Is Scientology a science?
- Thread starter Tom_Booth
- Start date
Tom_Booth
Patron with Honors
Consider that if the heat source is finite, it gets used up. As you say: "A heat engine is a neat little agio business that works despite that restriction. You take heat from a hot thing, by paying a cheap price in entropy; then you take some of that heat over to a cold thing, and exchange that bit of your heat for enough entropy to cover all your entropy costs. So you keep some heat as profit. You can convert that excess heat into work, without ever going into entropy debt."
If your heat source is Ambient Heat, you're looking at an "infinite reservoir" of energy virtually free for the taking. The question is then, is the excess heat made available to do work enough to use that work to maintain the heat sink ?
Tesla's argument was that, basically, using your analogy, if you can buy a lot of entropy for the little bit of heat that eventually ends up in the sink you should be able to use the work derived from the excess heat to buy that little bit of heat entering the sink back so as to prevent the sink from eventually warming up. He believed this would be possible because the heat entering the system does not all travel to the sink. Since your source of energy is an infinite reservoir, it cost very little if anything to move more heat into the system. The problem is keeping excess heat AWAY from the sink by converting it into another form of energy before it reached the sink.
Tom_Booth
Patron with Honors
Here is a link to Tesla's paper:
http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1900-06-00.htm
Ir might be best to read it and pick it apart, but it doesn't address entropy.
Perhaps you can explain how entropy enters in the equation.
http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1900-06-00.htm
Ir might be best to read it and pick it apart, but it doesn't address entropy.
Perhaps you can explain how entropy enters in the equation.
Tom_Booth
Patron with Honors
Not sure what you're apparently puzzles about. I posted the issue here to get opinions on the subject and in general people's experiences with this issue in the past, but as far as my own experience, the issue seems to have been dropped after I expressed my POV on it.
Student of Trinity
Silver Meritorious Patron
Then it's just pointless rambling. Maybe there is some loophole yet to be discovered in the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but simply ignoring the issue of entropy is just ignorant and dumb, like going on and on about electricity without ever mentioning the phenomenon of resistance.
Heat can be converted into other forms of energy, but there are limits. Firstly, the total amount of energy cannot be increased. Secondly, the total amount of entropy cannot be decreased. The second constraint is just as solid as the first one. You can't just ignore it, and dream up devices that would work fine if only the first constraint were an issue. It doesn't take any kind of genius to dream up such devices. People have been doing so for centuries. Their dreamed-up devices have never worked. That's why we believe the Second Law is real.
Entropy doesn't enter the equation for energy conservation; it's a whole second issue, that has to be considered separately. It's a little harder to understand than energy conservation, so energy conservation is the first issue to check, if you're dreaming up a machine. If you pass the first check, then you need to ask about entropy. You have to pass both tests, to have a device that might work.
Entropy is what I said it is: heat divided by temperature. Nothing about energy conservation explains why entropy cannot decrease. The entropy law doesn't make sense based on anything else, or follow from any other principle. It's not about finding flaws in arguments about energy conservation; it's a whole separate issue, that will kill a device dead even if the device conserves energy perfectly. The Second Law is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It's not a corollary of the First.
Veda
Sponsor
Tom_Booth:
You appear to be impervious to learning any new information about Scientology while on ESMB. You say, "The issue seems to have been dropped after I expressed my POV on it," yet here are five responses from the first sixteen that appeared on the first two pages of a ten page thread.
The issue was not dropped, but continued for ten pages.
Your views were naive and uninformed. You were given information from those with first hand experience. It made no difference to you whatsoever.
According to your account, you've believed, for the last several decades, yourself to have been Aleister Crowley in your last life, and that you personally initiated L. Ron Hubbard into the O.T.O - either in 1944 in the midst of World War 2 while Crowley was living in England and Hubbard was fumbling about in the Navy, or in 1946, a year before Crowley's death, when Crowley was supposed to have flown into Miami solely to personally initiate Hubbard, and to give him the secret O.T.O. information, with the understanding that Hubbard was to then start Scientology. Additionally, the agreement was that Crowley (you) would, eventually return in a new body to resume the leadership of Scientology.
Somehow, something went horribly wrong, and you ended up a part time janitor at the Harlem Org.
You've been dimly aware of Scientology for decades, and, even though you're now a staff member at a Scientology Org, remain dimly aware of it; and new information on the topic, provided by others, is even dimmer, to the point of invisibility: you don't even see it.
