Loading...
 

LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

First Law of Thermodynamics
Second Law of Thermodynamics
Third Law of Thermodynamics

Tom Bearden has already provided me with significant answers regarding the Second Law of Thermodynamics from previous emails, which have been archived on other websites:

His Fact Sheet Section provides: http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/

Correcting the First Law of Thermodynamics
http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/vanflandern.htm Solving the Central Problem of Thermodynamics

Correcting a Misunderstanding of The First Law of Thermodynamics
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=825

Tom Bearden answered me regarding the Second Law on Thermodynamics in the following message
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=AvantGo&file=print&sid=891

Below is a recent email conversation regarding Newton's First Law (Perpetual Motion) and Boltzmann's Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy)

All the Best,
Leslie R. Pastor

Original Message
From: Leslie R. Pastor
To: Tom Bearden
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 3:10 AM
Subject: Re: Newton's First Law of Motion, Second Law of Thermodynamics: Requires Another Look

Thank you, Tom

All the Best,
Leslie R. Pastor

Original Message
From: Tom Bearden
To: 'Leslie R. Pastor'
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 10:31 PM
Subject: RE: Newton's First Law of Motion, Second Law of Thermodynamics: Requires Another Look

Leslie,

Would do it, but I've entered a two week period when I am already stretched to human endurance as far as tasking. So I won't be able to get at something like that for about three weeks or more at least.

Fortunately there are some excellent thermodynamicists now, who are strongly whacking away at the old Second Law and demolishing it. Hope to have a fact sheet on it later, but have some of the information in the present updated fact sheet on Leyton's work.

Best wishes,

Tom Bearden



From: Leslie R. Pastor mailto:lrpastor@optonline.net
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 4:31 PM
To: Tom Bearden
Subject: Re: Newton's First Law of Motion, Second Law of Thermodynamics: Requires Another Look

Good Evening Tom,

Would you care to comment regarding the Second Law of Thermodynamics and your understanding of Maxwell's Equations?

All the Best,

Leslie R. Pastor



The Second Law of Thermodynamics http://www.marxist.com/science/arrowoftime.html appears to have been challenged, and thus provides some interesting http://www.emmitsburg.net/archive_list/articles/thoughtful/retired_ecologist/aging_entropy.htm stimulus to those who prefer not to remain in their comfort zones of experiential as opposed to experimental physics. From Boltzmann to Maxwell we have http://cesmec.fiu.edu/people/Garai/research%20statement/Entropy/Entropy.htm significant challenges already, for it was Boltzmann who postulated the Second Law of Thermodynamics and it was Maxwell who [previously to Boltzmann] http://www.chem.uci.edu/education/undergrad_pgm/applets/bounce/demon.htm provided a significant challenge in his famous (Maxwell's Demon ) http://www.maxwellian.demon.co.uk/name.html argument.

Tom Bearden has provided an excellent http://www.cheniere.org/articles/maxwells%20demon.htm example regarding the efficacy and validity of Maxwell's Demon http://www.maxwellian.demon.co.uk/name.html and shows that it is rigorously alive in many forms now and forever more.

Many others have come to that conclusion as well:
http://www.rense.com/general/resistors.htm
http://www.padrak.com/ine/INE9.html
http://www.tfcbooks.com/mainpage/links2.htm
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=444
http://worldcrossing.com/WebX?expandAll@90.jt7BaOiQ0tc.0@.1dde3c13

All the Best,
Leslie R. Pastor

PS:

All of Life as we know life exists (past, future and present) equally within 4-Space, thus the Second Law of Thermodynamics must answer to a 'higher' (first thought, first law and first foundation as a) (creation principle) dimensional 'construct.' Could it be that the 'Creation' contains 'energy' levels of magnitude that are simply beyond the scope of known physics, necessitating humility once again on our parts. Remember it was Nikola Tesla who provided us with our current level of understanding, and not we ourselves. Mankind refused to believe Nikola Tesla, until he was able to 'create' our current 'novelty of fact' known as the AC paradigm. Just maybe, Dr. Thomas E. Bearden and his associates got it RIGHT. (Think About it) Were it not for Nikola Tesla's marvelous 'discoveries' of which just one, (the Tesla Coil) allows us to communicate on the 'information highway,' that we commonly and unthinkingly refer to as the 'Net.

