🧵 Explain to me why this wouldn't break the second law
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 21:03:07 UTC No. 16476827
Setup as pic, starts at room temperature and thermal equilibrium, with no radiant photons in the vacuum space.
Wood absorbs infrared light, aluminium reflects IRL.
Every part of the system emits some IRL and cools down slightly, however a disproportionate quantity of photons in the left chamber are absorbed by the divider compared to the right. This should mean that the left-hand chunk of wood should initially cool down faster than the right hand one.
The divider should re-emit IRL into both chambers at an equal rate so the total energy difference should stay the same. But then the cycle repeats.
More infrared is absorbed by the divider on the left side, infrared is re-emitted to both sides equally. This should result in a thermal difference between the two pieces of wood starting from thermal equilibrium without any energy input and therefore should violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
I know it will eventually reach "equilibrium" because eventually the right side will be emitting more photons then the left so the absorbtion rate on both sides of the divider will be equal, but that shouldn't happen before a noticeable temperature difference.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 21:28:05 UTC No. 16476872
Nigger if the system starts at thermal equilibrium there wouldn't be any net transfer in first place
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 21:32:05 UTC No. 16476876
>>16476872
What I meant by equilibrium in the first instance is that the entire system starts off at the same temperature.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 22:05:07 UTC No. 16476942
>>16476827
>More infrared is absorbed by the divider on the left side, infrared is re-emitted to both sides equally.
nope
https://wikiless.org/wiki/Kirchhoff
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 22:51:25 UTC No. 16476978
>>16476942
/thread
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 22:57:37 UTC No. 16476982
>>16476827
I think this answers my question, thanks.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 23:12:17 UTC No. 16477005
>>16476827
I havent looked at your example in detail and if its valid, but radiation can lead to a permanent temperature difference, this is possible.
for example, a sheet metal roof on a carport (e.g. with wood underneath) can have a negative temperature on a cold, cloudless night if the ambient temperature is +2°C and yes, this could mean that some water condensing on it can freeze.
but that is not in conflict with 2nd law of thermodynamics.
of course, heat continues to flow unstoppably, the surroundings are cooled by the sheet metal roof.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 23:23:45 UTC No. 16477029
>>16476827
didnt read your post but it wont work because second law of thermodynamics, i dont need to explain any further
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 01:18:58 UTC No. 16477291
>>16476827
Mine's better.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 01:26:37 UTC No. 16477307
>>16476827
Lookup the ellipse paradox. Two black bodies emit light in a mirrored cavity, it's shaped such that body B is centered in one foci of an ellipse, while body A is centered in the other foci of the ellipse, as well as a sphere.
Most photons from A reflect back to A, but pass to B.
Meanwhile all photons from B pass to A.
A should heat up, breaking 2nd law.
This paper is one of several over the years debunking why the paradox doesn't exist in our world.
https://www.researchgate.net/public
QRD: bodies A and B are assumed to be infinitesimally small in the paradox, so they can be at the foci of the ellipse and sphere.
In reality no object can be that small, they have so size. This means photons are being emitted outside of the foci, thus can return back to B, preventing the paradox.
The paper demonstrates this with computer simulations.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 05:13:29 UTC No. 16477496
>>16477029
believing strongly in things without understanding them is midwit behavior, even if the thing is Science™ and/or true
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 16:14:03 UTC No. 16477898
>>16476827
>>16477291
Mine is better.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 16:35:16 UTC No. 16477916
>>16477898
and yet it still doesnt work.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 16:52:10 UTC No. 16477931
>>16477916
But my isn't closed system atleast.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 00:54:49 UTC No. 16480050
>>16477898
Didn't we briefly talk about this in september?
>>16387749
>>16387758
I think you responded with:
>>16391066
But I suspect the energy required to compress Coolant #1 is the same as thermal energy transferred and stored in Coolant #2.
Otherwise it seems like your machine could work if an efficient enough turbine was made (which ignoring engineering limitations of stuff melting) could be done by raising the temperatures enormously to raise carnot limit.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 00:55:51 UTC No. 16480051
>>16480050
have to use https://warosu.org/sci/thread/16379
Anonymous at Tue, 19 Nov 2024 08:44:27 UTC No. 16481907
>>16476827
only way to violate the laws of thermodynamics is by praying to god.
?????iguessthisishowitsdone????? at Tue, 19 Nov 2024 09:53:55 UTC No. 16481972
>>16476872
I would have loved to sit next to u in school lol
?????iguessthisishowitsdone????? at Tue, 19 Nov 2024 09:54:56 UTC No. 16481973
>>16481907
Lulz