Thus my use of :confused2:
You appear to be impervious to learning any new information about Scientology while on ESMB. You say, "The issue seems to have been dropped after I expressed my POV on it," yet here are five responses from the first sixteen that appeared on the first two pages of a ten page thread.
IMO, it's not likely that Hubbard practiced meditation. His preferred "tech" was hypnosis, of others and also self-hypnosis.
In 1954, Hubbard had spoken publicly, respectfully, of Buddhism, and even of Taoism, and also of the Vedas.
He wanted to show that Scientology followed in the long tradition of these subjects, and even briefly spoke positively of Christianity. The 1954 'Creation of Human Ability' book opens with a quote from St. Luke of the Bible.
However, during the 1954 Phoenix Lectures, Hubbard couldn't resist depicting himself as being responsible (by implication) for the arrival of the Vedas on Earth, and at a much earlier date than usually recognized:
"It does happen that there are a set of [Vedic] hymns which as I recall were introduced into the societies of earth in about 8212 BC."
The next year, Hubbard wrote The 'Hymn of Asia', where he depicted himself as the re-incarnated Buddha. Seems as though not only did Hubbard originally bring this knowledge to Earth "in about 8212 BC," he also, as Gautama Buddha, continued to develop it and popularize it. However, such gloating and boasting was not meant for the "homo saps," as Hubbard called them, but for the "homo novis," the Scientologists, who were to regard it as special, whispered, inside information, meant only for the "elite of the elite" of Earth - namely themselves. In other words, while gratefully beholding the wonderfulness of Hubbard, Scientologists were allowed to respectfully participate in Hubbard's ego-bloat.
During 1955, Hubbard not only wrote his (meant for Scientologists' eyes only) "ruin utterly" and "always attack" 'Manual on Dissemination of Material'; he also wrote the fraudulent 'Russian Textbook on Psycho-politics' where he depicted Scientology as a target of the Russian Communists; and, also wrote the 'Hymn of Asia', where he depicted himself as the reincarnated Buddha.
It was quite a productive year.
By 1961, however, in a lecture (23 June 1961), Hubbard denounced Buddhism as a control mechanism devoted to keeping people quiet.
"And of course, how quiet can you get? Dead. And you just might say, it's a covert effort to kill everybody off," Hubbard told the Scientologists.
Yet, there was a back and forth on this, as Hubbard, when emphasizing his "religion angle," would abruptly mellow on ("wog") religions and become appropriately tolerant of them - when it suited his purposes.
Meanwhile, the 'Hymn of Asia' collected dust in a file cabinet or in a box somewhere, until, in the mid 1970s, it was revived and published.
An 'Advance!' magazine cover from 1974:
I can be addressed
But in our temples best
Address me and you address
Lord Buddha.
Address Lord Buddha
And you then address
Metteyya.
L. Ron Hubbard, from 'Hymn of Asia'
As with his predecessor Crowley, Hubbard had expressed some critical views of Buddhism. The last was during the Dianetic Clear frenzy of the late 1970s/early 1980s, when some Scientologists, certain that they had "gone Clear" as disciples of the Buddha (of course, believing Hubbard to have been Buddha, thus making it OK), were rebuffed by Hubbard when he told them, in no uncertain terms, that one "does not go Clear by garbage eating," i.e. by being Buddhist monks (with begging bowls.)
The poor Scientologists. It's not easy being a Scientologist and being at the mercy of the whims of "Source."
Looking beneath Hubbard's various expressions of the religious cloaking PR, prior to his activation of the "religion angle," one finds Hubbard speaking to nascent Scientologists during the 1952 Philadelphia Doctorate Course:
"Our whole activity tends to make an individual completely independent of any limitation... Old Aleister Crowley had some interesting things to say about this. He wrote 'The Book of the Law'."
All editions of 'The Book of the Law' are blood red,which is, oddly, also the color of the 'Tech Volumes'.
From Crowley's 'Magick in Theory and Practice':
"The whole and sole object of all true Magickal training is to become free from every kind of limitation."
More from the 'PDC':
"The old magical cults of the 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th centuries in the Middle East were fascinating. The only modern work that has anything to do with them is a trifle wild in spots, but a fascinating work by itself, and that's the work of Aleister Crowley... He signs himself 'the Beast', mark of the Beast 666..."
Possibly the most honest moment, during the Philadelphia Lectures of late 1952, was at the very beginning of the first lecture, when Hubbard made an odd, non-sequitur, joke about being "the Prince of Darkness."
