Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [free_energy] Re: A working Maxwell's demon ?

Expand Messages
  • Phil Karn
    ... I stand by what I said. There almost certainly *is* a catch, or an experimental error; we simply haven t found it yet. There is simply too much
    Message 1 of 29 , Dec 1, 2003
      Robert Lerwill wrote:

      > I have to admit that I am disappointed with the reaction this amazing
      > experiment has received. It is the most credible report I have seen of a
      > violation of the laws of thermodynamics in over thirty years of looking. I
      > am not saying it is "it". I grant that it needs to
      > be replicated before we start tearing up our text books. I would have found
      > it even more convincing if the authors had calculated how much power they
      > expected to generate and it matched the experimental result. Nevertheless,
      > the criticisms voiced so far by the "sceptics" have shown either closed
      > minds or ignorance. Phil at least accepts that on the face of it, it is a
      > violation. However his comment implies a closed mind. He says:
      >
      > "I'm not yet totally sure of the "catch" that shows why this device
      > doesn't actually violate the second law"
      >
      > He does not say
      >
      > "I'm not yet totally sure if there is a "catch" that shows why this device
      > doesn't actually violate the second law"
      >
      > ...which would have been more appropriate coming from someone who calls
      > themselves a sceptic.

      I stand by what I said. There almost certainly *is* a catch, or an
      experimental error; we simply haven't found it yet. There is simply too
      much experimental evidence and theoretical analysis supporting the
      second law of thermodynamics, and too many holes in this experiment, for
      anyone to seriously entertain the possibility that it truly violates the
      second law.

      I can think of many possible prosaic explanations for the reported
      effect that have not been ruled out. One that just occurred to me last
      night is rectification of radio signals. Although the authors say that
      the device is shielded against the direct entry of electromagnetic
      radiation, it is still connected by wires to an external circuit. That
      external circuit operates at a very high impedance and contains a very
      sensitive measuring device. The tube, as described, could well function
      as a rectifier that "detects" AC energy from a local AM radio station,
      converting it into DC seen by the electrometer. (The very first use for
      the vacuum tube was as a rectifier.)

      The authors give their address as Shanghai, China, a very large city
      with an undoubtedly intense electromagnetic environment. The usual way
      to exclude such effects would be to operate the entire experiment (not
      just the device) in a "screen room", but the authors make no mention of
      such a precaution.

      Phil
    • Bob Lerwill
      ... device ... this device ... calls ... Strictly speaking, that is not standing by what you said. To say that there almost certainly is a catch is not the
      Message 2 of 29 , Dec 1, 2003
        --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, Phil Karn <yahoo1@k...> wrote:
        > Robert Lerwill wrote:
        >
        ..... Phil at least accepts that on the face of it, it is a
        > > violation. However his comment implies a closed mind. He says:
        > >
        > > "I'm not yet totally sure of the "catch" that shows why this
        device
        > > doesn't actually violate the second law"
        > >
        > > He does not say
        > >
        > > "I'm not yet totally sure if there is a "catch" that shows why
        this device
        > > doesn't actually violate the second law"
        > >
        > > ...which would have been more appropriate coming from someone who
        calls
        > > themselves a sceptic.
        >
        > I stand by what I said. There almost certainly *is* a catch, or an
        > experimental error; we simply haven't found it yet.

        Strictly speaking, that is not standing by what you said. To say
        that "there almost certainly is a catch" is not the same as implying
        there definitely is a catch.

        > There is simply too
        > much experimental evidence and theoretical analysis supporting the
        > second law of thermodynamics,

        Experimental evidence is irrelevent unless it relates to this
        particular experiment. Similarly the theoretical analysis that
        attempts to prove the impossibility of Maxwell's demon is also
        irrelevent unless it can be applied to this set-up. Bennet and others
        have only succeeded in showing up the flaws in their own versions of
        the demon.

        and too many holes in this experiment, for
        > anyone to seriously entertain the possibility that it truly
        violates the
        > second law.
        >
        > I can think of many possible prosaic explanations for the reported
        > effect that have not been ruled out. One that just occurred to me
        last
        > night is rectification of radio signals. Although the authors say
        that
        > the device is shielded against the direct entry of electromagnetic
        > radiation, it is still connected by wires to an external circuit.
        That
        > external circuit operates at a very high impedance and contains a
        very
        > sensitive measuring device. The tube, as described, could well
        function
        > as a rectifier that "detects" AC energy from a local AM radio
        station,
        > converting it into DC seen by the electrometer. (The very first use
        for
        > the vacuum tube was as a rectifier.)
        >
        > The authors give their address as Shanghai, China, a very large
        city
        > with an undoubtedly intense electromagnetic environment. The usual
        way
        > to exclude such effects would be to operate the entire experiment
        (not
        > just the device) in a "screen room", but the authors make no
        mention of
        > such a precaution.
        >
        > Phil

        Well actually Xin and Zi do. The output of the device is fed to the
        electrometer using concentric cables (screened leads). But even if
        you claim that the screening is inadequate, how do you explain the
        fact that the current increases with the applied magnetic field and
        reverses when the magnetic field is reversed? This is entirely in
        accord with the predictable consequences if the device was working as
        claimed; but cannot be reconciled with external rectification of
        radio pick-up.

        Got any other explanations?

        Bob Lerwill
      • Phil Karn
        ... We re taking about epsilon of difference here. ... Not at all. The reason physical laws like those of thermodynamics are so powerful is precisely because
        Message 3 of 29 , Dec 1, 2003
          Bob Lerwill wrote:

          > Strictly speaking, that is not standing by what you said. To say
          > that "there almost certainly is a catch" is not the same as implying
          > there definitely is a catch.

          We're taking about epsilon of difference here.

          > Experimental evidence is irrelevent unless it relates to this
          > particular experiment. Similarly the theoretical analysis that
          > attempts to prove the impossibility of Maxwell's demon is also
          > irrelevent unless it can be applied to this set-up. Bennet and others
          > have only succeeded in showing up the flaws in their own versions of
          > the demon.

          Not at all. The reason physical laws like those of thermodynamics are so
          powerful is precisely because of their generality; the application of a
          broad theoretical analysis allows them to apply to new situations as
          well as to old.

