You have proof this was said? Let's see your evidence.

The phenomenon we observe is called "The Second Law of Thermodynamics." I suggest you investigate, study, and experiment to try to understand how it occurs.

Again, where is your EVIDENCE? Can you provide the name of even ONE EE making such claims?

I wasn't speaking of any specific phenomenon therefore your statement regarding phenomena is irrelelavent.

Ya got me on the EEs though! My apologies! immediately coming to mind is Bill Muller whom I thought was an EE but was actually in the Quantum Mechanics field http://www.mullerpower.com/
and Floyd Sweet. I could be mistaken about Floyd Sweet but I thought I read that he was also an EE. He is reported to have worked for GE in R&D for several years before obtaining a Masters degree from MIT. But I must admit I only ASS U Me d it was in EE.

I kneel before you in humiliation! Please forgive?

 

BTW,
Doesn't the 2nd Law of TD apply only to isolated systems?

What if a system interacts with its environment/surroundings, and obtains some sort of input to drive negative entropy, Does the 2nd law still apply?

 

If you are referring to the entire universe as a closed system, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (indeed, all of them) apply. Reference to any other dimensions is still purely theoretical, no real evidence exists at this time, though there are hints.

Heresay isn't evidence, btw.

 

The total energy contained in the universe as a closed system is constant.

In amplification, output is greater than input, but that is simply due to the additional energy provided by an additional power supply used for the amplifier. A point very often people tend to miss. You get "more" by simply adding "more".

Thanks.

 

BTW,
Doesn't the 2nd Law of TD apply only to isolated systems?

The words "closed" and "isolated" have very specific meanings in thermodynamics. I suggest you learn these specific meanings instead of throwing terms around loosely.

What if a system interacts with its environment/surroundings, and obtains some sort of input to drive negative entropy, Does the 2nd law still apply?

If that is the case, we are obligated to consider the environment/surroundings as part of the system. The 2nd law does indeed apply. There is no "negative entropy," however. We simply have to be very careful about defining the system.

For example, if our system is Meyer's dune buggy, we do indeed have to consider the air coming in from the atmosphere. We also have to consider the tank he hid inside the thing.

I kneel before you in humiliation! Please forgive?

Humiliation? Surely a jest! I'm not really that scary, am I?

The important thing is: you are learning! You are not just asking questions, but you are following the responses and thinking critically. This is why A.A.C. was started, was for learning!

 

Not to be offensive, however it appears more likely than not the "External Student" is just an alternate account of the original poster in order to defend his claims.

I do admit there is no evidence to prove such a claim, however the likelyhood of such an event is much greater than the "free lunch" which is the subject of discussion.

If we compare the join date to the topic date ^___^

 

Not to be offensive, however it appears more likely than not the "External Student" is just an alternate account of the original poster in order to defend his claims.

Their commentary is very different one from the other. Their writing style is also different. The IP addresses of Farlander and Eternal Student resolve to diverse geographies.

 

So you do see IP addresses. I'd wondered about that.

The Earth's sun, feeding us energy continously as it does, makes a lot of things possible that wouldn't be otherwise. When people refer to negitive entropy they tend to forget that massive influx of energy into the system.

Given that there are (dare I say it?) billions and billions of suns, that means a lot of things are possible in this universe of ours.

 

The Earth's sun, feeding us energy continously as it does, makes a lot of things possible that wouldn't be otherwise. When people refer to negitive entropy they tend to forget that massive influx of energy into the system.

So true! Most of our energy is derived from the sun. Obviously solar, but also wind and ocean wave energy. Often people forget that fossil fuels are stored solar energy. The food we eat is solar energy passed through the food chain.

It's clear that nuclear power (fission reactors of various designs) is not the sun, although the fuel was created in other stars. Also, lets not forget that solar energy is derived from fusion. So, quite a bit of our energy is nuclear, which is mass converted to energy.

What's left? .... Hydropower is potential energy from gravity. Hmmm, how did that water go uphill? Water evaporation and rain is driven by the sun.

Geothermal energy is heat energy from the earth which was generated from gravity as the earth coalesced from dispersed matter. Hey, that's also how the sun formed which ignited the nuclear fusion.

So all our energy derives from gravity in a sense.

OK, I'm going to propose a new gravity-based over-unity device soon. I'll use the above ideas and ask gullible people for investment money.

 

You have my 2¢.

 

Often people forget that fossil fuels are stored solar energy.

