Published paper proving that Carnot efficiency can be exceeded

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a proposed system called the Blue system, which claims to convert heat to work at 100% efficiency while still increasing the universe's entropy, challenging the traditional interpretation of the Carnot theorem. The research has been published in the "Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, India" and is available on SpringerLink. The author asserts that their findings are mathematically sound and accessible to those with basic physics knowledge. Criticism and discussion are encouraged, but the forum rules prohibit discussions on perpetual motion machines, which the proposal may resemble. The thread has been closed for moderation due to these concerns.
abhijitp88
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I've theoretically proved that heat to work can be converted at 100% efficiency by proposing a system, named as the Blue system. And I've also proved that the entropy of the universe increases even if this system operates at 100% efficiency. The implication of this being that the Carnot theorem is just a special case of the second law of thermodynamics, and not an equivalent statement as considered till now.
The article has been technically reviewed and published in the journal, "Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, India" under "Springer" publication. The article is also a part of the SpringerLink database and is available at:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40010-013-0064-x

Do share message so that maximum people know about this and my system gets the required attention and criticism on a wider platform because this can potentially change the text-books of physics. Feel free to contact me on my e-mail id mentioned below.

Thanks and Regards,
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Science news on Phys.org
I would also like to add that the research paper has proved this concept very mathematically using the fundamental laws of heat transfer. The conclusion mentioned above has no grey areas whatsoever since it's arrived at using very simple mathematical equations. The article can be read at the link above by clicking the free preview option. I encourage you reading this article. Even high school physics knowledge would suffice to verify my claims.
 
Purchase on Springer.com is $39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95
 
Closed pending moderation.

EDIT: the thread is re-opened. I would like to remind the forum members to read and abide by the forum rules in the discussion of this topic.
 
Last edited:
abhijitp88 said:
I would also like to add that the research paper has proved this concept very mathematically using the fundamental laws of heat transfer. The conclusion mentioned above has no grey areas whatsoever since it's arrived at using very simple mathematical equations. The article can be read at the link above by clicking the free preview option. I encourage you reading this article. Even high school physics knowledge would suffice to verify my claims.

Putting a dichroic mirror in a cavity does not result in a violation of thermodynamics:

http://www.physicsinsights.org/blackbodies-1.html
 
Andy Resnick said:
Putting a dichroic mirror in a cavity does not result in a violation of thermodynamics:

http://www.physicsinsights.org/blackbodies-1.html

Thanks for your inputs Andy. I went through the hyperlink mentioned by you.
In section 3.4, Ideal dichoric mirrors, and the subsequent section 4 simply conclude that the blackbody have the same emission spectrum and that emissivity=absorbtivity. In my system, the body at a higher temperature emits towards a body at a lower temperature and thus the entropy increases. So, in my opinion, as far as the heat flow is concerned, the system is feasible. Or have I misunderstood your point?
If not satisfied, please point out the specific part of the article and elaborate why my particular system is not thermodynamically not feasible so that I can answer it better. Once again, thank you so much for your input and all the criticism is welcome as far as the language used is physics!:smile:
 
Closed pending moderation again.
 
We will not be reopening this thread. Discussions of what is essentially a perpetual motion machine are specifically prohibited by the PF Rules. The explanation as to why this is incorrect has been given by Andy.

I understand that many people are interested in adding more reasons this is wrong to this thread, but we do not discuss PMMs here.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
12K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
38
Views
46K
Replies
4
Views
7K
Back
Top