          > Well actually Xin and Zi do. The output of the device is fed to the
          > electrometer using concentric cables (screened leads). But even if
          > you claim that the screening is inadequate, how do you explain the
          > fact that the current increases with the applied magnetic field and
          > reverses when the magnetic field is reversed? This is entirely in
          > accord with the predictable consequences if the device was working as
          > claimed; but cannot be reconciled with external rectification of
          > radio pick-up.

          Coaxial cables are not a panacea, as any RF engineer can tell you. There
          are situations where even the best coax cables can be totally
          ineffective at blocking interference; I'd have to see the precise
          circuit schematics and physical layouts to tell. In any event, a screen
          room would be far more effective.

          > Got any other explanations?

          Yes, many. That the effect varies with the applied magnetic field is not
          at all surprising. If the tube behaves as a rectifier, as I think it
          might, changing the applied magnetic field might well change its
          properties and direction of rectification.

          One other observation I have is that the input impedance of the meter is
          extremely high. They specify it as having a voltage drop of .01 volts
          for a current reading of 1e-13 A, which corresponds to an impedance of
          100 gigaohms. With such an extremely high load resistance, even the
          stray capacitance in such a circuit (which, by the way, would be
          substantially increased by the capacitance of coaxial cable) would yield
          a very long RC time constant. The authors claim they waited long enough
          for the electromotive force from a change in B field to decay, but they
          don't say how long they waited or present any analysis of how long they
          should have to wait.

          In sum, what we have here is a good example of sloppy labwork and
          wishful thinking.

          Phil
        • Leo C.
          ... implying ... =*=*= Hi Phil To say that there definitely is a catch implies *certainty*, and therefore factual knowledge of the flaw. The statement
          Message 4 of 29 , Dec 1, 2003
            --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, Phil Karn <yahoo1@k...> wrote:
            > Bob Lerwill wrote:
            >
            > > Strictly speaking, that is not standing by what you said. To say
            > > that "there almost certainly is a catch" is not the same as
            implying
            > > there definitely is a catch.
            >
            > We're taking about epsilon of difference here.


            =*=*=
            Hi Phil

            To say that "there definitely is a catch" implies *certainty*, and
            therefore factual knowledge of the flaw. The statement "there almost
            certainly is a catch" says that there is *probably* (but not
            certainly) a flaw. The first statement is logical only if the flaw
            has been demonstrated experimentally, which is not yet the case
            (therefore this stance should be rejected by skeptics). The second
            statement sounds much more like what a logical skeptic would say.

            You may think that the difference is negligible, but a strict
            interpretation of the scientific method says otherwise. I don't mean
            to nit-pick, but this is an important point. Scientists should try
            to set a rigorously objective example.

            One more comment below...
            =*=*==*=*=




            >
            > > Experimental evidence is irrelevent unless it relates to this
            > > particular experiment. Similarly the theoretical analysis that
            > > attempts to prove the impossibility of Maxwell's demon is also
            > > irrelevent unless it can be applied to this set-up. Bennet and
            others
            > > have only succeeded in showing up the flaws in their own versions
            of
            > > the demon.
            >
            > Not at all. The reason physical laws like those of thermodynamics
            are so
            > powerful is precisely because of their generality; the application
            of a
            > broad theoretical analysis allows them to apply to new situations
            as
            > well as to old.
            >
            > > Well actually Xin and Zi do. The output of the device is fed to
            the
            > > electrometer using concentric cables (screened leads). But even
            if
            > > you claim that the screening is inadequate, how do you explain
            the
            > > fact that the current increases with the applied magnetic field
            and
            > > reverses when the magnetic field is reversed? This is entirely in
            > > accord with the predictable consequences if the device was
            working as
            > > claimed; but cannot be reconciled with external rectification of
            > > radio pick-up.
            >
            > Coaxial cables are not a panacea, as any RF engineer can tell you.
            There
            > are situations where even the best coax cables can be totally
            > ineffective at blocking interference; I'd have to see the precise
            > circuit schematics and physical layouts to tell. In any event, a
            screen
            > room would be far more effective.
            >
            > > Got any other explanations?
            >
            > Yes, many. That the effect varies with the applied magnetic field
            is not
            > at all surprising. If the tube behaves as a rectifier, as I think
            it
            > might, changing the applied magnetic field might well change its
            > properties and direction of rectification.
            >
            > One other observation I have is that the input impedance of the
            meter is
            > extremely high. They specify it as having a voltage drop of .01
            volts
            > for a current reading of 1e-13 A, which corresponds to an impedance
            of
            > 100 gigaohms. With such an extremely high load resistance, even the
            > stray capacitance in such a circuit (which, by the way, would be
            > substantially increased by the capacitance of coaxial cable) would
            yield
            > a very long RC time constant. The authors claim they waited long
            enough
            > for the electromotive force from a change in B field to decay, but
            they
            > don't say how long they waited or present any analysis of how long
            they
            > should have to wait.
            >
            > In sum, what we have here is a good example of sloppy labwork and
            > wishful thinking.
            >
            > Phil

            =*=*=
            Your objections to the Shanghai 2nd law violator calim are the only
            good ones that I have heard so far. If the coaxial cable and the
            current meter were placed within the Faraday cage, would this
            sufficiently preclude the possibility of RF interference? (or do they
            need a better Farady cage too?). As for your second objection, the
            time waited after each change in the magnetic field could be varied
            systematically to try to rule out induced currents. I wonder if
            hours or days be long enough of a wait after each change? (any
            thoughts on this?)

            If you have any other specific objections about the Shanghai
            experiment, please explain. I will try to keep up with any future
            reporing on this claim, and I would like to know what details to look
            out for.

            thanks,

            Leo C.
            =*=*==*=*=
          • Robert Lerwill
            ... From: Phil Karn To: Bob Lerwill Cc: Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 2:24 PM Subject:
            Message 5 of 29 , Dec 1, 2003
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "Phil Karn" <karn@...>
              To: "Bob Lerwill" <bob.mo@...>
              Cc: <free_energy@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 2:24 PM
              Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: A working Maxwell's demon ?


              > Bob Lerwill wrote:
              >
              > > Strictly speaking, that is not standing by what you said. To say
              > > that "there almost certainly is a catch" is not the same as implying
              > > there definitely is a catch.
              >
              > We're taking about epsilon of difference here.
              >
              It may be a small change, but it is an important change: and one that is
              welcome. I take back what I said about a closed mind. You have raised a
              point below that deserves answering.

