is impossible for the force to do any work on the electron.

The work of the output current in our experiment is converted from the heat extracted from the surrounding air.