The audience of "thay-tans," listening attentively as they were promised God-like abilities and powers, chucked unsuspectingly.
It would be over thirty years before Hubbard's 'Affirmations' - written six years before the 1952 PDC lectures - and Hubbard's taste for "slaves," as expressed in those 'Affirmations', along with the truth behind his many bogus biographical accounts, was revealed in a Southern California courtroom.
A small sampling:
L. Ron Hubbard saved the Australians from the Japanese!
From a Hubbard 'Executive Letter' of 6 October 1965:
In 1942, as a senior US Naval officer in Northern Australia by fluke of fate, I helped save them from the Japanese.
And from Hubbard's 17 February 1969 'Information Letter':
Remember I know Anzo. I once had a big share in saving its bacon from Japan. Note please that a small Jap force could have taken the lot and didn't. A handful of us, months before the coming of US troops, worked like mad to balk the Japs and change their minds.
From the court transcript of Armstrong vs Church of Scientology
The Church of Scientology called one Captain Moulton as a witness.
Q. [by Michael Flynn, Armstrong's attorney]. He told you he was injured by a Japanese machine gun?
A. [by Captain Moulton] Yes, in some detail...
Q. What did he tell you?
A. That he had been in [Java] at the time the Japanese came in...
Q. So you believed Captain Hubbard at the time?
A. Certainly, I had no reason not to.
Q. Did he tell you exactly where he had been hit by machine gun fire?
A. In the back, in the area of the kidneys...
From witness, Kima Douglass (Hubbard's medical officer, 1976 - 1980):
Q. Did he [Hubbard] have any bullet wounds in his back?
A. No sir.
__________
In the 1950s, Hubbard told Scientologists:
By 1948, through my own processing, and the use of principles I had isolated up to that time, was able to pass 100% combat physical...
From Hubbard's 1946 self-hypnosis writings, as read into the court record by Gerry Armstrong at Armstrong vs Church of Scientology:
You stomach trouble you used as an excuse to keep the Navy from punishing you. You are free of the Navy. You have no further reason for a weak stomach...
Your ulcers are well and never bother you. You can eat anything. Your hip is a pose. You have a sound hip and it never hurts.
Your foot was an alibi. The injury is no longer needed. It is well. You have perfect and lovely feet...
When you tell people you are ill, it has no effect on your health. And in Veterans Administration examinations you will tell them how sick you are. You'll look sick when you take it. You'll return to health one hour after the examination and laugh at them.
No matter what lies you tell others, they have no physical effect on you. You never injure your health by saying it is bad. You cannot lie to yourself...
Mr. Flynn: I'd be happy to have the whole document [all the 'Affirmations'] go into evidence
Mr. Litt [Scientology attorney]: No. No. No.
__________
More from L. Ron Hubbard's 'Affirmations':
Your writing has a deep hypnotic effect on people and they are always pleased with what you write.
...
Your psychology is true and wonderful. It hypnotizes people. It predicts their emotions, for you are their ruler.
One is not allowed to do Yoga or meditation. I had a Knowledge report written on me for going to Yoga at a gym!! I of course was sent to Ethics and had to stop the "squirrel practice" or risk not getting on the Oatee levels. The higher you go up the Bridge to Total failure (oops, Freedom), the more controls are put in on you! I am now happy to say that I became a Yoga teacher a few years ago and partake in Meditation quite a bit. I could have saved myself a fortune if only I would've taken up Yoga first! I certainly got a lot more out of it than making it up to OTV!!
My dear friend, run!!!!!!!
The issue was not dropped, but continued for ten pages.
Your views were naive and uninformed. You were given information from those with first hand experience. It made no difference to you whatsoever.
According to your account, you've believed, for the last several decades, yourself to have been Aleister Crowley in your last life, and that you personally initiated L. Ron Hubbard into the O.T.O - either in 1944 in the midst of World War 2 while Crowley was living in England and Hubbard was fumbling about in the Navy, or in 1946, a year before Crowley's death, when Crowley was supposed to have flown into Miami solely to personally initiate Hubbard, and to give him the secret O.T.O. information, with the understanding that Hubbard was to then start Scientology. Additionally, the agreement was that Crowley (you) would, eventually return in a new body to resume the leadership of Scientology.
Somehow, something went horribly wrong, and you ended up a part time janitor at the Harlem Org.
You've been dimly aware of Scientology for decades, and, even though you're now a staff member at a Scientology Org, remain dimly aware of it; and new information on the topic, provided by others, is even dimmer, to the point of invisibility: you don't even see it.