              > > Experimental evidence is irrelevent unless it relates to this
              > > particular experiment. Similarly the theoretical analysis that
              > > attempts to prove the impossibility of Maxwell's demon is also
              > > irrelevent unless it can be applied to this set-up. Bennet and others
              > > have only succeeded in showing up the flaws in their own versions of
              > > the demon.
              >
              > Not at all. The reason physical laws like those of thermodynamics are so
              > powerful is precisely because of their generality; the application of a
              > broad theoretical analysis allows them to apply to new situations as
              > well as to old.
              >
              Yes but my point is that no broad theoretical analysis has shown analogues
              of Maxwell's demon to be impossible. Furthermore it has been universally
              ackowledged that if such a demon existed, it would violate the 2nd law. It
              is not the case that the 2nd law can be invoked to demonstrate the
              impossibility of such a demon, Rather it is that the universal validity of
              the 2nd law relies on the assumption that such demons are impossible.

              > > Well actually Xin and Zi do. The output of the device is fed to the
              > > electrometer using concentric cables (screened leads). But even if
              > > you claim that the screening is inadequate, how do you explain the
              > > fact that the current increases with the applied magnetic field and
              > > reverses when the magnetic field is reversed? This is entirely in
              > > accord with the predictable consequences if the device was working as
              > > claimed; but cannot be reconciled with external rectification of
              > > radio pick-up.
              >
              > Coaxial cables are not a panacea, as any RF engineer can tell you. There
              > are situations where even the best coax cables can be totally
              > ineffective at blocking interference; I'd have to see the precise
              > circuit schematics and physical layouts to tell. In any event, a screen
              > room would be far more effective.
              >
              Fortunately I do not have to ask an RF engineer, since I am one. The only
              situation I am aware of where coaxial cables are totally ineffective is in
              the reduction of common mode interference. That does not apply here. It is
              true that they are less effective at higher frequencies, but they can still
              be relied on to give upwards of 60dB attenuation at any reasonable
              (sub-microwave) frequencies that would not be blocked by the building
              itself.

              > > Got any other explanations?
              >
              > Yes, many. That the effect varies with the applied magnetic field is not
              > at all surprising. If the tube behaves as a rectifier, as I think it
              > might, changing the applied magnetic field might well change its
              > properties and direction of rectification.

              Of course the tube acts like a rectifier. That is the whole point. The tube
              is acting as a rectifier for Johnson noise. That is why the output is of the
              same order of magnitude as Johnson noise. Passive rectification of Johnson
              noise is supposed to be impossible according to the second law.

              In order to rectify Johnson noise, you would have to have a rectifier with
              both a very lower forward voltage threshold and a very low reverse leakage
              current. It is analogous to the Feynman trapdoor analysis. The forward
              voltage has to be low enough to be activated by the very small individual
              energies of the thermally activated particles. At the same time it has to be
              immune to thermally activated leakage that would allow accumulated
              differences in potential (voltage or pressure) to dissipate. Practical
              passive rectifiers do not normally achieve this. The lowest forward voltages
              are achieved by Germanium junction diodes (about 0.3V). Not surprisingly
              these are the diodes with the highest reverse leakage. What is more, room
              temperature is not much below the temperatures at which the reverse leakage
              makes them unusable.

              Let us say, for the sake of argument, that the current Xin and Zi recorded
              is an artifact caused by rectification of RF that has leaked through the
              coaxial screening. How much signal would you expect to leak through? Surely
              no more than microvolts? If their tube is actually capable of rectifying
              such a voltage, then it would also be capable of rectifying Johnson noise!

              >
              > One other observation I have is that the input impedance of the meter is
              > extremely high. They specify it as having a voltage drop of .01 volts
              > for a current reading of 1e-13 A, which corresponds to an impedance of
              > 100 gigaohms. With such an extremely high load resistance, even the
              > stray capacitance in such a circuit (which, by the way, would be
              > substantially increased by the capacitance of coaxial cable) would yield
              > a very long RC time constant. The authors claim they waited long enough
              > for the electromotive force from a change in B field to decay, but they
              > don't say how long they waited or present any analysis of how long they
              > should have to wait.

              Let's put some figures to this. First of all, please note that the peak
              current achieved was 7.5 e -13, not 1e-13. That gives an impedance of
              13gigaohms. I agree that the capacitance of the coax would swamp the
              capacitance of the tube. However I would expect that capacitance to be
              measured in tens of picofarads at most. Let us say it is 50pF to be
              generous. The time constant would then be 4 seconds. That is not what I
              call very long! It would be obvious that the reading was not stable if this
              time constant was being ignored.

              >
              > In sum, what we have here is a good example of sloppy labwork and
              > wishful thinking.
              >
              In what way do you consider the labwork to be sloppy (other than that it
              gives a result you find difficult to believe)?

              > Phil
              >

              You say you have many explanations for the result. Would you care to put
              forward another? If you can put forward a credible explanation for their
              result, I would be happy to concede that this is a false positive.
            • Phil Karn
              ... Actually, I think it has. The second law implies the impossibility of Maxwell s Demon, and the second law follows logically from what we know about quantum
              Message 6 of 29 , Dec 1, 2003
                Robert Lerwill wrote:

                > Yes but my point is that no broad theoretical analysis has shown analogues
                > of Maxwell's demon to be impossible.

                Actually, I think it has. The second law implies the impossibility of
                Maxwell's Demon, and the second law follows logically from what we know
                about quantum mechanics.

                > Furthermore it has been universally
                > ackowledged that if such a demon existed, it would violate the 2nd law. It
                > is not the case that the 2nd law can be invoked to demonstrate the
                > impossibility of such a demon, Rather it is that the universal validity of
                > the 2nd law relies on the assumption that such demons are impossible.

                It is true that a working Maxwell's Demon would violate the 2nd law. But
                that is just one of the consequences of the 2nd law, which depends on
                far more than the assumption that Maxwell's demon won't work.

                > Fortunately I do not have to ask an RF engineer, since I am one.

                Great, then I won't have to explain the basics.

                > The only
                > situation I am aware of where coaxial cables are totally ineffective is in
                > the reduction of common mode interference.

                That's exactly the situation I had in mind.

                > That does not apply here.

