THERMODYNAMICS AND RELATIVITY: DEAD SCIENCES

Recently scientists in Hong Kong published perhaps the most serious challenge ever made to the second law of thermodynamics:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.0161
Self-Charged Graphene Battery Harvests Electricity from Thermal Energy of the Environment, Zihan Xu et al: "Moreover, the thermal velocity of ions can be maintained by the external environment, which means it is unlimited. However, little study has been reported on converting the ionic thermal energy into electricity. Here we present a graphene device with asymmetric electrodes configuration to capture such ionic thermal energy and convert it into electricity. (...) To exclude the possibility of chemical reaction, we performed control experiments... (...) In conclusion, we could not find any evidences that support the opinion that the induced voltage came from chemical reaction. The mechanism for electricity generation by graphene in solution is a pure physical process..."

Amazingly, the authors did not even mention the second law of thermodynamics. Neither did the few journalists who commented on the event:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/48889
"Researchers at Hong Kong Polytechnic University claim to have invented a new kind of graphene-based "battery" that runs solely on ambient heat. The device is said to capture the thermal energy of ions in a solution and convert it into electricity."

http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-03-...ery-power.html
(PhysOrg.com) -- "Scientists in Hong Kong have reported, in ArXiv, their experiments to make a graphene battery that they say generates an electrical current by drawing on the ambient thermal energy in the solution in which it is immersed."

Thermodynamics has been dead for quite some time. Einstein's relativity is quickly moving in the same direction. Ten years ago it was still possible to make career and money by challenging fundamental principles:

http://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Physic.../dp/0618551050
Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next, p. 226: "Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates: One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the constancy and universality of the speed of light. Could the first postulate be true and the other false? If that was not possible, Einstein would not have had to make two postulates. But I don't think many people realized until recently that you could have a consistent theory in which you changed only the second postulate."

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Sp.../dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."

Nowadays even explicit claims that the speed of light (as measured by the observer) VARIES with the speed of the observer produce no excitement at all:

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."

http://www.usna.edu/Users/physics/mu...plerEffect.pdf
Carl Mungan: "Consider the case where the observer moves toward the source. In this case, the observer is rushing head-long into the wavefronts... (....) In fact, the wave speed is simply increased by the observer speed, as we can see by jumping into the observer's frame of reference."

http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHY.../lecture18.pdf
Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/(lambda) waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f'=(c+v)/(lambda)."

http://www.cmmp.ucl.ac.uk/~ahh/teach...24n/lect19.pdf
Tony Harker, University College London: "If the observer moves with a speed Vo away from the source (...), then in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t, so the number of waves observed is (c-Vo)t/lambda, giving an observed frequency f'=f((c-Vo)/c) when the observer is moving away from the source at a speed Vo."

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
Albert Einstein Institute: "As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses [that is, the speed of light as measured by the receiver is (4/3)c]."

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
news:19792649.2093.1335456939165.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbcg6...
Recently scientists in Hong Kong published perhaps the most serious
challenge ever made to the second law of thermodynamics:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.0161
Self-Charged Graphene Battery Harvests Electricity from Thermal Energy of
the Environment, Zihan Xu et al: "Moreover, the thermal velocity of ions can
be maintained by the external environment, which means it is unlimited.

===================================
Then it doesn't challenge the second law, you dork.
LOOK!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell
FREE unlimited electricity from the external environment!
Sometimes you are a total pillock, Valev.

http://canadianjuniorreport.com/grap...ectric-current
"Physicists have built a graphene battery that harvests energy from the thermal movement of ions in solution. (...) When an ion smashes into the graphene strip, the collision generates enough energy to kick a delocalised electron out of the graphene. The electron then has two options: it can either leave the graphene strip and combine with the copper ion or it can travel through the graphene strip and into the circuit. It turns out that the mobility of electrons is much higher in graphene than it is through the solution, so the electron naturally chooses the route through the circuit. It is this that lights up the LED. "The released electrons prefer to travel across the graphene surface...instead of going into the electrolyte solution. That is how the voltage was produced by our device," say Zihan and co. So the energy generated by this device comes from ambient heat. These guys say there were able to increase the current by heating the solution and also by accelerating the copper ions with ultrasound. They even claim to have kept their graphene battery running for 20 days on nothing but ambient heat. But there's an important question mark. One alternative hypothesis is that some kind of chemical reaction is generating the current, just as in an ordinary battery. However, Zihan and co say they ruled this out with a couple of control experiments."