I agree with most of what you say, except a large number of people believe that at least some -- perhaps most -- hydrocarbon fuels come from abiogenic origins. Since you did not mention such hydrocarbons separately, I assume you included them in "fossil fuels." As best I can find, no one has pinned down the source for petroleum, much less the lighter hydrocarbons. The term fossil can be used to mean it is extracted from rock, not necessarily from biological precursors, as is implied by saying they are stored energy from the sun.

Jupiter's moon Titan is estimated to have many times the amount of liquid hydrocarbons that earth has.

John

 

I agree with most of what you say, except a large number of people believe that at least some -- perhaps most -- hydrocarbon fuels come from abiogenic origins. Since you did not mention such hydrocarbons separately, I assume you included them in "fossil fuels." As best I can find, no one has pinned down the source for petroleum, much less the lighter hydrocarbons. The term fossil can be used to mean it is extracted from rock, not necessarily from biological precursors, as is implied by saying they are stored energy from the sun.

Jupiter's moon Titan is estimated to have many times the amount of liquid hydrocarbons that earth has.

John

I've never heard this before. Can you provide credible scientific references for your claims?

Who are the large number of people that believe fossil fuels are are of abiogenic origins? By what process, and from what energy source is it thought they arise from?

I'll just provide some basic references as follows, just to show I did not invent my idea out of thin air.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel

http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/story/chapter08.html

EDIT: I found this one. Still indicates speculation at this stage. Also, the process still may be driven by solar energy - for example ultraviolet light interacting with hydrocarbons in the atmosphere. Very interesting though!!

http://www.green-energy-news.com/arch/nrgs2008/20080064.html

 

You have my 2¢.

Bill, with your 2 cents, I can raise millions of dollars !!!!

I can now claim that a credible technical person has endorsed my technology with an "undisclosed" financial investment.

 

I've never heard this before. Can you provide credible scientific references for your claims?

If you'll accept wikipedia articles as credible scientific references...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_(moon)
This is one that talks about Titan, one of the moons of Saturn.

Titan is primarily composed of water ice and rocky material. Much as with Venus until the Space Age, the dense, opaque atmosphere prevented understanding of Titan's surface until new information accumulated with the arrival of the Cassini–Huygens mission in 2004, including the discovery of liquid hydrocarbon lakes in the satellite's polar regions.

Per the same article, the atmosphere on Titan is about 1.6% methane. This is probably not due to cow flatulence, as none are known to exist there. Even if they did exist, there is little to no grass for them to eat.

 

The hydrocarbons on Titan, including at least ethane in addition to methane, have been well documented by recent space missions.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080220200045.htm
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMCSUUHJCF_index_0.html

Hydrocarbons in space are also well known from spectroscopy and include some fairly complex hydrocarbons, not just methane.

The question on which we should keep an open mind is the source of liquid petroleum ("crude oil") on earth. It is attractive to assume a continuum from organic materials to peat to coal to oil shale to oil. It seems clear that peat and coal are biogenic in origin. In school in the US, it was popular to teach that oil deposits came from countless numbers of small creatures dying and settling into deposits that with heat and pressure converted their carbonaceous materials to crude oil. Why aren't oil and coal found together? Modern organisms don't generally make hydrocarbons, particularly the alkanes, as they require energy to make and effectively are an end product. (Some microorganisms are able to metabolize hydrocarbons, however.) Why is helium found with oil deposits, but not coal?

Fossils are found in oil shale deposits. Some people make claim that that indicates source and dating. Fossils are found in shale, period. So, they may be useful for dating the shale deposit. Their relationship to the oil that is present is not so clear.

Here is a section on abiogenic petroleum from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin:

Abiogenic petroleum origin is an alternative hypothesis to the prevailing biological origin theory of petroleum origins. Most popular in Russia and Ukraine between the 1950s and 1980s, the abiogenic hypothesis now has little support amongst contemporary petroleum geologists, who argue that abiogenic petroleum does not exist in significant amounts, and that there is no indication that an application of the hypothesis is or has ever been of commercial value.

Finally, a proponent of abiogenic oil, Gold, found oil in non-sedimentary rock(http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1130.html).

I have not researched the issue thoroughly nor made any conclusion about abiogenesis. Maybe both sides are correct. I believe it is important to explain all of the evidence, which proponents of a purely biogenic origin cannot do either, and keep an open mind.

John