Source:
http://www.halexandria.org/dward760.htm

"Extracting Energy and Heat from the Active Vacuum"; (Daniel C. Cole & Harold E. Puthoff)
http://www.zpenergy.com/downloads/PREv48_1562.pdf

Ref:
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=MostPopular

Original Message

From: Leslie R. Pastor

To: Tom Bearden

Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 3:43 PM

Subject: Re: Newton's First Law of Motion: Requires Another Look

Recently, certain principles, if not 'foundations,' have been questioned regarding the very (known) laws of physics. Those dealing with 'motion' and 'thermodynamics,' in particular, the second law of thermodynamics. Tom Bearden has provided significant insight into perpetual motion as it applies to vacuum space. Thus the First Law of Newton stands as an 'absolute' fundamental (dynamic) within the (active) vacuum of space. (read his comments below)

Recently, I provided some insight into the http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/laithwaite_eric.shtml work of Eric Laithwaite who demonstrated that Newton's Laws can be affected by 'gyroscopic' (active) motion.

Eric Laithwaite's findings were indeed fascinating and stimulating for all of us, http://www.gyroscopes.org/masstran.asp placing him firmly http://www.rense.com/general42/genius.htm within the 'novelties of fact' class of scientists, who singlehandledly, have challenged our view of motion. The Royal Institution, (to say the least) http://www.alternativescience.com/eric-laithwaite.htm was not amused. NASA, however, did take a significant interest in Laithwaite's http://www.sussex.ac.uk/press_office/bulletin/05dec97/item8.html 'novelty of fact,' and provided him with a research grant http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/ComnErr.html to continue his 'novelty of fact' discovery just before he died.

Jean-Louis Naudin has provided some excellect research regarding http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/IPEmain.htm Inertial Propulsion Engines that have, and continue to demonstrate, significant aspects of 'motion' that are not necessarily understood within the framework of ((Newton Laws of Motion|Newton's (known) Laws)).

Tech Paper Index: Bearden
http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/index.html

Gyroscopic 'Engines'
http://www.sptv.demon.co.uk/gyro.htm

Scientists Create Element 113, 115,
http://www.llnl.gov/llnl/06news/NewsReleases/2004/NR-04-02-01.html

Original Message

From: Leslie R. Pastor
To: Tom Bearden
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: Newton's First Law of Motion: Requires Another Look

Thank you Tom,

Your marvelous response regarding 'perpetual motion' is exquisitely elegant and beautifully stated.

All the Best,

Leslie R. Pastor

Re: Fact Sheets: http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/Fact_Sheets/index.html

Dr. Randell Mills and Blacklight Power
http://www.cheniere.org/misc/mills.htm

Dr. Antony C. Sutton on Blacklight Power
http://ctrl.org/sutton/FTIR.March2001.html

Dr. Bearden on James Clerk Maxwell's original 'holy grail' of physics
http://www.enterprisemission.com/hyper2.html

Clean Electrical Energy From the Active Vacuum
http://www.cheniere.org/articles/clean%20electrical.htm

Maxwell's Demons Are Alive and Thriving Bearden
http://www.cheniere.org/articles/maxwells%20demon.htm

Curtailment of the Second Law of Thermodynamics
http://www.cheniere.org/articles/2ndLaw.htm

Reducing Our Dependence On Fossil Fuils
http://www.cheniere.org/articles/Reducing%20Our%20Dependence%20on%20Fossil%20Fuels2.doc

Original Message

From: Tom Bearden
To: Leslie R. Pastor
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 11:38 AM
Subject: RE: Newton's First Law of Motion: Requires Another Look

Leslie,

To settle the "perpetual motion" question, I recently placed a Fact Paper on perpetual motion on my website.

