Someone Clever tell me why this isn't possible.

[MiseryStreak]

Derek Smith said:

Every new discovery seems to turn over some law or other.

Please cite recent examples.

[otolith]

Derek Smith said:

Isn't it more like guidelines? Every new discovery seems to turn over some law or other.

That's the cool thing about science, if someone demonstrates that something you believed to be true is not so, you thank him for his interesting discovery, not burn him at the stake!

As far as I know, the laws of thermodynamics have proven pretty unassailable though.

[otherman]

Derek Smith said:

paranoid airbag said:

okay, here goes as an attempt to explain the second law of thermodynamics . . .

Isn't it more like guidelines? Every new discovery seems to turn over some law or other.

If you can find a single example in all history of a scientific law being overturned you're in for a nobel prize.

[TheTurbonator]

otherman said:

Derek Smith said:

paranoid airbag said:

okay, here goes as an attempt to explain the second law of thermodynamics . . .

Isn't it more like guidelines? Every new discovery seems to turn over some law or other.

If you can find a single example in all history of a scientific law being overturned you're in for a nobel prize.

Newton's laws of Gravity proved to be wrong. They're still very accurate but in a few minor examples his predictions of a bodies orbit can be wrong. Mercury is the most notable example. Newton's theory is still used today when only an approximation is needed but when a more accurate prediction and/or needed on a more complicated orbit it is superseded by general relativity.

Einstein's theory of relativity will most probably be eventually superseeded too. The problem at the moment is that there isn't a unified theory for general relativity and quantum mechanics. General relativity breaks down when you try to use it on a quantum level and vice versa quantum mechanics breaks down when you try to use it on a larger scale. We still both use them separately for each of their purposes, because they're very accurate for our current understanding.

However saying all that the 4 laws of thermodynamics do hold up very well and probably forever will.

I think everything I've said is accurate but my knowledge is only of a laymen, so if it is inaccurate I will be happily be corrected and learn from it.

[R300will]

TheTurbonator said:

otherman said:

Derek Smith said:

paranoid airbag said:

okay, here goes as an attempt to explain the second law of thermodynamics . . .

Isn't it more like guidelines? Every new discovery seems to turn over some law or other.

If you can find a single example in all history of a scientific law being overturned you're in for a nobel prize.

Newton's laws of Gravity proved to be wrong. They're still very accurate but in a few minor examples his predictions of a bodies orbit can be wrong. Mercury is the most notable example. Newton's theory is still used today when only an approximation is needed but when a more accurate prediction and/or needed on a more complicated orbit it is superseded by general relativity.

Einstein's theory of relativity will most probably be eventually superseeded too. The problem at the moment is that there isn't a unified theory for general relativity and quantum mechanics. General relativity breaks down when you try to use it on a quantum level and vice versa quantum mechanics breaks down when you try to use it on a larger scale. We still both use them separately for each of their purposes, because they're very accurate for our current understanding.

However saying all that the 4 laws of thermodynamics do hold up very well and probably forever will.

I think everything I've said is accurate but my knowledge is only of a laymen, so if it is inaccurate I will be happily be corrected and learn from it.

Einstein was a massive critic of quantum theory and quantum mechanics so it's easy to be wrong about theories etc.

[951TSE]

Close to what the OP wants but not quite.

http://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRe...

http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v108/i9/e097403

An article commenting on the links said "Researchers at MIT designed this, and as you might have guessed, there is a string attached to the over-unity claim. The extra energy is coming from ambient heat. The device manages to convert some of the ambient heat into light, and so it gets cooler as it's used. That ambient heat had to come from somewhere, and so is not actually producing more energy than it creates".

[Lost_BMW]

tom2019 said:

Why hasn't a material been manufactured that takes all its heat energy and transfers it to electrical current.

So you have a material that is close to absolute 0 all the time pumping out current, and it just keeps taking energy from heat to do this. This would mean that the material would be constantly be cold, and the area around it.

Like a solar panel does with light, why not a material with heat??

You could also maybe solve global warming this way ?

Oh, well in that case it really ought to be tried however much time and money it costs, what with this 'global warming' being so bad and all, obviously.

[Jonny_]

Holy Grail stuff, this is.

I've idly pondered a theoretical air-conditioning machine that is self-powered by the heat that it extracts from the air (e.g. powered by a turbine using a liquid with a low boiling point, evaporated by the hot refrigerant), providing an output of "free" cold air.