                How do you know? Have you seen a complete schematic diagram of their
                apparatus, with illustrations of its physical construction? All I see in
                their paper is a diagram of their tube, not the circuit it is in.

                > It is
                > true that they are less effective at higher frequencies, but they can still
                > be relied on to give upwards of 60dB attenuation at any reasonable
                > (sub-microwave) frequencies that would not be blocked by the building
                > itself.

                Only against differential signals. They might not know that.

                > Of course the tube acts like a rectifier. That is the whole point. The tube
                > is acting as a rectifier for Johnson noise. That is why the output is of the
                > same order of magnitude as Johnson noise. Passive rectification of Johnson
                > noise is supposed to be impossible according to the second law.

                Except it's not passive. There is an external source of energy, namely
                the freshly applied magnetic field. They wave their hands that this
                isn't the cause, but they show no analysis to support it. Nor do they
                rule out other external energy sources, all of which must be accounted
                for because of the extremely small size of the reported effect.

                > In order to rectify Johnson noise, you would have to have a rectifier with
                > both a very lower forward voltage threshold and a very low reverse leakage
                > current. It is analogous to the Feynman trapdoor analysis. The forward
                > voltage has to be low enough to be activated by the very small individual
                > energies of the thermally activated particles. At the same time it has to be
                > immune to thermally activated leakage that would allow accumulated
                > differences in potential (voltage or pressure) to dissipate. Practical
                > passive rectifiers do not normally achieve this. The lowest forward voltages
                > are achieved by Germanium junction diodes (about 0.3V). Not surprisingly
                > these are the diodes with the highest reverse leakage. What is more, room
                > temperature is not much below the temperatures at which the reverse leakage
                > makes them unusable.

                Indeed. All rectifiers, solid state or vacuum tube, follow similar
                principles.

                >
                > Let us say, for the sake of argument, that the current Xin and Zi recorded
                > is an artifact caused by rectification of RF that has leaked through the
                > coaxial screening. How much signal would you expect to leak through? Surely
                > no more than microvolts? If their tube is actually capable of rectifying
                > such a voltage, then it would also be capable of rectifying Johnson noise!

                Not at all. As an RF engineer, you must know how easy it is to detect
                and rectify ambient radio signals and produce quite significant baseband
                signals without even intending to do so, and sometimes even when you
                take steps to prevent it. I built a crystal set as a kid; it worked
                amazingly well even though we weren't that close to an AM transmitter.

                > Let's put some figures to this. First of all, please note that the peak
                > current achieved was 7.5 e -13, not 1e-13. That gives an impedance of
                > 13gigaohms.

                I got my figures straight from their text. Quoting:

                "The current measuring range of ZC43 (produced by Shanghai Sixth
                Electric Meter Factory) is from 1 x 10-5A to 1 x 10-14A. Two measurement
                scales with minimum scale values of 1 x 10-13A and 1 x 10-14A
                respectively are used in our experiment. Both of the voltages
                corresponding to the minimum scale values for the two scales are the
                same, namely, 0.01volts."

                And later on:

                "The output currents of the experiment are very small, but they are
                already macroscopic currents. In the case of I =8.0 x 10 A, the peak
                value in Fig. 5(a), the number of electrons passed from A to B in each
                second is N = 8.0 x 10-13 A / 1.6 x 10-19 Col = 5.0 x 10 6 sec-1. With
                five million electrons move in the same direction each second, we should
                say, this is a macroscopic current. The corresponding voltage is 8.0 x
                0.01 V = 0.08 V."

                Both statements imply a meter resistance (for the 1e-13A scale) of .08 /
                8e-13 = 100 gigaohms. For the 1e-14A scale, it's even higher: 1 teraohm.
                These impedances are so high that even ambient static electricity fields
                in the lab cannot be neglected.

                This voltage figure leads to yet another problem. They claim the free
                electrons moving from plate A to B have average thermal energy .0388 eV.
                So how are all those electrons supposed to climb up a .08V potential
                hill and attach themselves to plate B? The effect of this electric field
                isn't depicted at all in their diagrams of electron motion, e.g., Fig 2.

                > I agree that the capacitance of the coax would swamp the
                > capacitance of the tube. However I would expect that capacitance to be
                > measured in tens of picofarads at most. Let us say it is 50pF to be
                > generous. The time constant would then be 4 seconds. That is not what I
                > call very long! It would be obvious that the reading was not stable if this
                > time constant was being ignored.

                You don't know what the total circuit capacitance is.

                > In what way do you consider the labwork to be sloppy (other than that it
                > gives a result you find difficult to believe)?

                The paper omits a lot of important information: complete schematic and
                physical circuit diagrams, the times of the measurements, the lack of a
                screen room, no consideration of static electricity, no analysis of all
                the trajectories that electrons can follow between the two plates, etc,
                etc. Considering that these experimental results could be caused by any
                of a whole host of prosaic mechanisms, without a full treatment of these
                other mechanisms the authors are not even remotely justified in jumping
                to their conclusion that the second law has been violated.

                Phil
              • chipotle_pickle
                This is cranky Phil. ... I think this will someday be found, but there is no accepted theoretical grounding for the 2nd law in QM. The only attempt to do this
                Message 7 of 29 , Dec 1, 2003
                  This is cranky Phil.

                  --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, Phil Karn <yahoo1@k...> wrote:
                  > Robert Lerwill wrote:
                  >
                  > > Yes but my point is that no broad theoretical analysis has shown analogues
                  > > of Maxwell's demon to be impossible.
                  >
                  > Actually, I think it has. The second law implies the impossibility of
                  > Maxwell's Demon, and the second law follows logically from what we know
                  > about quantum mechanics.
                  >

                  I think this will someday be found, but there is no accepted theoretical grounding for
                  the 2nd law in QM. The only attempt to do this I could find was written by an
                  accountant. I have a link to his time symmetric formulation of entropy in post 7162. I
                  talked to the author of a popular intermediate thermo text about this and he was
                  polite but we are out on a limb here. If you like, we can take him to lunch sometime.
                • Shawn Bishop
                  ... Have you taken a close look at their data curves? If you have,you ll notice they are not symmetric about the I-axis. Now, considering the geometry of
                  Message 8 of 29 , Dec 1, 2003
                    --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Lerwill" <bob.mo@v...> wrote:
                    > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, Phil Karn <yahoo1@k...> wrote:
                    > > Robert Lerwill wrote:
                    >
                    > Got any other explanations?

