Gravity: the secret to beating the second law of thermodynamics

[tom phuser]

Did you know that air gets colder with elevation?

This is because heat is just disordered kinetic energy, the faster gas particles move the hotter it is. Because gas particles are matter too, they slow as they move to higher elevations. It turns out that this is completely against the second law of thermodynamics and when many scientist are confronted with this fact they will back peddle and state that gas particles do not slow when they move to higher elevations.

This is madness, they are throwing newtons laws under the bus to save humanities greatest constraint!

I have a friend who has written a three part series called Criminal Clouds (https://medium.com/criminal-clouds), I urge you to review and forward it to knowledgeable friends. This may be the beginning of the end for the wretched law.

The 1st part Hydrostatic Lapse (https://medium.com/criminal-clouds/hydrostatic-lapse-part-1-of-3-e8a1534cd12d) makes the case that gases cool with altitude due to gravity.

The 2nd part The Gemini Cycle (https://medium.com/criminal-clouds/the-gemini-cycle-part-2-of-3-ccade20b4845) explains why gases cooling with altitude is against the second law of thermodynamics.

The 3rd part The Isothermal Elevator (https://medium.com/criminal-clouds/the-isothermal-elevator-part-3-of-3-7d828edb3c1a) is the nail in the coffin. when you point out that cooling due to gravity is against the second law of thermodynamics, the first reaction of scientists is to deny that gravity is the reason it cools. What they fail to realise that it is still very easy to make a perpetual motion machine, if that was the case.

[Bubu]

I myself just cannot accept the conventional explanation of how clouds forms since I saw it form during a sunny day which means that while it gets up there closer to the sun it gets hotter then of course up there is supposed to be low pressure. means there is no chance for water vapor to condense or for cloud to forms, under conventional science theories. I will study this maybe it will explain the clouds.
thanks.

[Cristian]

Hi Tom,

Is nothing "against the second law of thermodynamics ".

Space is cold , Earth is hot...everything in between has a certain temp dictated by its proximity to Earth or space.

[Jayke]

The second law of thermodynamics has already been beaten (or at least put back into its original context) by Dr Paul Laviollete and I'm sure many others. In his book subquantum kinetics he makes the distinction that the second law of thermodynamics was originally devised when studying closed systems, studying materials in laboratory conditions shut off from the natural energies and forces they'd be exposed to in the natural world.

There is a branch of physics now called open system thermodynamics where most of the original laws are having to be rewritten in the context of open systems. Open systems include the possibility of perpetual motion and free energy (you only have to look at the perpetual motion of planets around stars or electrons around the nucleus of atoms for proof).

The only thing holding back open system thermodynamics from gaining more prominence is a general lack of awareness and attachments to old dogma.

[Bubu]

Hi Tom,

Is nothing "against the second law of thermodynamics ".

Space is cold , Earth is hot...everything in between has a certain temp dictated by its proximity to Earth or space.

this is true but sun is a big factor that contributes to heat as shown by the difference in temp between equator and NS poles. Still have to come up with something that satisfy all the given conditions.

[Ernie Nemeth]

Without reading the link here's how I understand it.

Hot molecules rise because they are in a higher energetic state than other molecules around them. As the gases rise they also expand because there is more energy in them in the form of heat (infrared radiation). When they reach a certain height, they begin to cool due to the heat loss to outer space. The heat trapped in the molecules bleeds away to the surroundings. The gases cool and begin to sink, and the process begins anew.

The reason all heat is not instantly lost to outer space is because of a phenomena similar to thermal inversion, where a pocket of cold air rises up and over an area of hotter air due to weather activity, trapping the hot air below. This often happens to cities in the temperate regions during the summer months, where because of thermal inversion a city can become trapped in a layer of hot humid air that cannot escape because the cold air above degrades the ordinary heat transfer system. The same happens high up in the atmosphere. The intense cold of space acts as a thermal blanket, trapping hotter air below, causing a thermal inversion and disrupting the heat transfer before it can bleed all the heat out of the atmosphere.

That's how I understand it , no need for fancy "laws" of thermodynamics to grasp the obviousness of the phenomena. Like many things it is only a matter of using common sense and applying a bit of observational awareness to the problem.

Now let's see how I did...

[ghostrider]

The ET's have given very little information about gravity , except to say , they claim gravity is the cousin of electromagnetic energy ... it is a mystery , the don't want us solving just yet ...