Zero point energy - a remaining real motion required by quantum mechanics and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle of any oscillator even when the temperature reaches zero - is an example of known and accepted perpetual motion. So is zitterbewegung, which is thought to generate the spin of each fundamental particle in the universe. So is a pulse of light into space - it continues on for billions and billions of years. Astronomers routinely observe light just arriving in their telescopes, that left their sources billions of years ago near the formation of the universe itself. And all that time, those photons have been steadily traveling with steady motion in space If nothing intercepts and interrupts such primal light emitted at the beginning, it will also continue to travel on for the next billions of years, so that astronomers in the far distant future will be able to observe it then.

To remain in uniform (perpetual, in the absence of any disturbing force) motion, an object (or a photon) placed in motion does not require any input of extra energy. It does not have to do any work. Newton's first law (of perpetual motion) simply states that, unless one deliberately changes it with an interfering force, the object will simply remain in motion - as long as you care to wait, regardless of how many billions of years that might be.

In the Fact Paper, we simply took Max Planck's (typical of the ilk) statement equating "perpetual motion" to a "working machine with no energy input, thus creating energy. We did a simple logic analysis of it, as any sophomore who has had one course in symbolic logic could do. The (typical) statement advances two premises, one false and the other true. It then asserts the two premises to be "one and the same thing", and thus claims the true premise proves the other (false) premise to be true. That of course is a non sequitur.

In short, it's a simple logical non sequitur. That such a knee-jerk statement in one form or another has been around (and widely accepted) for a century, without anyone just examining it in terms of sheer logic, is appalling. But that is what has happened.

Actually, since the discovery by Onnes of superconductivity in 1911, the question has long since been experimentally settled. A current initiated in a superconducting ring, will simply go on forever. Experiments in such have actually been run for two or three years continuously. Onnes even performed one himself for more than a year. Today, the most careful experiments and measurements indicate an expected half life of the current to be some 10^23 years. That's many orders of magnitude longer than the present age of the known universe.

For a discussion of the situation and measurements, see Charles Kittel, "Introduction to Solid State Physics", Seventh Edition, Wiley, New York, 1996. On p. 359, Kittel calculates the time required for a single fluxoid to leak out of a typical superconducting ring with zero resistance. (Such a superconducting current is quantized in integral multiples of a certain unit of flux, called a fluxoid or fluxon, and so the current consists of a certain number of such fluxoids in circulation). The leakage calculation gives the time required for a fluxoid to leak out as about 10exp(4.34x10exp7)sec. Since the age of the present universe is only about 10exp18 sec., it would require an enormous number of "present universe lives" - indeed, some 10exp((4.34x10exp7) - 18) of them - for the leakage of a single fluxon to statistically occur. From this calculation, one can understand a somewhat typical estimate for the half-life (when half of the fluxons will have leaked away from a chosen "typical" shorted superconducting ring) of 10exp23 years. Quoting, p. 359-360: "...a fluxoid will never leak out in the age of the universe, under our assumed conditions. Accordingly, the current is maintained."

Or, quoting Feynman "On the phenomena of superconductivity".

"First, there is no electrical resistance. There's no resistance because all the electrons are collectively in the same state. In the ordinary flow of current you knock one electron or the other out of the regular flow, gradually deteriorating the general momentum. But here to get one electron way from what all the others are doing is very hard because of the tendency of all Bose particles to go in the same state. A current once started, just keeps on going forever." (Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands, "The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. III, Quantum Mechanics", Addison-Wesley, Third Printing 1966, p. 21-08.)

For many years, solid state physics student at every good technical university have performed and do perform straightforward experiments demonstrating the perpetual motion of such a superconducting current. From ordinary educational physics supply houses, for a few hundred dollars one can purchase one's own kit allowing one to actually perform and observe such perpetual motion experiments. It's no big deal to the solid state physicist.

Now suppose that perpetual motion DID NOT exist and COULD NOT exist, as the "knee-jerk" pontification proclaims. In that case, any object put into motion would be in random fluctuation in its motion, rather than steady uniform motion. The zitterbewegung would not and could not produce any steady spin of a particle; hence there would be no such thing as a stable fundamental observable particle. That's the description of utter universal chaos; the ordered macroscopic universe we observe and live in could not and would not even exist. Now also look at it from the standpoint of special relativity. Relativistically, an object in uniform motion in any inertial frame is at rest in another (moving) inertial frame that is moving at the same velocity. But if the object in its original frame were randomly fluctuating in its motion, then the object when seen in the moving frame, would not be at rest but would be in violent and random motion fluctuations. Hence there could not and would not exist any such thing as "an object at rest" in any relativistic frame. In short, the observed orderly universe could not and would not even exist.

