Young Bangladeshi Scientist's success story Power generation without fuel

[pennies_everywhere]

jibbguy, there is no debate.  You postulated a fantasy in the form of a claim of conflict that simply does not exist.  For you to believe your postulate, you have to ignore the ideal gas law:  PV=nRT.  Pressure, volume and temperature are all related.
Do you get it yet?  The ideal gas law conforms to the First Law of Thermodynamics.  Compressing gas into a vessel conforms to the First Law.

Rather than claim others are part of some dark conspiracy, you would do much better to learn about the subjects you claim you wish to debate.  Making a spectacle of your own ignorance by claiming others are part of a conspiracy is just sad.

i am always amused, and curious, when a debate opponent faced with a difficult reply reacts with personal attack instead of an actual counter argument based on points of fact and reason (...the proverbial crickets are still chirping while we wait to hear why air compressors and the thermal differential caused by them do not break the First Law)... Do these people really think ad hominem attacks answer anything? But then again; that supposes that they are interested in honest debate in the first place; and not just trying to force an agenda by any means possible... As if it were their "job" to do so. Perhaps if that is the case, then it's time to find another line of work.

Conspiracies: They exist as fact everywhere, every year thousands of persons are convicted of exactly that in our courts. The Continental Congress of 1776 was a conspiracy. Man is a conspiratorial creature. And trying to use the term as a simple argument in itself against those who can't be intimidated; just like using ad honinem attack... Is like peeing up a rope: It doesn't become any easier, nor less uncomfortable, no matter how many times it is tried

[jibbguy]

What would the Ideal Gas Law have to do with the CoE law? There is no direct correlation between the one, which is useful for  calculating the temp; and the CoE . The former is an equation. It does not state where the temperature actually "comes from" and does not specifically state whether the added heat energy was or was not intrinsically created by the compression process itself; it just implies that it "does exist" without explaining or defining. We can now say that this added heat comes from molecules bumping into one another; but in 1834 or 1867, molecules were not yet actually defined and so the Ideal Gas Law was no more than an equation coming only from empirical observation... Not unlike today's problems of empirically observing OU in a device without being able to specifically define or prove its form of motive energy

So you are trying to use one equation to support another law which is not particularly linked by anything but by very tenuous inference. And maybe this is what Maxwell and his peers did as well: I'm sure these people knew all about Ideal Gas Law, Clapeyron and Avogadro, Gay-Lussac and all that (and i suspect this little quirk with compressing gas was swept under the rug, as "inconvenient"). But when the First Law was written it does not specifically explain the temp differential from compression; It is later just implied that it somehow "fits" and everyone is apparently just expected to believe that it does.

But it does not fit. This heat from compression is energy that appears to be "created". When you consider heat pumps, it could be argued that the energy is ultimately solar. But this is not the case with compression; it is "a special case". And once one sees that, then one must accept the possibility of other "special cases"

Its not that the First Law is "bad"; it is the best Man could do at the time (without atomic theory, etc). And its not that we don't understand the process of compression very well, we do now. But knowing the process, and having equations for it, does not automatically explain it in terms of the First Law.   

[pennies_everywhere]

jibbguy, so many words, so badly misinformed.  It is just sad.

What would the Ideal Gas Law have to do with the CoE law? There is no direct correlation between the one, which is useful for  calculating the temp; and the CoE . The former is an equation. It does not state where the temperature actually "comes from" and does not specifically state whether the added heat energy was or was not intrinsically created by the compression process itself; it just implies that it "does exist" without explaining or defining. We can now say that this added heat comes from molecules bumping into one another; but in 1834 or 1867, molecules were not yet actually defined and so the Ideal Gas Law was no more than an equation coming only from empirical observation... Not unlike today's problems of empirically observing OU in a device without being able to specifically define or prove its form of motive energy

So you are trying to use one equation to support another law which is not particularly linked by anything but by very tenuous inference. And maybe this is what Maxwell and his peers did as well: I'm sure these people knew all about Ideal Gas Law, Clapeyron and Avogadro, Gay-Lussac and all that (and i suspect this little quirk with compressing gas was swept under the rug, as "inconvenient"). But when the First Law was written it does not specifically explain the temp differential from compression; It is later just implied that it somehow "fits" and everyone is apparently just expected to believe that it does.

But it does not fit. This heat from compression is energy that appears to be "created". When you consider heat pumps, it could be argued that the energy is ultimately solar. But this is not the case with compression; it is "a special case". And once one sees that, then one must accept the possibility of other "special cases"

Its not that the First Law is "bad"; it is the best Man could do at the time (without atomic theory, etc). And its not that we don't understand the process of compression very well, we do now. But knowing the process, and having equations for it, does not automatically explain it in terms of the First Law.   

[allcanadian]

@pennies_everywhere
LOL, I remember a time when I had your confidence and everything was right in my world and this time was truely blissful. But your logic has one serious flaw, to state something is "impossible" -- to say something cannot be done is to deny both individualism and evolution. I am not you nor am I any scientist of the last 200 years as such I am not bound by your opinions nor your beliefs. I would agree it is very unlikely the COE will be violated anytime soon if ever but remember our "science" is only a couple hundred years old and look how far we have come. To believe tommorrow or in one thousand years your opinions must still hold true is to declare yourself a "god" among men which you are not nor am I. All I can tell you is I started succeeding in things you say cannot be done the moment I started respecting others opinions --- not believing them whole heartedly but giving them due consideration as another perspective.

[utilitarian]

@pennies_everywhere
LOL, I remember a time when I had your confidence and everything was right in my world and this time was truely blissful. But your logic has one serious flaw, to state something is "impossible" -- to say something cannot be done is to deny both individualism and evolution. I am not you nor am I any scientist of the last 200 years as such I am not bound by your opinions nor your beliefs. I would agree it is very unlikely the COE will be violated anytime soon if ever but remember our "science" is only a couple hundred years old and look how far we have come. To believe tommorrow or in one thousand years your opinions must still hold true is to declare yourself a "god" among men which you are not nor am I. All I can tell you is I started succeeding in things you say cannot be done the moment I started respecting others opinions --- not believing them whole heartedly but giving them due consideration as another perspective.

Some things are impossible.  To say that nothing is impossible is not living in the real world.  When it comes to human objectives, sure many things are now possible that were once thought impossible.  But there are also many things that were once thought impossible and are still impossible and will always be impossible.

In fact, one of the great achievements of modern civilization is widespread communication.  This is what allows us to advance.  Cave men did not really have this, so not much knowledge was passed on from one generation to the next.  But modern humans build on the knowledge of our predecessors.

For example, we all know that 2 plus 2 is 4.  We do not have to try to prove this every time we do any type of math.  And if someone sat all day trying to prove that 2 plus 2 is not 4, well, that person is just wasting his time.  It's like unrolling a roll of 40 quarters ($10) and seeing if you can make the total amount larger through creative arrangement.  It does not matter if your stack the quarters in 4 rows of 10 or 5 rows of 8 or whatever other permutation you can think of.  You can roll the quarters and flip them and mush them together in a pile.  But you will never end up with more than $10.  It is impossible, and I do not hesitate to be brave enough to say it is impossible.