Thus my use of :confused2:
Cat's Squirrel
Gold Meritorious Patron
Sorry, but I get something different for this one (although admittedly my physIcs background didn't go beyond high school and is less illustrious than yours).
Heat = thermal capacity x temperature (where thermal capacity = thermal coefficient x mass)
So heat / temperature = thermal capacity, which is not the same thing as entropy. Entropy I understand to mean the total amount of "disorder" in a system.
Last edited:
Student of Trinity
Silver Meritorious Patron
Entropy and heat capacity (as thermal capacity is usually called) are heat divided by temperature in different senses. An object's heat capacity is the amount of heat it has to absorb in order to raise its temperature by a given amount — if you raise the temperature purely by heating, as with a blowtorch, and not by doing work, such as by rubbing or stirring.
Any object's entropy increases by a given small amount if it absorbs a small amount of heat, while the object is at a given temperature. Entropy is measured in Joules per Kelvin (energy over temperature; the Kelvin is the unit of absolute temperature, a unit the same size as the Celsius degree, but with the zero point set to absolute zero rather than the freezing point of water). If you absorb three Joules of heat while at an absolute temperature of 300 Kelvin (a summer day), your entropy has by definition gone up by 0.01 J/K. A five-liter bucket of warm water can absorb over 20 thousand Joules of heat with only a 1 degree temperature rise (water has a high heat capacity per kilogram), but if the bucket of warm water absorb even just a few Joules, then its entropy has gone up by that many Joules divided by its (essentially constant) absolute temperature.
Objects that absorb heat usually do also rise in temperature, so if you absorb a lot of heat, or have a low heat capacity, then you have to keep a running count of the entropy rise, as your temperature keeps changing. For very large objects, this minor complication can usually be ignored, because large objects have enormous heat capacity, so they can absorb an awful lot of heat without an appreciable increase in temperature, especially on the Kelvin scale. Even when heat capacity is so large as to be infinite for all practical purposes, entropy still rises and falls in the universal way, as heat absorption (entropy rise) or emission (entropy decrease), divided by temperature.
The fact that entropy increases as heat is absorbed, in inverse proportion to temperature, is not a fact that needs explaining: it's the definition of what entropy means. Of course, the fact that this strange quantity of entropy is important is something that we would very much like to explain. So far we can't really. People have tried to understand entropy by relating it to a certain concept of disorder. It's a hypothesis of statistical mechanics, that the thermodynamic entropy is equal to this disorder entropy. The bottom line, ground truth definition of entropy, however, is the thing about heat change divided by temperature, not the thing about disorder. The heat and temperature thing is the law of nature, established by experiments over two hundred years. The disorder thing is just a theory, and it's one of the weaker and vaguer theories in physics.
(my bold)
Oh but they DO do that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skAePZGgpAA
Jus' kiddin'
BTW:
Did I ever tell you that I love your explanations? Scientific-minded people are a true asset for this forum.
Cat's Squirrel
Gold Meritorious Patron
Thanks for that explanation. I must admit I have only the vaguest notion of what entropy means in science (it's an important concept in chemistry as well) beyond its association with disorder.
M. Scott Peck uses the term a lot in "The Road Less Travelled" to indicate behaviours and attitudes which point away from spiritual or personal growth.
Tom_Booth
Patron with Honors
OK, I didn't mean to say or imply that the issue was dropped or completely settled HERE on this forum.
When I was shown the auditors code where it says not to mix practices in one book, I said, well read this, and opened another reference which included the footnote which reads something like "This applies to the auditor during an auditing session" I said; so you don't start auditing someone and mix the auditing procedure up with hypnosis or past life regression or start having the person practice meditation or yoga. DURING AN AUDITING SESSION. It doesn't say anything about when you go home or that you can't practice your own religion outside of an auditing session.
Having the RUMOR of such a vague and ill defined prohibition floating around just alienates people. Every religion in the world has one practice or another that could be lumped in the category of "meditation". Prayer is a form of "meditation", counting rosary beads, wearing phylacteries, just walking around being "aware" is a form of meditation. I've been doing that for years, what am I supposed to do now, club myself over the head so I can stop being aware ?
A Jewish staff member said "I pray", another staff member said "I do Hot Yoga", A sea org guy said he practices Zen, another sea org member said "That's the thing, you have to define meditation" and explained the difference between just sitting in lotus on a mountain and practicing mindfulness..." and in general, after that everybody cheered up, smiled more and began talking openly about their own personal beliefs and practices that they do in conjunction with Scientology.