                    Have you taken a close look at their data curves? If you have,you'll
                    notice they are not symmetric about the I-axis. Now, considering the
                    geometry of their tube is symmetric, a reversal of the B-field should
                    produce completely symmetric curves. Some of the data points are out
                    of whack by serveral standard deviations from their mirror counterparts.

                    This suggests to me a hysteresis effect somewhere in their circuitry.

                    Shawn
                  • Phil Karn
                    Why *shouldn t* the 2nd law follow logically from QM? Starting point #1: Predicting the future state of a system of particles requires perfect present
                    Message 9 of 29 , Dec 2, 2003
                      Why *shouldn't* the 2nd law follow logically from QM?

                      Starting point #1: Predicting the future state of a system of particles
                      requires perfect present knowledge of the state (position and velocity)
                      of every particle in that system. In a system such as the one we're
                      discussing (free electrons bouncing around inside a vacuum tube) extreme
                      accuracy is required because even a very small change in the initial
                      starting state of the system will quickly result in very different
                      system states (i.e., the system is chaotic).

                      However, the uncertainty principle of QM says we cannot measure both the
                      position and the velocity of even a single particle to an arbitrary
                      accuracy. That means our little universe of electrons in a tube is
                      condemned to an uncertain future beyond a very brief window of time.
                      Other real-world systems, e.g., those consisting of mainly solid
                      materials, may be somewhat less chaotic than an electron gas, but that
                      simply means our window of prediction lasts a little longer; it still
                      won't last forever.

                      Starting point #2: The number of possible microstates of all but the
                      tiniest systems is very large, and over sufficient time any one state is
                      as likely as the next. However, only a tiny fraction of those states are
                      what we would call "ordered". The overwhelming majority of states are
                      "disordered". This is readily demonstrated with a simple counting argument.

                      Since the precise future microstate is unpredictable, at least beyond a
                      certain time, a system started in an ordered state has an overwhelming
                      tendency to eventually transition to one of the many disordered
                      microstates. It is possible for the system to momentarily become more
                      ordered, but the probability of that happening diminishes rapidly over
                      time, and for a larger system. And that's just what the second law says.

                      There's nothing new or novel in this analysis. In fact, diagrams
                      illustrating this are a staple in just about every textbook introduction
                      to thermodynamics. See, for example, pages 496-499 of the 6th edition of
                      Halliday, Resnick & Walker.

                      What distinguishes the crank, by the way, is an irrational adherence to
                      a theory or position despite being confronted with abundant evidence
                      against it. The fact that one's theory turns out to be wrong or
                      incomplete is not sufficient, by itself, to qualify as a crank. Show me
                      where I've erred in my analysis and I'm quite willing to fix it.

                      Phil
                    • Robert Lerwill
                      (My comments inserted below in brackets. R.W.L.) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 00:28:32 -0800 From: Phil Karn Subject: Re: no accepted grounding of
                      Message 10 of 29 , Dec 3, 2003
                        (My comments inserted below in brackets. R.W.L.)
                         
                        Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 00:28:32 -0800
                           From: Phil Karn <
                        yahoo1@...>
                        Subject: Re: no accepted grounding of 2nd law in QM

                        Why *shouldn't* the 2nd law follow logically from QM?
                         
                        (Lets leave aside whether its logical or not for a moment. John has made a point here and you ought to respond. Your position here is unconventional. Do you agree? You are not talking here about the law as expounded by Maxwell and Boltzman. You should expect this new theory to be suscepted to as much scepticism as any new theory of thermodynamics posted by any of this groups members.)


                        Starting point #1: Predicting the future state of a system of particles
                        requires perfect present knowledge of the state (position and velocity)
                        of every particle in that system. In a system such as the one we're
                        discussing (free electrons bouncing around inside a vacuum tube) extreme
                        accuracy is required because even a very small change in the initial
                        starting state of the system will quickly result in very different
                        system states (i.e., the system is chaotic).

                        However, the uncertainty principle of QM says we cannot measure both the
                        position and the velocity of even a single particle to an arbitrary
                        accuracy. That means our little universe of electrons in a tube is
                        condemned to an uncertain future beyond a very brief window of time.
                         
                        (That is not at all true. The uncertainty principle allows complete knowledge of a particle's trajectory, as long as you don't need to know when it took place. If that was not true, I would not now be able to read your words on the screen of my CRT monitor. In any case, QM uncertainty is an unnecessary hypothesis. The randomisation of systems can be accounted for by the complex and chaotic mathematics of collisions. You do not need to have unpredictable particles to get a random system. This part of the theory was established long before QM came along.
                         
                        It is on the question of the involvement of QM that you differ from the orthodoxy.)

                        Other real-world systems, e.g., those consisting of mainly solid
                        materials, may be somewhat less chaotic than an electron gas, but that
                        simply means our window of prediction lasts a little longer; it still
                        won't last forever.

                        Starting point #2: The number of possible microstates of all but the
                        tiniest systems is very large, and over sufficient time any one state is
                        as likely as the next. However, only a tiny fraction of those states are
                        what we would call "ordered". The overwhelming majority of states are
                        "disordered". This is readily demonstrated with a simple counting argument.

                        Since the precise future microstate is unpredictable, at least beyond a
                        certain time, a system started in an ordered state has an overwhelming
                        tendency to eventually transition to one of the many disordered
                        microstates. It is possible for the system to momentarily become more
                        ordered, but the probability of that happening diminishes rapidly over
                        time, and for a larger system. And that's just what the second law says.

                        There's nothing new or novel in this analysis. In fact, diagrams
                        illustrating this are a staple in just about every textbook introduction
                        to thermodynamics. See, for example, pages 496-499 of the 6th edition of
                        Halliday, Resnick & Walker.
                         
                        (But this analysis carries a proviso, also nothing new or novel, that nothing that acts like Maxwell's demon exists in the system.)

                        What distinguishes the crank, by the way, is an irrational adherence to
                        a theory or position despite being confronted with abundant evidence
                        against it. The fact that one's theory turns out to be wrong or
                        incomplete is not sufficient, by itself, to qualify as a crank. Show me
                        where I've erred in my analysis and I'm quite willing to fix it.

