4 ms·

> a pretty cryptic and lazy link? Doesn’t seem HN worthy If you know of a better intro that I can link to, please post it. > This obviously doesn’t make perp

> a pretty cryptic and lazy link? Doesn’t seem HN worthy If you know of a better intro that I can link to, please post it. > This obviously doesn’t make perpetual motion machines a possibility As if perpetual motion were the only thing forbidden by the laws of thermodynamics. > this technology is potentially useful. To those pushing it. To everyone else, it is a scam, plain and simple. > It would be better to just make stuff that doesn’t produce any waste heat Please, please open a physics textbook. I beg of you.

hugh3 15y ago
* Please, please open a physics textbook. I beg of you.* Even better, I'll go ask a physicist. Ooh, I'm a physicist! Hey hugh3, does this violate the second law of thermodynamics? Uhh, nope, not at all! You can always extract some useful work when transferring heat from a hot bath to a cold bath. Gee, thanks hugh3!
- asciilifeform 15y ago
  > You can always extract some useful work when transferring heat from a hot bath to a cold bath. True. But this is Jesuitry. Are you by any chance an investor in the scheme? Yes, you can get more work out of your car engine by surrounding it with Peltiers or other heat engines -- if you drive in the Arctic. Seriously, if you, a physicist, actually know how to build an engine having no waste heat, why settle for the chump change of HN publicity? Go for the Nobel that you deserve.
  - hugh3 15y ago
    I think the problem is that you interpreted the headline as meaning it could convert all waste heat to work. This is, of course, impossible. Converting some of the waste heat to work is entirely possible. When there's two possible interpretations of a headline, and one of them is physically possible and the other one violates the second law of thermodynamics... it's probably best to assume the former. At least until you read the article.

hugh3 15y ago

* Please, please open a physics textbook. I beg of you.* Even better, I'll go ask a physicist. Ooh, I'm a physicist! Hey hugh3, does this violate the second law of thermodynamics? Uhh, nope, not at all! You can always extract some useful work when transferring heat from a hot bath to a cold bath. Gee, thanks hugh3!

asciilifeform 15y ago
> You can always extract some useful work when transferring heat from a hot bath to a cold bath. True. But this is Jesuitry. Are you by any chance an investor in the scheme? Yes, you can get more work out of your car engine by surrounding it with Peltiers or other heat engines -- if you drive in the Arctic. Seriously, if you, a physicist, actually know how to build an engine having no waste heat, why settle for the chump change of HN publicity? Go for the Nobel that you deserve.
- hugh3 15y ago
  I think the problem is that you interpreted the headline as meaning it could convert all waste heat to work. This is, of course, impossible. Converting some of the waste heat to work is entirely possible. When there's two possible interpretations of a headline, and one of them is physically possible and the other one violates the second law of thermodynamics... it's probably best to assume the former. At least until you read the article.