1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

An old theory of mine was scientifically proven recently!

  1. May 1, 2010 #1
    I made this post almost 3 years ago:

    https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=175198

    Last January, this discover was made:

    http://spectrum.ieee.org/nanoclast/...essity-is-the-mother-of-invention-in-nanotech



    Cooling without any expenditure of energy, violation of 2nd Law of thermodynamics, sounds familiar?:biggrin:

    Glad these guys did it!! I could not do it myself, well I tried, just so many factors keep coming against my way. I am situated in one of poorest nations in Asia, and it isn't the best place for such radical discoveries, and potentially expensive ventures.

    A lot has changed since my post though. I have finally come up with a way to do it, long before this official discovery was made, just differently than how they did it in the 2nd post. But similar in principle due to the 'microscopic level' the interactions must be done. The high performance requirements is what keeps my from prototyping it. I just don't have the capability at the moment. It's a different machine however, not just for cooling but also for providing motive power(transport vehicles, etc) as well as source of energy, using ambient heat as fuel.

    If this works, not only global warming is solved, but also ends our energy dependence on fossil fuels, nuclear, hydroelectric... I can't say solar, since indirectly, it is solar energy, making use of ambient heat which really comes from the sun and Universe's background radiation. Good thing, ambient heat is everywhere, as long as the temp is above 0 Kelvin.
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2010
  2. jcsd
  3. May 1, 2010 #2
    I'll read through it and it sounds interesting. But why don't you just bump your old thread?
    I don't think this is a forum for self-praise.
     
  4. May 1, 2010 #3
    Ah I see. The thread is locked.
    It's a pitty that some people there locked it because they didn't understand it and were afraid it could contradict their believes.

    The device you describe doesn't work. You are not converting heat into energy, but instead you are using the pressure of the gas to do plain work. Note that you are losing molecules as they go through the tube, by the turbine and out of the system! This is nothing else than opening a gas bottle in vacuum and let it do work.

    However, if you want to transfer the molecules after the turbine back into the system, then you run into problems, since this transfer can go both ways and your turbine would be hit from the opposite side and stop working.

    Converting real heat would mean you are getting energy without changing the volume (i.e. lose molecules)

    I still need to read through the news article to explain why it differs from your idea.
     
  5. May 1, 2010 #4

    sylas

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    The old thread was locked because it was a perpetual motion machine. There is no comparison with the notion from that old thread and what is given in this link. None. As you point out, the old "idea" won't work; it violates the second law of thermodynamics, with the old Maxwell's demon's idea. But there is no basis for your claim that people are "afraid" of new ideas. The ideas in the new paper do work.
     
  6. May 1, 2010 #5
    Actually no. In a way his idea would have worked, but it just isn't heat conversion when the volume changes. In the other hand, if you try to keep the volume constant by piping the molecules back, then the turbines stops working as I explained above.
    Therefore, the explanation is much simpler.

    It's a shame that some people there don't put any thought into the problem, but still believe they know everything better. I'm not saying afraid of new idea. Saying his idea has anything to do with the second law is just wrong and even worse is shutting down the thread based on this miscomprehension and not explaining the real flaw of the idea.
     
  7. May 1, 2010 #6

    Dale

    Staff: Mentor

    The old thread had nothing whatsoever to do with the ieee link. The ieee link works completely within the 2nd law without requiring a Maxwell's demon, it is nothing more nor less than gray-body radiation. The innovative part of the link is not some imagined violation of thermodynamics, but that they were able to engineer a material that had the desired gray-body characteristics.

    The idea in the link works because, by having a gray-body that emits in the transparent region of the atmosphere you are partially in thermal contact with outer space at just a few K rather than being completely in thermal contact with the atmosphere at a couple hundred K. It is no violation of thermodynamics to claim that a beer gets cold in outer space.
     
  8. May 1, 2010 #7

    uart

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    +1 to what Dale said.

    gaming_addict. You know that if for example you wear all black cloths and then go and stand (or lay) in the sunshine then you can get quite a bit hotter than the ambient air temperature, right! Well what they are discussing in the link is basically just the reverse of that when you have access to the cold night sky instead of the warm sunshine. Not really new but they've found a more effective way to do it.

    I don't want to seem rude but honestly, by making the claim that you did you're just showing how little understanding of the subject that you possess
     
  9. May 1, 2010 #8

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Dale's right. This has nothing to do with the original thread, which as about what only could be called a perpetual motion machine.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: An old theory of mine was scientifically proven recently!
  1. Is the Atom proven? (Replies: 7)

  2. Recent discoveries? (Replies: 16)

Loading...