The source of energy is evaporation-condensation

MonteCristo wrote:
New idea!

The environmentally friendly renewable energy source.

Offered renewable sources of clean energy, based on the processes of evaporation and condensation in the adiabatic expansion and compression of condensed gas (CO2), all 3 pages.

MonteCristo wrote:
New idea!

The environmentally friendly renewable energy source.

Offered renewable sources of clean energy, based on the processes of evaporation and condensation in the adiabatic expansion and compression of condensed gas (CO2), all 3 pages.

See attachment or here:

http://www.youblisher.com/p/871437-Energy-source-evaporation-condensation-Editing-on-April-20-2014/

Or

http://www.energy2000.narod.ru/H2/CO2engl2.pdf

Thank you for your attention.

MonteCristo wrote:
Entropy remains unchanged. There are no contradictions here.

Into the Night wrote:
If entropy remains unchanged, it is not possible to extract energy from the device. Extracting energy increases entropy.

Tillerson wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
If entropy remains unchanged, it is not possible to extract energy from the device. Extracting energy increases entropy.

Look, I'm just a newbie but I have been lurking so I hate to ask this because I like the running jokes but I have to ask, can you define entropy for me? Because I always found it a toughie and think I mentioned it in a relationship once. Maybe I was wrong.

Into the Night wrote:
If entropy remains unchanged, it is not possible to extract energy from the device. Extracting energy increases entropy.

Tillerson wrote:
Let the cunt squirm.

Tillerson wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
If entropy remains unchanged, it is not possible to extract energy from the device. Extracting energy increases entropy.

Look, I'm just a newbie but I have been lurking so I hate to ask this because I like the running jokes but I have to ask, can you define entropy for me? Because I always found it a toughie and think I mentioned it in a relationship once. Maybe I was wrong.

James___ wrote:

Tillerson wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
If entropy remains unchanged, it is not possible to extract energy from the device. Extracting energy increases entropy.

Look, I'm just a newbie but I have been lurking so I hate to ask this because I like the running jokes but I have to ask, can you define entropy for me? Because I always found it a toughie and think I mentioned it in a relationship once. Maybe I was wrong.

...He's playing head games. The quote of his that you are asking about is a paradox he created. I'd ignore it if I were you.

Tim the plumber wrote:

Tillerson wrote:
Let the cunt squirm.

Welcome to the debate.

Into the Night wrote:

Tillerson wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
If entropy remains unchanged, it is not possible to extract energy from the device. Extracting energy increases entropy.

Look, I'm just a newbie but I have been lurking so I hate to ask this because I like the running jokes but I have to ask, can you define entropy for me? Because I always found it a toughie and think I mentioned it in a relationship once. Maybe I was wrong.

Sure. Entropy is essentially the randomness of a system.

In terms of energy, that means energy is distributed throughout the system in a way that it can no longer be used (basically uniformly).

Consider two cages. One with red birds, the other with blue birds. Entropy is at minimum. The birds are organized each into their own 'red' and 'blue' cage.

Connecting a tube between the cages allow the birds to fly from one cage to the other. After some time, both cages will be filled with both red and blue birds. It will generally be equal, but it varies slightly. Here entropy is at a maximum. You now have a random spread of red and blue birds in both cages.

The same thing happens to energy. If energy is concentrated in on region, and there is less energy in another region, introducing some coupling between the two regions allow energy to flow between. Energy will dissipate until it is equal between the two regions, at a rate determined by the difference of energy and the coupling between the two regions.

This gives a direction for what we call 'heat', which is the flow of thermal energy.

A higher thermal energy is a hotter region than one that has less thermal energy (the colder region). Introducing coupling between them allows heat.

Heat always flows from hot to cold. It never flows from cold to hot.

Coupling can take the form of conductive heat (molecules directly agitating neighboring molecules), convection (molecules moving further apart as a result of pressure loss), or radiance (molecules produce light, which can be absorbed by another molecule).

The 2nd law of thermodynamics states the entropy must always increase or stay the same in any system. That system is one of your own choosing (the so-called 'isolated' system), but the boundaries of that system must be consistent. That rate of increase is dependent upon the coupling coefficient, and the difference of energy between the two regions. No coupling, no entropy increase. It just stays the same. No difference, no entropy increase. It just stays the same. Nothing can reduce entropy and stay within the bounds of that system.

In other words, given two regions of energy, and a coupling between the two regions, energy will always dissipate evenly between the two until both are the same. Usually this means thermal energy, but it can be any energy.

If there is no coupling between hot and cold, there is no heat. Things like blankets, coats, etc. reduce heat, allowing the chemical energy you consume to keep yourself warm is not lost to the environment as quickly.

Does this answer your question?