In other words, it seemed I won everybody over. The general atmosphere improved and a Sea Org Missioner went out of her way to tell me "We are very happy you are here". I was also informed by someone high up in the ranks of the church by phone that "They (those saying Scientology Staff can't practice their own religious practices like yoga and meditation) are wrong" and that I was "absolutely right" because I was able to cite several L. R. H. references and that "LRH trumps everything else". I was told the same "on the record" by another Scientologist in California over the phone.
I guess you could call that a "WIN".
Yes it was an issue when I arrived, but as far as I know, within my "sphere of influence" as far as it extends. The issue has been resolved. As far as I'm concerned, if someone continues going around telling people they can't do whatever they want in the privacy of their own mind, they would be revealing themselves to be "suppressive" and I might very well have to write that up and turn them over to ethics myself.
Student of Trinity
Silver Meritorious Patron
I've read that book, and liked parts of it, but it was a long time ago now, and I've forgotten that part.
Entropy in physics and chemistry really is just this prosaic but curious thing about heat and temperature, and it can be measured by torching things inside insulated vessels and measuring temperatures. The puzzle is why this particular, peculiar quantity should be so important. In principle it should be possible to relate entropy, and its rule of not decreasing, to the fundamental laws of motion. Nobody has been able to connect all the dots to do this, however. Heat and temperature themselves are somewhat indirectly defined quantities, in terms of fundamental things like position and momentum of molecules. We know what heat and temperature look like in big objects that are made out of very many molecules, and we know how just a few loose molecules would move, if they were isolated; but connecting the dots would mean understanding the detailed motion of very many molecules, and that's just impractical. Computers aren't big enough for the job, even now. So, even though entropy is really something quite prosaic and simple, it's sort of like a very simple version of consciousness: a phenomenon that we understand from experience, and believe could be reduced to fundamental natural laws, but cannot yet explain in those fundamental terms.
We have made zero progress on relating consciousness to microscopic laws, but we have made some progress on the much simpler phenomenon of entropy. In some sense it seems to have something to do with disorder. This is surprising, because entropy's definition is about heat and temperature, and does not obviously have anything to do with disorder at all. But there's a lot of good evidence that entropy is indeed somehow about disorder.
The irreversibility of entropy does make it seem somewhat like the sin against the Holy Ghost — something that cannot be erased. So that seems bad. Death and decay are processes in which entropy increases.
But life and growth are also processes in which entropy increases. Life is also about increasing disorder, after all. Babies, for example, are messy. And the Bhagavad Gita says that the path of yoga is one on which progress cannot be erased: every advance is permanent. So sometimes it's a good thing, when something cannot be erased. I don't think it's really right to think about entropy as bad. At least not entirely.
Entropy increase is about change that happens spontaneously. That means change that is hard to prevent, but it also means change that comes without being forced. When a couple of cells grow up into a human being, that's not life defying entropy: that's entropy, increasing, doing what it does. When that human body gets old and frail and dies, that's also entropy, increasing. Entropy increase is a sort of pressure that pushes the universe in a certain direction, making some kinds of things tend to happen. Some things we don't like are like that: death and decay. But so are some things we do like.
As long as entropy is doing what we want, we take it for granted. As soon as it starts killing us, we go all whiny. I think entropy is one of those yin-yangy kinds of things that has both good and bad aspects, from a human point of view, but isn't really either, in itself.
Tom_Booth
Patron with Honors
You'd have to put that into perspective I think, what "System" are we talking about ? If my car runs out of gas can't I stop at a gas station an fill it up ? That would increase the total amount of energy available to the system. That is an "open system" there is mass (gasoline) flowing through it.
The engine Tesla envisioned is also "open" he talks about "a rapid circulation of the medium" through this "self-acting engine". That is, it would, presumably, draw in relatively hot ambient air as he later describes his efforts at building some such device as involving an air compressor and some sort of air-cycle refrigeration system, as far as I follow his explanation.
As far as I know, the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to an open system which incorporates a flow of mass through the system.
A heat pump with a COP of 10 seems to violate the second law, but IMO a heat pump is an open system. Ambient air flows through the heat exchangers. It has fans to create a rapid flow of mass (air) through the system for heating and cooling. The second law doesn't apply.
What Tesla apparently had in mind was some kind of combined heat pump / air-cycle refrigeration system /compressor coupled to a heat engine which had ambient air circulating through it. In other words, an "open system" that used the heat available in warm ambient air as a "fuel".