                        Phil
                         
                        (I think where you have erred is in assuming that the consequences of your theory are the same as the consequences of conventional theory. Thermodynamics not only predicts the equilibrium position, it also predicts the rate at which equilibrium is reached. The addition of QM randomisation that characterises your theory could have an affect on these rates. Unless someone has done an analysis to show that this is not true, you cannot claim the abundant evidence that exists to support the conventional theory as also supporting your theory.
                         
                        Bob)




                         
                      • chipotle_pickle
                        Before going to this post, I wanted to remind everyone that we never debunked the OU Curie engine. We had someone send us a nice set of graphs showing that the
                        Message 11 of 29 , Dec 3, 2003
                          Before going to this post, I wanted to remind everyone that we never
                          debunked the OU Curie engine. We had someone send us a nice set of
                          graphs showing that the amount of energy required to heat iron till
                          it's non-magnetic increases with the strength of the magnetic field.
                          This shows that Curie engines are not type I PMMs. But we never had an
                          explination of why Carnot efficiencey would apply. I have not found
                          any resources explaining efficiency of Curie engines.

                          I find Phil's qualitative argument attractive. However, it's novel.
                          When we brought this argument up last time, Robert (or maybe Leo)
                          asked us to come up with links that contain write-ups of this
                          relationship, and all I could find was the accountant's excellent
                          write up of his even more unconventional theory. I've inserted one
                          comment below.

                          cut
                          Phil:
                          > However, the uncertainty principle of QM says we cannot measure both
                          the
                          > position and the velocity of even a single particle to an arbitrary
                          > accuracy. That means our little universe of electrons in a tube is
                          > condemned to an uncertain future beyond a very brief window of time.
                          >

                          Bob:
                          > (That is not at all true. The uncertainty principle allows complete
                          knowledge of a particle's trajectory, as long as you don't need to
                          know when it took place. If that was not true, I would not now be able
                          to read your words on the screen of my CRT monitor. In any case, QM
                          uncertainty is an unnecessary hypothesis. The randomisation of systems
                          can be accounted for by the complex and chaotic mathematics of
                          collisions. You do not need to have unpredictable particles to get a
                          random system. This part of the theory was established long before QM
                          came along.

                          John:
                          This isn't quite right. Without QM, real world systems are
                          unpredictable because we can't actually collect all the information
                          required to predict their evoloution. But it's only with QM that
                          randomness becomes a property of idealized systems where you assume
                          that you do know.
                        • Phil Karn
                          ... If it s novel, then I m certainly open to comment. ... Ah, but the electrons bouncing around inside a tube is a far more chaotic system than the
                          Message 12 of 29 , Dec 4, 2003
                            chipotle_pickle wrote:


                            > I find Phil's qualitative argument attractive. However, it's novel.
                            > When we brought this argument up last time, Robert (or maybe Leo)
                            > asked us to come up with links that contain write-ups of this
                            > relationship, and all I could find was the accountant's excellent
                            > write up of his even more unconventional theory. I've inserted one
                            > comment below.

                            If it's novel, then I'm certainly open to comment.

                            >>(That is not at all true. The uncertainty principle allows complete
                            >
                            > knowledge of a particle's trajectory, as long as you don't need to
                            > know when it took place. If that was not true, I would not now be able
                            > to read your words on the screen of my CRT monitor. In any case, QM
                            > uncertainty is an unnecessary hypothesis. The randomisation of systems
                            > can be accounted for by the complex and chaotic mathematics of
                            > collisions. You do not need to have unpredictable particles to get a
                            > random system. This part of the theory was established long before QM
                            > came along.

                            Ah, but the electrons bouncing around inside a tube is a far more
                            chaotic system than the unidirectional stream of electrons in your CRT.
                            True, you can't predict with absolute certainty the positions and
                            velocities of the electrons in your CRT either, but it doesn't matter to
                            the functioning of your CRT. Then again, it's not alleged to violate the
                            second law of thermodynamics.

                            If you could predict with certainty the exact future position and
                            velocity of every electron in the alleged 2nd-law-violating tube, then
                            you could predict with certainty when, where and how the electrons will
                            interact when they collide, and predict all their future positions and
                            velocities after an arbitrary number of collisions.

                            But if you can't predict the exact future position and velocity of every
                            electron (and QM says you can't), then you can't predict exactly when,
                            where and how they will interact. So the "complex and chaotic
                            mathematics of collisions" is a direct consequence of the uncertainty
                            principle in QM.

                            > John:
                            > This isn't quite right. Without QM, real world systems are
                            > unpredictable because we can't actually collect all the information
                            > required to predict their evoloution. But it's only with QM that
                            > randomness becomes a property of idealized systems where you assume
                            > that you do know.

                            Exactly. I cannot overstate the importance of this fundamental built-in
                            randomness of nature, because it is (I assert) the basis of the second
                            law. The best you can do is to make probabilistic predictions, and
                            that's what the second law does.

                            Phil
                          • Phil Karn
                            ... I don t know if my view is unconventional or not. It seems pretty straightforward to me, but it s asserted here that it is not. Fine, I m certainly open to
                            Message 13 of 29 , Dec 4, 2003
                              Robert Lerwill wrote:

                              > (Lets leave aside whether its logical or not for a moment. John has made
                              > a point here and you ought to respond. Your position here is
                              > unconventional. Do you agree? You are not talking here about the law as
                              > expounded by Maxwell and Boltzman. You should expect this new theory to
                              > be suscepted to as much scepticism as any new theory of thermodynamics
                              > posted by any of this groups members.)

                              I don't know if my view is unconventional or not. It seems pretty
                              straightforward to me, but it's asserted here that it is not. Fine, I'm
                              certainly open to comment.

                              Maxwell and Bolzmann assumed that particle collisions are chaotic and
                              random. From that starting assumption they devised the Second Law of
                              Thermodynamics.

                              I merely assert that the *reason* the particle collisions are
                              fundamentally chaotic and random is because of the uncertainty principle
                              of QM. Is that such a big leap? If so, I'm open to reasons why.

                              > (But this analysis carries a proviso, also nothing new or novel, that
                              > nothing that acts like Maxwell's demon exists in the system.)

                              Nothing acts like Maxwell's Demon in the system because Maxwell's Demon
                              is physically unrealizable for any of several reasons. Feynmann, among
                              others, has good discussions of why.