Into the Night wrote:

You deny science. The laws of thermodynamics are not a paradox.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

You deny science. The laws of thermodynamics are not a paradox.

...I can't hear you. I have my headphones on and the volume turned up. Did you say something about the Laws of Hydrodynamics ?
..That's an easy one. it's based on heat or the lack of it. Sorry, I got that wrong. Conservation of Momentum. The KE of a water molecule is dependent on whether it's KE is increased by atmospheric gasses or if it's decreasing the KE of atmospheric gasses so that a body of water can absorb gasses such as CO2.
..This means that Conservation of Momentum dictates the Laws of Thermodynamics unless you're talking about the 4th state of matter which is plasma.
..If you'd like I could turn my music down because it might be TOO LOUD for you. I know how you old guys are. You're probably back to wearing training pants, ROFLMAO !!! D@MN WHAT A BURN !!!!!!!

Tillerson wrote:
What do I care - I just want my baby back.
You've given me some great tips.
I've just got to figure out a way to bring this up in normal conversation.
It's not like I can mention the chicken since she went vegan.

Tillerson wrote:
... she's big on climate change, thinks strongly about that.
If I bring that up - how can I steer the conversation away without it looking to obvious?
I can't just leap in, she'll know.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

You deny science. The laws of thermodynamics are not a paradox.

...I can't hear you. I have my headphones on and the volume turned up. Did you say something about the Laws of Hydrodynamics ?

James___ wrote:
..That's an easy one. it's based on heat or the lack of it.

James___ wrote:
Sorry, I got that wrong. Conservation of Momentum.

James___ wrote:
The KE of a water molecule is dependent on whether it's KE is increased by atmospheric gasses or if it's decreasing the KE of atmospheric gasses so that a body of water can absorb gasses such as CO2.

James___ wrote:
..This means that Conservation of Momentum dictates the Laws of Thermodynamics unless you're talking about the 4th state of matter which is plasma.

Into the Night wrote:

Tillerson wrote:
What do I care - I just want my baby back.
You've given me some great tips.
I've just got to figure out a way to bring this up in normal conversation.
It's not like I can mention the chicken since she went vegan.

Sounds like your trouble has little to do with entropy and more to do with personal viewpoints.

MonteCristo wrote:
Gentlemen! I would ask you to pay attention to page 3. There is the law of enthalpy. What is more important than the law of enthalpy or the law of thermodynamics?

Into the Night wrote:

Tillerson wrote:
... she's big on climate change, thinks strongly about that.
If I bring that up - how can I steer the conversation away without it looking to obvious?
I can't just leap in, she'll know.

Losing one to a fundamentalist religion like this is never easy. Unfortunately, no one can force a belief in any religion or force one to leave a religion they believe in.

If she is not even willing to allow discussion of it, I see no path back for her.

MonteCristo wrote:

MonteCristo wrote:
Gentlemen! I would ask you to pay attention to page 3. There is the law of enthalpy. What is more important than the law of enthalpy or the law of thermodynamics?

Sorry, typo..

Gentlemen! I would ask you to pay attention to page 3. There is the law of enthalpy. What is more important than the law of enthalpy or the 2 law of thermodynamics?

Into the Night wrote:

The laws of thermodynamics apply to plasma too.

James___ wrote:
...The problem here is that those Laws of Thermodynamics describe the transfer of heat. Plasma Physics is not about transferring energy but a unique state that matter can exist in.

James___ wrote:
..I can't hear you. I have my headphones on and the volume turned up. Did you say something about the Laws of Hydrodynamics ?

Into the Night wrote:
Try turning them down. They are liquefying your brains.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

The laws of thermodynamics apply to plasma too.

James___ wrote:
...The problem here is that those Laws of Thermodynamics describe the transfer of heat. Plasma Physics is not about transferring energy but a unique state that matter can exist in.

James___ wrote:
..I can't hear you. I have my headphones on and the volume turned up. Did you say something about the Laws of Hydrodynamics ?

Into the Night wrote:
Try turning them down. They are liquefying your brains.

..Are you saying that if I turn up my headphones more that you could hear them ? I guess it must suck that you don't listen to the music that I do. Don't worry, I won't hold it against you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHwwqCGIsG4

Tillerson wrote:

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

The laws of thermodynamics apply to plasma too.

James___ wrote:
...The problem here is that those Laws of Thermodynamics describe the transfer of heat. Plasma Physics is not about transferring energy but a unique state that matter can exist in.

James___ wrote:
..I can't hear you. I have my headphones on and the volume turned up. Did you say something about the Laws of Hydrodynamics ?

Into the Night wrote:
Try turning them down. They are liquefying your brains.

..Are you saying that if I turn up my headphones more that you could hear them ? I guess it must suck that you don't listen to the music that I do. Don't worry, I won't hold it against you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHwwqCGIsG4

We were like that but she had an Accordian.
I still can't believe it's over.