I've an unshakeable notion that this SHOULD be, in theory, physically possible, but would require such a level of mechanical efficiency that it is highly unlikely to ever work in practice.

[Asterix]

Jonny_ said:

Holy Grail stuff, this is.

I've idly pondered a theoretical air-conditioning machine that is self-powered by the heat that it extracts from the air (e.g. powered by a turbine using a liquid with a low boiling point, evaporated by the hot refrigerant), providing an output of "free" cold air.

I've an unshakeable notion that this SHOULD be, in theory, physically possible, but would require such a level of mechanical efficiency that it is highly unlikely to ever work in practice.

But even if it ran at, say, 80% efficiency it would still be a huge power saving over standard units.

[Dr Chuff]

Any energy conversion/transfer will not be 100% efficient.
Thermocouples can provide an EMF with a temperature difference.
The 'missing' energy usually ends up as heat (always ultimately).

Dr C

[The Black Flash]

TheTurbonator said:

Newton's laws of Gravity proved to be wrong. They're still very accurate but in a few minor examples his predictions of a bodies orbit can be wrong. Mercury is the most notable example. Newton's theory is still used today when only an approximation is needed but when a more accurate prediction and/or needed on a more complicated orbit it is superseded by general relativity.

Einstein's theory of relativity will most probably be eventually superseeded too. The problem at the moment is that there isn't a unified theory for general relativity and quantum mechanics. General relativity breaks down when you try to use it on a quantum level and vice versa quantum mechanics breaks down when you try to use it on a larger scale. We still both use them separately for each of their purposes, because they're very accurate for our current understanding.

However saying all that the 4 laws of thermodynamics do hold up very well and probably forever will.

I think everything I've said is accurate but my knowledge is only of a laymen, so if it is inaccurate I will be happily be corrected and learn from it.

There's a big difference between a scientific law and a theory (which most people seem to confuse with hypothesis). Though it does sounds as if you're right about Newton's one.

[The Black Flash]

otherman said:

I've also got a great idea. Someone should just work out some magic solutions to all our problems. Like a pile of food that doesn't go down when you eat it and never goes off. And a kind of plastic that turns into petrol when you expose it to sunlight.
Both these ideas would work really well, people are so stupid that they don't just do them.

OP as a rule of thumb, if you ever find yourself using the word "just", it almost certainly means you don't know what you're asking.

As in "can't you just make it do xxx". Bane of my life.

[Asterix]

Oh! 'Just' does mean exactly that - Producing a film, we've got to the final (deliverable) edit and there's been multiple (informed) times to change stuff and they've been told that they don't have a chance now...

Client: 'Could you 'just' change that animation.'

[paranoid airbag]

The Black Flash said:

OP as a rule of thumb, if you ever find yourself using the word "just", it almost certainly means you don't know what you're asking.

As in "can't you just make it do xxx". Bane of my life.

especially true of computer programming, where people have an amazing ability to not understand the difference between computer thinking and person thinking.

"Now if you could just (implement some insane heuristic algorithm for reading the 4,000,000 different ways a human being is capable of saying something), and then... I know this is a bit tricky... display the result in red?"

[tank slapper]

Derek Smith said:

Isn't it more like guidelines? Every new discovery seems to turn over some law or other.

The word 'law' when referring to science is really a colloquialism. Newton's laws of motion are a good example. They aren't wrong, indeed they were sufficient to put men on the moon, but they don't tell the whole story. We had to wait for Einstein to add the missing bits, and even his theories aren't complete. Most scientific 'laws' are a bit like that. They are usually those theories that have such an enormous wealth of evidence behind them that it is almost inconceivable that they will be disproved. Should some new physical phenomenon be discovered it is certainly possible that existing laws like thermodynamics might be modified, but it would most likely be something that complements the existing knowledge rather than replaces it entirely.

[Flibble]

tom2019 said:

You could also maybe solve global warming this way ?

What are you going to do with all the electricity used that would help global warming? Any electricity generated would almost certainly be used to produce more heat, so you're back to square one there.

[Morningside]

Dr Chuff said:

Any energy conversion/transfer will not be 100% efficient.
Thermocouples can provide an EMF with a temperature difference.
The 'missing' energy usually ends up as heat (always ultimately).

Dr C

Peltier devices will also do the same.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbdtulL44ms