                              > (I think where you have erred is in assuming that the consequences of
                              > your theory are the same as the consequences of conventional theory.
                              > Thermodynamics not only predicts the equilibrium position, it also
                              > predicts the rate at which equilibrium is reached. The addition of QM
                              > randomisation that characterises your theory could have an affect on
                              > these rates. Unless someone has done an analysis to show that this is
                              > not true, you cannot claim the abundant evidence that exists to support
                              > the conventional theory as also supporting your theory.

                              You are quite correct that the rate is important in the analysis of the
                              alleged 2nd-law-violating vacuum tube. I said much the same thing when I
                              questioned how long the experimenters collected data at each B-field
                              setting.

                              However, the second law doesn't say anything about rate. It merely
                              states that the entropy of a closed system cannot decrease with time. It
                              can either increase, remain the same, or increase irregularly and still
                              comply with the second law.

                              Phil
                            • Phil Karn
                              ... I should rephrase this. A chaotic system, by definition, is one in which very small changes in initial conditions will, over time, produce very different
                              Message 14 of 29 , Dec 4, 2003
                                Phil Karn wrote:

                                > I merely assert that the *reason* the particle collisions are
                                > fundamentally chaotic and random is because of the uncertainty principle
                                > of QM. Is that such a big leap? If so, I'm open to reasons why.

                                I should rephrase this. A chaotic system, by definition, is one in which
                                very small changes in initial conditions will, over time, produce very
                                different outcomes. This would be true of electrons bouncing around
                                inside a glass tube even if we could measure their starting positions
                                and velocities with absolute precision.

                                It is the chaotic nature of the system, combined with our QM-imposed
                                inability to measure its starting state with sufficient precision, that
                                results in our inability to do more than make probabilistic statements
                                about its future states. On that rests the second law.

                                Phil
                              • Bob Lerwill
                                ... both ... arbitrary ... is ... time. ... complete ... able ... systems ... QM ... What is not quite right? That the trajectory of a particle can be
                                Message 15 of 29 , Dec 4, 2003
                                  --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "chipotle_pickle"
                                  <chipotle_pickle@y...> wrote:
                                  > cut
                                  > Phil:
                                  > > However, the uncertainty principle of QM says we cannot measure
                                  both
                                  > the
                                  > > position and the velocity of even a single particle to an
                                  arbitrary
                                  > > accuracy. That means our little universe of electrons in a tube
                                  is
                                  > > condemned to an uncertain future beyond a very brief window of
                                  time.
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > Bob:
                                  > > (That is not at all true. The uncertainty principle allows
                                  complete
                                  > knowledge of a particle's trajectory, as long as you don't need to
                                  > know when it took place. If that was not true, I would not now be
                                  able
                                  > to read your words on the screen of my CRT monitor. In any case, QM
                                  > uncertainty is an unnecessary hypothesis. The randomisation of
                                  systems
                                  > can be accounted for by the complex and chaotic mathematics of
                                  > collisions. You do not need to have unpredictable particles to get a
                                  > random system. This part of the theory was established long before
                                  QM
                                  > came along.
                                  >
                                  > John:
                                  > This isn't quite right. Without QM, real world systems are
                                  > unpredictable because we can't actually collect all the information
                                  > required to predict their evoloution. But it's only with QM that
                                  > randomness becomes a property of idealized systems where you assume
                                  > that you do know.

                                  What is not quite right? That the trajectory of a particle can be
                                  predicted in detail. I can assure you that it is correct. The laws of
                                  conservation of energy and momentum are observed in detail during
                                  particle collisions as confirm by countless experiments. If momentum
                                  and energy are conserved, there is only one solution. The result is
                                  completely predictable.

                                  It may be that some processes like paerticle decay are affected by QM
                                  uncertainty, but unless all processes are affected by QM uncertainty,
                                  it cannot be invoked as part as a general law.

                                  What is not quite right? That QM uncertainty is an unncessary
                                  hypothesis. Why then was a statistical theory of thermodynamics
                                  formulated and found accurate long before QM uncertainty was proposed?
                                • Robert Lerwill
                                  ... From: Robert Lerwill To: Phil Karn Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 2:06 PM Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: no
                                  Message 16 of 29 , Dec 4, 2003
                                    ----- Original Message -----
                                    From: "Robert Lerwill" <bob.mo@...>
                                    To: "Phil Karn" <karn@...>
                                    Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 2:06 PM
                                    Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: no accepted grounding of 2nd law in QM