So if the current is not generated by a chemical reaction, this is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics par excellence. Is it so unnatural that some particular ions easily kick a delocalised electron out of the graphene? Perhaps not - it seems that, for graphene, the process is easy in general:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/...infrared-light
"For example, it [the graphene] has an ideal "internal quantum efficiency" because almost every photon absorbed by graphene generates an electron-hole pair that could, in principle, be converted into electric current."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho - If your evidence is so overwhelming why don’t you submit it
to a peer reviewed scientific journal. Once accepted and published
your discoveries would then receive vastly more coverage than they
will ever receive by you posting here.

Dead science is neither right nor wrong insofar as, of all the official scientists, not one could think of a reason why the truthfulness of the axioms or the consistency of the consequences should be discussed. Yet Lee Smolin needs more evidence of science's death and sets a decisive experiment: "Would FQXi pay me if I suddenly declare that Divine Albert's Divine Theory is deeply wrong? If they do and if there is no other reaction, then this science couldn't be more dead!"

Smolin's experiment proved successful:

http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/148
"Many physicists argue that time is an illusion. Lee Smolin begs to differ. (...) Smolin wishes to hold on to the reality of time. But to do so, he must overcome a major hurdle: General and special relativity seem to imply the opposite. In the classical Newtonian view, physics operated according to the ticking of an invisible universal clock. But Einstein threw out that master clock when, in his theory of special relativity, he argued that no two events are truly simultaneous unless they are causally related. If simultaneity - the notion of "now" - is relative, the universal clock must be a fiction, and time itself a proxy for the movement and change of objects in the universe. Time is literally written out of the equation. Although he has spent much of his career exploring the facets of a "timeless" universe, Smolin has become convinced that this is "deeply wrong," he says. He now believes that time is more than just a useful approximation, that it is as real as our guts tell us it is - more real, in fact, than space itself. The notion of a "real and global time" is the starting hypothesis for Smolin's new work, which he will undertake this year with two graduate students supported by a $47,500 grant from FQXi."

Pentcho Valev

The first law of thermodynamics is: energy is conserved. That does
not mean created, it cannot be created, but it can be extracted from
potential energy to do useful work.
The second law of thermodynamics is: energy is dissipated with
each interaction.
That doesn't mean destroyed, it cannot be destroyed, but it does
mean lost, it can no longer do useful work.
For example, burning coal to heat steam to drive a turbine to
produce electricity to light a lamp means the energy in the coal
is dissipated as heat when the steam cools, as heat when the
turbine cools, as heat that the transformer radiates, as heat
that the light radiates, and all this heat eventually radiates into
space. The coal was trees, sunlight provided the energy for
the trees to grow. All energy on Earth (except nuclear energy)
came from the sun and all energy on Earth eventually radiates
into space. There is not one single example of energy being
created and not one single example of 100% efficient conversion
of one form of energy to another.
Your persistent attempts to have a widget operate at 100%
efficiency are total nonsense.

Proving that false science is false is difficult; proving that dead science is dead is impossible. Those who try sooner or later find themselves in Mr. Praline's situation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218
Owner: Oh yes, the, uh, the Norwegian Blue...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?
Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's wrong with it!
Owner: No, no, 'e's uh,...he's resting.
Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
Owner: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful plumage!
.........................
Mr. Praline: No, I'm sorry! I'm not prepared to pursue my line of inquiry any longer as I think this is getting too silly!
______________________________
[end of quotation]

Pentcho Valev