Tillerson wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tillerson wrote:
... she's big on climate change, thinks strongly about that.
If I bring that up - how can I steer the conversation away without it looking to obvious?
I can't just leap in, she'll know.

Losing one to a fundamentalist religion like this is never easy. Unfortunately, no one can force a belief in any religion or force one to leave a religion they believe in.

If she is not even willing to allow discussion of it, I see no path back for her.

Yeah, but two!
Jesus Christ.
You're really dragging it out of me now - she wasn't the first that walked away, that way. I think I need to go back to my books.

Tillerson wrote:
I try to be optomistic.
But yeah come on - like she woke up with an apple in her mouth.

Into the Night wrote:

Tillerson wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tillerson wrote:
... she's big on climate change, thinks strongly about that.
If I bring that up - how can I steer the conversation away without it looking to obvious?
I can't just leap in, she'll know.

Losing one to a fundamentalist religion like this is never easy. Unfortunately, no one can force a belief in any religion or force one to leave a religion they believe in.

If she is not even willing to allow discussion of it, I see no path back for her.

Yeah, but two!
Jesus Christ.
You're really dragging it out of me now - she wasn't the first that walked away, that way. I think I need to go back to my books.

Sorry dude. If it's any consolation, you are not alone. I know several others that share the same fate as you have. They have a hard time with it too.

I wish I could just utterly destroy the Church of Global Warming and prevent this kind of loss in the future.

But I can't. All can do is alert as many to its screwed up thinking and its dangers as I can. This, unfortunately, is a fundamentalist style religion. It is VERY difficult to convince someone of the fallacy of it, once they become involved in it.

But it does, on a rare occasion, happen.

Perhaps you can direct her to this board somehow. It IS about the climate debate after all. Alternatives would be to topix.com or debatepolitics.com. If you get her on here, you might consider waiting some time before you do so your identity isn't detected by her and she figures there's a trick going on.

This board has some moderation going on, but it's really quite minimal. Generally, only spam and gross abuse or illegal activity is rejected. The software here is excellent...in my opinion the best of the boards.

Topix seems to have no moderation going on at all. It's sucky software as well. Spam and flamewars are common there.

Debatepolitics has overall moderates and some threads have thread moderators. Moderation there is generally to limit insulting behavior, threats and abuse, illegal activity, spam, etc. The software is decent, but the site is somewhat disorganized and crashes a lot.

Into the Night wrote:

Tillerson wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Tillerson wrote:
... she's big on climate change, thinks strongly about that.
If I bring that up - how can I steer the conversation away without it looking to obvious?
I can't just leap in, she'll know.

Losing one to a fundamentalist religion like this is never easy. Unfortunately, no one can force a belief in any religion or force one to leave a religion they believe in.

If she is not even willing to allow discussion of it, I see no path back for her.

Yeah, but two!
Jesus Christ.
You're really dragging it out of me now - she wasn't the first that walked away, that way. I think I need to go back to my books.

Sorry dude. If it's any consolation, you are not alone. I know several others that share the same fate as you have. They have a hard time with it too.

I wish I could just utterly destroy the Church of Global Warming and prevent this kind of loss in the future.

But I can't. All can do is alert as many to its screwed up thinking and its dangers as I can. This, unfortunately, is a fundamentalist style religion. It is VERY difficult to convince someone of the fallacy of it, once they become involved in it.

But it does, on a rare occasion, happen.

Perhaps you can direct her to this board somehow. It IS about the climate debate after all. Alternatives would be to topix.com or debatepolitics.com. If you get her on here, you might consider waiting some time before you do so your identity isn't detected by her and she figures there's a trick going on.

This board has some moderation going on, but it's really quite minimal. Generally, only spam and gross abuse or illegal activity is rejected. The software here is excellent...in my opinion the best of the boards.

Topix seems to have no moderation going on at all. It's sucky software as well. Spam and flamewars are common there.

Debatepolitics has overall moderates and some threads have thread moderators. Moderation there is generally to limit insulting behavior, threats and abuse, illegal activity, spam, etc. The software is decent, but the site is somewhat disorganized and crashes a lot.

James___ wrote:

Tillerson wrote:
I try to be optomistic.
But yeah come on - like she woke up with an apple in her mouth.

...So did Newton.

Tillerson wrote:

MonteCristo wrote:

MonteCristo wrote:
Gentlemen! I would ask you to pay attention to page 3. There is the law of enthalpy. What is more important than the law of enthalpy or the law of thermodynamics?

Sorry, typo..

Gentlemen! I would ask you to pay attention to page 3. There is the law of enthalpy. What is more important than the law of enthalpy or the 2 law of thermodynamics?

Who's counting?