Re: [free_energy] Lucy Skywalker, Roderich Graeff, Daniel Sheehan: Second Law
- A cold pot on a cold stove does not get hot.Loschmidt's hypothesis is logical. A common observation re this is the adiabatic lapse rate.This is NOT esoteric. A pilot or flight engineer must have familiarity.The rate of change of any meteorological phenomenon, especially atmospheric temperature with altitude. The lapse rate varies depending on the ground temperature, time of year (for example, in the Northern hemisphere it is lower in the winter), whether the air is over land or ocean water, and what the degree of moisture is. The dry adiabatic lapse rate is the lapse rate of a dry mass of air which expands and cools as it rises. This rate is typically -9.8°C (-14.36°F) per 1,000 m (3,280 ft). The saturated adiabatic lapse rate is the lapse rate of a wet mass of air, which slows down once the dew point has been reached and condensation has started to form. This rate ranges from 4°C (39.2°F) per 1,000 m (3,280 ft) to 9°C (48.2°F) per 1,000 m (3,280 ft).I suspect Maxwell was thinking that warm air rises so it could not be stable with warm at the bottom. His understanding was less perfect than that of Loschmidt but a brilliant step forward none the less.Our society has advanced this far using the current simplistic explanations of physics. The next step is these combinant effects which are perfectly explainable using current models, the lack in our understanding is due to our insistence on simple models devoid of second order effects. I am not doing well trying to express this. Perhaps an example - I read a magazine article where the author spoke of the meteor striking the Earth with a huge quantity of kinetic energy. Kinetic energy has nice large numbers to impress the reader but just as in expressing the energy in a bullet the seller wants nice large numbers. We fall for this failure of logic with great consistency. The measure of energy in a moving mass is momentum, mass times velocity. Kinetic energy is the measure whereby you calculate the exchange of velocity for potential energy in a vacuum in the presence of 1g. The m in the KE equation is a special unit embodying the gravitational constant. To use KE to describe impact energy is illogical but excellent salesmanship. The rest of our physics is similar. I remember being told in class raising 550 pounds one foot in 1 second is one horse power. I also remember when asking if 1 pound raised 550 feet in one second was equivalent I was assured it was. To me that answer was irrational and I think it still is irrational to substitute potential energy as the criteria to establish equivalency whilst ignoring huge accelerations to accomplish the 550 foot criteria.We sacrifice understanding on the altar of simplicity.
From: PAMELA NEIL <pamela.neil@...>
To: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Monday, May 6, 2013 2:48 PM
Subject: Fw: [free_energy] Lucy Skywalker, Roderich Graeff, Daniel Sheehan: Second Law
Surely, if the 'second law' of thermodynamics, was found to be incorrect, (no matter how much by), then perpetual motionis truly possible? You can't have two sets of contradicting 'laws', for one happening.BILL.----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Autymn D. C. <lysdexia@...>
To: email@example.com; Maxwells_Demon@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 6 May 2013, 19:00
Subject: [free_energy] Lucy Skywalker, Roderich Graeff, Daniel Sheehan: Second Law
Lucy Skywalker: Graeff’s Second Law SeminarPosted: May 29, 2012 by tallbloke in atmosphere, climate, data, Energy, Gravity, Kindness, methodology
This is a guest post from ‘Lucy Skywalker’ who has recently returned from a trip to Germany where she attended a seminar given by Roderich Graeff, the engineering concern owner who has been experimenting with equipment he has designed to test the Loschmidt gravito-thermal effect. This line of research is highly relevant to the theoretical work of Hans Jelbring, and also Nikolov and Zeller, who have proposed hypotheses to explain the thermal gradient found in the atmosphere causing the near surface air to be warm relative to higher altitudes.SECOND LAW CHALLENGED? LOSCHMIDT VINDICATED?
Lucy Skywalker – May 28 2012Few people know that in the last decade, there have been quite a number of serious challenges (as opposed to perpetual-motion challenges) to the hallowed Second Law of Thermodynamics. Dr Sheehan has organized conferences and written books about all this. He put me in touch with Dr Graeff, the one participant who has been running real experiments. These experiments appear to vindicate the theories of Loschmidt, who 150 years ago challenged his friend Maxwell’s belief that a vertical air column in equilibrium will be the same temperature top and bottom. Loschmidt maintained that gravity would cause the bottom molecules to be warmer than the top ones. But until Graeff, nobody had actually undertaken the experimental research needed to check these theories against measurements....http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/06/11/lucy-skywalker-graeffs-experiments-and-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/
Lucy Skywalker: Graeffs experiments and the second law of thermodynamicsPosted: June 11, 2012 by tallbloke in atmosphere, data, general circulation, Gravity, Measurement, methodology
Tags: 2nd law of thermodynamics, gravity machine, lucy skywalker, roderich graeffGuest post from ‘Lucy Skywalker’.Last time I described my visit to Roderich Graeff’s seminar. Now we look at the experiments in detail. Experiment trumps theory. Experiment is the final arbiter, as Einstein said. Only after looking at the experiments do I want to consider the theoretical elements.HISTORY AND CONTEXTOne has to be aware of the depth to which the Second Law has been held most sacrosanct of all the laws of physics. Eddington said famously:“If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations—then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation—well these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”But today, Dan Sheehan of the University of San Diego could write in his 2005 book “Challenges to The Second Law of Thermodynamics“:“The second law has no general theoretical proof. Except perhaps for a few idealized cases like the dilute idal gas, its absolute status rests squarely on empirical evidence. As remarked by Fermi and echoed by others, “support for this law consists mainly in the failure of all efforts that have been made to construct a perpetuum mobile of the second kind”… [yet] One would be hard-pressed to name ANY physics theory, concept, law or principle that has not undergone major revision either in content or interpretation over the last hundred years… The damning question is, why has it taken so long for [the 2LoT's] absolute status to be questioned?”Vladislav Čápek and Daniel P. Sheehan, /Challenges to the Second Law of Thermodynamics: Theory and Experiment/ (2005). Springer. http://books.google.com/books?id=-nWyk7jH5_ECmy mention of violations: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/free_energy/message/36579. -Aut
- It does if the pressure increases.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Kirk McLoren <kirkmcloren@...> wrote:
> A cold pot on a cold stove does not get hot.