[tom phuser]

Space is cold , Earth is hot...everything in between has a certain temp dictated by its proximity to Earth or space.

It's not so clean cut, as evident by the below picture
http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/chapter1/graphics/vert_temp.gif

Ignorance has prevailed on this topic for so long because the atmosphere is influenced by so many phenomenon, some can slip through the cracks!

VO has told me that these machines would be very bad a producing energy but they are easy to prove on paper that they would work. Other machines out there would work better but are difficult to prove.

It is very important that we get the second law overturned so that the patent office will allow people to patent their ideas. If you can't patent your invention, investors wont provide you money to create prototypes and build factories make your product. Free energy remains in the fringes because no one can make money out of it!

[Cristian]

Yup I was a bit ignorant in my previous post. Did some reading . So :

from here (https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/does-the-atmosphere-cool-with-altitude-due-to-gravity.820131/)

Your question on gravitational cooling of the atmosphere gets a qualified “sometimes” answer from kinetic gas theory and statistical thermodynamics. When a mass of air is at rest (no winds or currents), the number of molecules with an upward component of translational motion is equal to the number with a downward component (about 1.21 X 1025 per cubic meter each way at 25°C and 105 Pascals).

The speeds of all upward molecular movements are decelerated by gravity; and the speeds of all downward molecular movements are accelerated by gravity. These changes in molecular speeds are reflected in the mean kinetic energies of translation and hence in the temperatures.

In still air, these ongoing temperature changes cancel one another out. When there is net upward or downward air movement, the proportions change—with more molecules moving in the flow direction than in the opposite direction.

If the net air mass movement is upward, more molecules will be cooled than warmed. If the net air mass movement is downward, more molecules will be warmed than cooled. This explains the adiabatic cooling and heating of rising and sinking air masses.

You might think that these convectional flows would average out and that there would be no net heating or cooling because of them. This is true except for water. Atmospheric water rises as a gas (water vapor), but sinks as a solid or liquid (rain, snow, hail, etc.). Hence there is slightly more adiabatic cooling of the atmosphere then there is adiabatic warming. How much more is a good question.


* * * * *

I am a bit uncomfortable with your reference to the atmosphere as a “hydrostatic gas”. The hydrostatic equation requires a number of conditions to be valid—conditions that are not met by the free atmosphere. Most importantly, however, it requires that a condition of equilibrium exist in order to be valid. The global atmosphere is never in a condition of equilibrium or even close to it. Hence, the hydrostatic equation does not really apply to it.


Also (http://www.rationalskepticism.org/physical-sciences/second-law-denial-t49941.html)

There is no such thing as a "hydrostatic gas", and the atmosphere is not in complete thermodynamic equilibrium in any case.
EDIT: In short, this is a classic case of pseudoscience.

[tom phuser]

In the first forum, klimatos is who you quoted. That person has just stated that hydrostatic air is isothermal and gives a half decent rationale. A following post has Moatilliatta asking how doesn't the isothermal elevator work.

VO knows that most physicist think that a hydrostatic gas is isothermal because an isothermal gas obeys the Clausius statement. The isothermal elevator has the most straightforward calculations and is left to last, so that when scientists explicitly side with isothermal and they will not be able to debunk the apparatus, when confronted with it. I wouldn't be surprised if we hear nothing more from klimatos.

In the second forum, it appears that Campermon (a senior poster) has come to the conclusion that hydrostatic lapse is real, but it doesn't breach the second law of thermodynamics because the calculations are off, in spite of being in defiant of the Clausius statement.

These forums are not running in parallel with their thinking. This isn't an easy open and shut case for science. The book may never shut again:bigsmile:

[Cristian]

VO knows that most physicist think that a hydrostatic gas is isothermal because an isothermal gas obeys the Clausius statement.

Just curious ...are you VO? What are VO's credentials?

[Cristian]

Hmm...

http://physics.unl.edu/~cbinek/Kelvin%20and%20Clausius%20statements.pps

Why Clausius statement is linked to Kelvin statement and everything goes south ...


That being said I love to think about new ideas and possibilities :inlove:

[Ernie Nemeth]

Having read the articles, I am perplexed.

Gravity supplies the direction of heat transfer, temperature gradients and pressure within the medium. So heat rises because of gravity. But if there is no "up" then the body of gas would be equal in temperature and pressure. But the gas would not be equal in pressure or temperature as both would be bleeding off into the surrounding cold of space. So the second law of thermodynamics is actually a description of gravity's effect. Not truly a law at all. Entropy is a statement about time. But in the meantime entropy can and is reversed in many systems.