So every time one enjoys the ethereal beauty and appearance of the moon, or the magnificent vista of a distant range of beautiful mountains, etc., or watches a gorgeous sunset, one has also just reconfirmed the absolute necessity and presence of perpetual motion, and perhaps had a deeper understanding of ((Newton Laws of Motion|Newton's first law of uniform (perpetual) motion)).

Summing it up, the best way to put it is simply as Leggett stated it:

"...if a ring of superconducting material is cooled below its transition temperature and a current set up in it (e.g. by varying the magnetic flux through the ring), it will continue to circulate for as long as one cares to observe it." (Anthony Leggett, "Low temperature physics, superconductivity and superfluidity," in The New Physics, edited by Paul Davies, Cambridge University Press, 1989. Quote is from p. 280). Actually, this makes superconducting persistent currents a very special kind of "energy storage device". Several large power companies are experimenting and working on use of quite large superconducting persistent currents to store electrical energy on standby, for tapping as "sources" or "special dynamic batteries" when extra power is needed on the grid.

Finally, one should always be alert and aware that perpetual motion has nothing at all to do with the false premise that a machine can do continuous work without any energy input. To equate the two things - perpetual motion of a system as being the system continuously performing work without any energy input - is to commit a serious and fundamental error in basic logic.

If anyone really wants to get all the citations and a thorough discussion, and the simple logic analysis, just download the Fact Paper from my website.

Best wishes,
Tom



From: Leslie R. Pastor mailto:lrpastor@optonline.net
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 5:35 AM
To: Tom Bearden
Subject: Newton's First Law of Motion: Requires Another Look

Hello Tom,

Do you wish to respond or add information before I send to the 'energy groups'? Please take your time in responding. I value your detailed response regarding 'energy from the active vacuum' known as ZPE.

All the Best,
Leslie R. Pastor



In Newton's Laws of Motion:
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html The First Law:

Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it. This is the classic definition of perpetual motion, thus the entire 'creation' demonstrates that perpetual motion is a natural phenomenon fulfilling this very (First) Law of Motion within the 'vacuum' of space. Thus, those who say that perpetual motion is impossible, and complete nonsense, don't really understand Newton's First Law of Motion. The planets, star systems and entire galaxies observe and fulfill Newton's First Law everywhere 'within' the vacuum of space. Not only is perpetual motion obvious, but absolutely and fundamentally necessary in order for the 'creation as construct' to function within the framework of continuous motion. All of life would essentially cease to exist were perpetual motion not a fundamental law.

I've brought this acknowledgement of Newton's First Law because there are those who continuously ridicule researcher's who demonstrate http://www.phact.org/e/dennis4.html their faith in Newton's First principle, as perpetual motion nuts.

Tom Bearden has http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/022503.htm given a concise and succinct explanation regarding perpetual motion, not to mention his understanding http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/feb2/bearden.htm regarding the fierce energy of the 'vacuum' itself. Energy from the 'vacuum' http://ascension2000.com/DivineCosmos/01.htm is not a novel 'concept,' but rigorous science, known today as ZPE or zero point energy, which is a significant component of the 'vacuum of space.'

Recently, Tom was asked by Jan Riis Christensen http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?noframes;read=49778 for his comments regarding 'negentrophy' or the tapping of ZPE. Tom http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/042700.doc has provided significant answers already, for they are enunciated http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/ in his correspondence section.

See Also

Kepler's Three Laws
Carnot Cycle
Continuous Motion
Energy from Vacuum
Keely - Electricity from Space
Laws
Laws of Thermodynamics
Newton Laws of Motion
Nicolas Leonard Sadi Carnot
thermodynamics
Perpetual Motion
Scalar
Scalar Potential
Tesla - Electricity from Space
Vacuum
Vacuum Energy
Wavefunction
Zero point energy
Page last modified on Thursday 13 of October, 2016 04:17:47 MDT

Search For a Wiki Page

Last-Visited Pages