                                    >
                                    > ----- Original Message -----
                                    > From: "Phil Karn" <karn@...>
                                    > To: "Robert Lerwill" <bob.mo@...>
                                    > Cc: <free_energy@yahoogroups.com>
                                    > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 9:35 AM
                                    > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: no accepted grounding of 2nd law in QM
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > > Robert Lerwill wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > > > (Lets leave aside whether its logical or not for a moment. John has
                                    made
                                    > > > a point here and you ought to respond. Your position here is
                                    > > > unconventional. Do you agree? You are not talking here about the law
                                    as
                                    > > > expounded by Maxwell and Boltzman. You should expect this new theory
                                    to
                                    > > > be suscepted to as much scepticism as any new theory of thermodynamics
                                    > > > posted by any of this groups members.)
                                    > >
                                    > > I don't know if my view is unconventional or not. It seems pretty
                                    > > straightforward to me, but it's asserted here that it is not. Fine, I'm
                                    > > certainly open to comment.
                                    > >
                                    > > Maxwell and Bolzmann assumed that particle collisions are chaotic and
                                    > > random. From that starting assumption they devised the Second Law of
                                    > > Thermodynamics.
                                    > >
                                    > > I merely assert that the *reason* the particle collisions are
                                    > > fundamentally chaotic and random is because of the uncertainty principle
                                    > > of QM. Is that such a big leap? If so, I'm open to reasons why.
                                    > >
                                    > The fundamental difference between the conventional theory and what you
                                    > propose, as far as I can see, is that the conventional theory does not say
                                    > that the action of individual particles is always unpredictable. Your
                                    does.
                                    > You seem to be using your view to say that an analogue of Maxwell's demon
                                    > cannot be built because the action of individual particles cannot be
                                    > predicted. Is this your position, or have I misunderstood? It seems the
                                    only
                                    > reason for bringing this point about QM uncertainty into the argument.
                                    >
                                    > If this is your position, it is patently untrue, as I have pointed out,
                                    > because a CRT works.
                                    >
                                    > > > (But this analysis carries a proviso, also nothing new or novel, that
                                    > > > nothing that acts like Maxwell's demon exists in the system.)
                                    > >
                                    > > Nothing acts like Maxwell's Demon in the system because Maxwell's Demon
                                    > > is physically unrealizable for any of several reasons. Feynmann, among
                                    > > others, has good discussions of why.
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    > Not at all. Feynman analysed just one possible group of candidates for an
                                    > analogue of Maxwell's demon. He did not make a general proof. He did not
                                    > even attempt to define what constituted an analogue of Maxwell's demon,
                                    only
                                    > that the example he proposed was one. BTW, Feynmann's argument makes no
                                    use
                                    > of QM uncertainty.
                                    >
                                    > Anyway, you have argued a devious route. It is plainly stated that this
                                    > system attempts to create an analogue of Maxwell's demon. You first argue
                                    > against it saying it cannot work because the 2nd law says so. However the
                                    > convention is that the second law would not apply to an analogue of
                                    > Maxwell's demon, which this claims to be. If you had argued from the start
                                    > that Maxwell's demon was impossible for other reasons it would have been
                                    at
                                    > least a coherent argument.; but to argue that this experiment cannot work
                                    > because it violates the 2nd law is obviously nonsensical. The point at
                                    issue
                                    > must be whether or not the system acts like an analogue of Maxwell's
                                    demon,
                                    > not whether or not an analogue of Maxwell's demon could violate the second
                                    > law!
                                    >
                                    > > > (I think where you have erred is in assuming that the consequences of
                                    > > > your theory are the same as the consequences of conventional theory.
                                    > > > Thermodynamics not only predicts the equilibrium position, it also
                                    > > > predicts the rate at which equilibrium is reached. The addition of QM
                                    > > > randomisation that characterises your theory could have an affect on
                                    > > > these rates. Unless someone has done an analysis to show that this is
                                    > > > not true, you cannot claim the abundant evidence that exists to
                                    support
                                    > > > the conventional theory as also supporting your theory.
                                    > >
                                    > > You are quite correct that the rate is important in the analysis of the
                                    > > alleged 2nd-law-violating vacuum tube. I said much the same thing when I
                                    > > questioned how long the experimenters collected data at each B-field
                                    > > setting.
                                    > >
                                    > > However, the second law doesn't say anything about rate. It merely
                                    > > states that the entropy of a closed system cannot decrease with time. It
                                    > > can either increase, remain the same, or increase irregularly and still
                                    > > comply with the second law.
                                    > >
                                    > > Phil
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > You should read what I said. I did not say the law could be used to
                                    predict
                                    > rates. I said that theory could be used to predict rates. That is the
                                    theory
                                    > of statistical thermodynamics that was started by Boltzman and which
                                    > provides an understanding and a quantisation of the effects of the second
                                    > law. This theory and its predictions of rates does not invoke QM
                                    > uncertainty. The experimental results cannot be called as evidence that QM
                                    > uncertainty is relevant.
                                    >
                                    > I did not say that measurement of rate was important in analysing the
                                    > behaviour of Xin and Zi's experiment. You are twisting my words.
                                    >
                                    > Bob
                                    >
                                  • Phil Karn
                                    ... The outcome of a particle collision is completely predictable *ONLY* if you have perfect knowledge of the particle positions and velocities beforehand. If
                                    Message 17 of 29 , Dec 4, 2003
                                      Bob Lerwill wrote:

                                      > What is not quite right? That the trajectory of a particle can be
                                      > predicted in detail. I can assure you that it is correct. The laws of
                                      > conservation of energy and momentum are observed in detail during
                                      > particle collisions as confirm by countless experiments. If momentum
                                      > and energy are conserved, there is only one solution. The result is
                                      > completely predictable.

                                      The outcome of a particle collision is completely predictable *ONLY* if
                                      you have perfect knowledge of the particle positions and velocities
                                      beforehand. If your knowledge is even *slightly* off, then your
                                      predictions of the post-collision positions and velocities will be off
                                      by quite a bit; this follows directly from the definition of a chaotic
                                      system. As time goes by, reality will diverge further and further from
                                      your predictions. After enough time, your predictions will become
                                      completely worthless.

                                      As an example, I can make pretty good predictions about the local
                                      weather a minute from now. As I try to predict further into the future,
                                      my predictions will become less and less accurate. Over the long term,
                                      the best I can do is to state probabilities and averages; e.g., I can
                                      predict fairly confidently that next summer will be, on average, warmer
                                      than the current winter.

                                      Thermodynamics is based on just these kinds of probabilistic
                                      predictions. I cannot predict the future trajectory of any one gas
                                      particle in a cylinder, but I can make statements about their average
                                      energies (e.g., pressure and temperature) and how they'll change on
                                      average in response to external influences.

                                      > It may be that some processes like paerticle decay are affected by QM
                                      > uncertainty, but unless all processes are affected by QM uncertainty,
                                      > it cannot be invoked as part as a general law.

                                      *ALL* processes are indeed affected by QM uncertainty. It says you
                                      cannot simultaneously measure both the velocity and the position of
                                      *any* particle to arbitrary accuracy. Full stop.

                                      Now it may well be that you can measure the velocity and positions of
                                      the particles in your particular system to sufficient accuracy for your
                                      purposes. This is the case in a CRT, which is why it doesn't stand as a
                                      counterargument to my point. But no one has alleged that a CRT must
                                      violate the second law of thermodynamics to function, while it *has*
                                      been alleged that another particular type of vacuum tube *can* violate
                                      the second law. That's a very big difference.

                                      > What is not quite right? That QM uncertainty is an unncessary
                                      > hypothesis. Why then was a statistical theory of thermodynamics
                                      > formulated and found accurate long before QM uncertainty was proposed?

                                      Many physical principles are originally based on what at the time were
                                      arbitrary unproven assumptions, simply because these assumptions seemed
                                      reasonable. Later on, these assumptions are found to be correct in the
                                      general case, solidifying the foundations of the earlier theory. The
                                      formulation of a statistical theory of thermodynamics before the
                                      discovery of QM and the uncertainty principle is, in my opinion, a good
                                      example of that process.

                                      Phil
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.