One of the biggest problems is the thought experiment using closed systems. There is no known closed system in the entire universe. Nor is there any way to truly isolate a system from the environment. All experiments in science have been carried out in the presence of a field (gravity for one) so no experiment has ever come close to observing conditions in the absence of a field. And since we don't really know what a field is or what fields there are - we are blind and grasping at straws.

[tom phuser]

Just curious ...are you VO? What are VO's credentials?

No I'm not VO, he is a Liquified Natural Gas engineer, who has been involved in major projects in Canada, Papua New Guinea and Australia.
We met some time back at a party and got into discussing free energy.

Only last week has he decided to go public with his ideas under a pseudonym to protect his career and informed me of his intention. His approach the past week has been to directly contact academics. He does not think that getting the word out at the grass-roots level will work. My thoughts are the grass-roots aught to know about these things.

[tom phuser]

All experiments in science have been carried out in the presence of a field (gravity for one) so no experiment has ever come close to observing conditions in the absence of a field. And since we don't really know what a field is or what fields there are - we are blind and grasping at straws.

These devices would work in non isolated systems. The isolated systems make the calculations straightforward.

To understand hydrostatic lapse, consider this scenario. There is one atom bouncing around a box, it like other matter, will hit the top of the box slower than the bottom. Add another atom to the box and it can be concluded that the atoms will strike the top on average slower than they strike the bottom. Add millions of atoms to the box and they will on average hit the top of the box slower than they hit the bottom. The temperature of a gas at a particular location is just the average speed of the particles. The temperature at the top of the box will be colder because the kinetic energy of the atoms has been converted into gravitational potential energy.

Funnily enough the Simple English Wikipedia for the Second Law (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics) essentially admits that hydrostatic lapse is real.

[Cristian]

tom,

Can we talk about hydrostatic lapse for (some) liquids too?

How would the hydrostatic lapse be affected by the presence of a strong magnetic field?

You think is possible to accept the fact that hydrostatic lapse is real but not as a violation of the second law ?

[tom phuser]

Can we talk about hydrostatic lapse for (some) liquids too?

How would the hydrostatic lapse be affected by the presence of a strong magnetic field?

You think is possible to accept the fact that hydrostatic lapse is real but not as a violation of the second law ?

I do not personally see how liquids could have a lapse rate, they are always touching. But maybe supercritical fluids do!

If the gas has a charge, there may be a way of increasing or decreasing lapse with magnets.

The Gemini Cycle is a perpetual motion machine of the second kind. If hydrostatic lapse = adiabatic lapse, then the Gemini Cycle will work by converting ambient heat energy into usable forms.

[Hanson]

It's not so clean cut, as evident by the below picture
So it's a toasty 140 degrees F if you go about 72 miles up into the sky? Yet we are getting pretty close to a vacuum at that height, aren't we? So our concept of temperature becomes a little strange, since there are so few gas molecules at that height that we can measure for temperature. A person up there at that altitude could freeze to death, couldn't they?

[Cristian]

:P

The thermosphere (literally "heat sphere") is the outer layer of the atmosphere, separated from the mesosphere by the mesopause. Within the thermosphere temperatures rise continually to well beyond 1000°C. The few molecules that are present in the thermosphere receive extraordinary amounts of energy from the Sun, causing the layer to warm to such high temperatures. Air temperature, however, is a measure of the kinetic energy of air molecules, not of the total energy stored by the air. Therefore, since the air is so thin within the thermosphere, such temperature values are not comparable to those of the troposphere or stratosphere. Although the measured temperature is very hot, the thermosphere would actually feel very cold to us because the total energy of only a few air molecules residing there would not be enough to transfer any appreciable heat to our skin.

link (http://www.weather-climate.org.uk/02.php).....

[tom phuser]

So it's a toasty 140 degrees F if you go about 72 miles up into the sky? Yet we are getting pretty close to a vacuum at that height, aren't we? So our concept of temperature becomes a little strange, since there are so few gas molecules at that height that we can measure for temperature. A person up there at that altitude could freeze to death, couldn't they?

I would imagine that it very much depends on if it is day or night. The surface of the moon varies widely in temperature http://www.space.com/18175-moon-temperature.html