Recycling The Energy which was used in Cooling

[profitis]

@libre..a fridge we have to plug in the wall,a nano silica shell we dont have to plug in the wall,its free refrigeration with no need for a temperature difference to get the free refrigeration,its a kelvin violation whichever way you look at it.up-conversion where ambient is concerned is a frighteningly blatant decrease of entropy in total.whats to prevent me from shoving a solar panel onto an ambient up-conversion device in a isothermal box,nothing.

[profitis]

@das yes there are discrepencies regarding the expansion and contraction of gases and phase changes,eg the proell effect.ideal gas behaviour as depicted by text-books is just that,an ideal.in reality we have other entropy changes happening in gases beside plain expansion/contraction,we have molecular association,liquefication,crystallization to take into account,these may open loopholes through the 2nd law under certain circumstances indeed.

[sparks]

  When an electron falls towards the more massive oppositely charged proton it experiences two accelerating forces.   Gravity and electrical.
Both forces are accelerating forces.   What was professed by Einstein is simply that an increase in velocity makes the mass to energy relationship intrinsic to the particle tip one way or the other.   An accelerating force will increase the velocity of the particle.  The particle will emit photons of light and increase in mass.  The wavelength of the emitted photon upon acceleration is dependent upon the mass/velocity before experiencing the accelerating force.   The old inertia needs to go.  The way it goes is in the form of electromagnetic radiation.     The bound electron weighs more than the unbound electron.  It is more massive and at a constant velocity.  There is absolutely no reason why an electron moving at constant velocity has to emit photons even if it's constant velocity vector is angular relative to the nucleus.    So what we have is a very massive electron inside the atom and when it is outside the atom not so massive.   Accordingly if e=mc2.  when we ionize monatomic hydrogen the mass to radiated photons e will follow this equation.  This ionization event will release the original mass gained during atomic synthesis a long long long time ago.  Or maybe not that long ago like 8 seconds ago 92 million miles away in the big space plasma condensor thingy in the sky.

[profitis]

interesting@sparks,,giving clues to the secrets of cold 'fusion'perhaps where electrons are being ripped apart from hydrogen and shoved back on all the time..almost in seperate 'run' stages.

[LibreEnergia]

  When an electron falls towards the more massive oppositely charged proton it experiences two accelerating forces.   Gravity and electrical.
Both forces are accelerating forces.   What was professed by Einstein is simply that an increase in velocity makes the mass to energy relationship intrinsic to the particle tip one way or the other.   An accelerating force will increase the velocity of the particle.  The particle will emit photons of light and increase in mass.  The wavelength of the emitted photon upon acceleration is dependent upon the mass/velocity before experiencing the accelerating force.   The old inertia needs to go.  The way it goes is in the form of electromagnetic radiation.     The bound electron weighs more than the unbound electron.  It is more massive and at a constant velocity.  There is absolutely no reason why an electron moving at constant velocity has to emit photons even if it's constant velocity vector is angular relative to the nucleus.    So what we have is a very massive electron inside the atom and when it is outside the atom not so massive.   Accordingly if e=mc2.  when we ionize monatomic hydrogen the mass to radiated photons e will follow this equation.  This ionization event will release the original mass gained during atomic synthesis a long long long time ago.  Or maybe not that long ago like 8 seconds ago 92 million miles away in the big space plasma condensor thingy in the sky.

I'm left wondering if you just make this stuff up or perhaps have read a little bit about ionization and binding energies without fully comprehending it ?

You conclusions about ionization, binding energies and mass changes is in exact contradiction to generally a accepted theory. I guess with a theoretical underpinning such as that,  'free energy' shows up everywhere.

So much so that nothing can actually exist. as soon as mass comes into existence it is inexplicably destroyed in a proverbial puff of smoke. Were we to be having this conversation in that bizarre and exciting universe you'd be arguing the toss for the existence of 'free mass'  rather than free energy I'd bet.

I'd advise you to have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_energy . You'll realise your conjectures are completely false.