From: hobbs@electrooptical.net   
      
   On 4/25/2014 9:38 AM, haiticare2011@gmail.com wrote:   
   > On Thursday, April 24, 2014 10:59:45 AM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   >>   
   >> Heat flows from hot to cold because in statistical mechanics, the ratio   
   >>   
   >> of the probabilities (basically the state densities) favours that   
   >>   
   >> direction by so large a factor that it's overwhelmingly probable that no   
   >>   
   >> vaguely macroscopic hot object has ever got hotter by spontaneous heat   
   >>   
   >> transfer from a colder object in the entire history of the universe.   
   >>   
   >   
   >> Dr Philip C D Hobbs   
   >   
   > "Statistical mechanics" sounds complex and authoritarian, but it is just a   
   way   
   > to calculate gas laws, historically. But it gets violated every instant of   
   time   
   > - it's called Brownian Motion, and Einstein the first to examine it   
   > theoretically.   
   > To say that statistical mechanics precludes violating it is like saying,   
   since   
   > all electric currents in solid conductors cancel out, then manipulation of   
   > electrons is impossible.   
      
   Nonsense.  What I said was that (due to the exponential increase in the   
   number of available states in the higher-entropy direction) the ratio of   
   the probabilities of heat flowing hot-to-cold vs. cold-to-hot for any   
   vaguely macroscopic system is so very large that it's overwhelmingly   
   likely that it has never happened in the lifetime of the universe.   
      
   This isn't intimidation, it's undergraduate thermodynamics.  Elementary   
   books such as Kittel's "Thermal Physics" have it.  All the math you need   
   is permutations and Stirling's formula for the gamma function.   
      
   > It's true, perpetual motion machines are to be treated with skepticism, but   
   as   
   > a point in the philosophy of science, there is no law that precludes them on   
   > theoretical grounds.   
      
   Not so, see above for an example.  Natural laws are summaries of   
   observed behaviour, not logical axioms.   
      
   And we all have to decide what is and is not worth spending our time on.   
     Discussing this stuff on Usenet is strictly a recreational activity on   
   my end.   
      
   Cheers   
      
   Phil Hobbs   
      
      
   --   
   Dr Philip C D Hobbs   
   Principal Consultant   
   ElectroOptical Innovations LLC   
   Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics   
      
   160 North State Road #203   
   Briarcliff Manor NY 10510   
      
   hobbs at electrooptical dot net   
   http://electrooptical.net   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)