In other words, more energy could be made available to the system on a continual basis using warm ambient air as " fuel" more or less in the same way a car engine draws fuel into its carburetor, utilizes it in the engine and exhausts the spent gasses.
The fuel, in this case is indirect solar energy stored up in the atmosphere as ambient heat.
Student of Trinity
Silver Meritorious Patron
It still applies to the larger system that includes wherever the mass came from and goes to. Its implications can be a bit different because of the flow, but being an open system is not a get-out-of-jail-free card that lets you just ignore the Second Law. You still can't destroy entropy. You still need to explain how you are turning heat into work without destroying entropy. Maybe having your system be open can help with that, but you have to show how, specifically.
All of which is just to say that Tesla thought about the First Law, and how to get energy. If he didn't also think about entropy, he was just pissing around, like lots of other people before and after him. The Second Law is a second law. There are a whole bunch of things that seem perfectly plausible if you only think about energy, but that don't actually work at all, because of entropy. It sounds as though Tesla thought about meeting the challenge of the First Law, but didn't even get started on the challenge of the Second.
Tom_Booth
Patron with Honors
To illustrate this, here is an example of an "open system".
[video=youtube;ARD3ctp80ac]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARD3ctp80ac[/video]
It looks almost like "perpetual motion" but it isn't because it is an open system.
If you put this engine into an insulated fishtank with an air tight lid on top it would quit running as the air in the tank would become saturated with humidity and the evaporative cooling to create a temperature difference would cease. Also the ambient heat in the ambient air necessary to dry out the paper would not be available. Without a flow of fresh warm dry ambient air to heat up the wet piece of paper to drive evaporation resulting in a cooling effect that drives the engine this little Stirling engine could not run "on a wet piece of paper". It would be a violation of the second law, but as it is an "open system" the second law doesn't apply.
[video=youtube;ARD3ctp80ac]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARD3ctp80ac[/video]
It looks almost like "perpetual motion" but it isn't because it is an open system.
If you put this engine into an insulated fishtank with an air tight lid on top it would quit running as the air in the tank would become saturated with humidity and the evaporative cooling to create a temperature difference would cease. Also the ambient heat in the ambient air necessary to dry out the paper would not be available. Without a flow of fresh warm dry ambient air to heat up the wet piece of paper to drive evaporation resulting in a cooling effect that drives the engine this little Stirling engine could not run "on a wet piece of paper". It would be a violation of the second law, but as it is an "open system" the second law doesn't apply.
Tom_Booth
Patron with Honors
Now if you kept that engine in the fish tank but added ducts to allow warm/dry ambient air to flow through and a small circulating fan in the duct driven by the engine itself to direct a flow of air directly over the wet paper, you could increase the flow of air, speed up the evaporation process, increase the power output. Add a drip bottle to replenish the water to keep the paper wet and you have a "self-acting engine" that uses nothing but ambient heat and an occasional drop of water as "fuel". Do you not ?
The "fish tank" or "black box" so to speak, would draw in warm air through a duct on one side and blow cool moist air out a duct on the other side. It would still not be a closed system but it would look like one. Ultimately it would be running on ambient heat as its primary source of fuel along with a seemingly insignificant amount of water. I think it would also be possible to rig up some system that could use the cold exhaust air to condense and reclaim the water.
So with that set up you just have a "black box" that draws in warm air and blows out cold air and runs on the heat extracted.
IMO, a more efficient cooling system than a wet piece of paper could be utilized to further improve performance and power output but it seems to me that the basic principle of using ambient heat as a fuel source has been proven to be possible in an open system.
It remains to be seen if such a system could be made practical but I think that Tesla's concept is basically sound.
The "fish tank" or "black box" so to speak, would draw in warm air through a duct on one side and blow cool moist air out a duct on the other side. It would still not be a closed system but it would look like one. Ultimately it would be running on ambient heat as its primary source of fuel along with a seemingly insignificant amount of water. I think it would also be possible to rig up some system that could use the cold exhaust air to condense and reclaim the water.
So with that set up you just have a "black box" that draws in warm air and blows out cold air and runs on the heat extracted.
IMO, a more efficient cooling system than a wet piece of paper could be utilized to further improve performance and power output but it seems to me that the basic principle of using ambient heat as a fuel source has been proven to be possible in an open system.
It remains to be seen if such a system could be made practical but I think that Tesla's concept is basically sound.
Last edited:
Veda
Sponsor
It's not a RUMOR. Only from your vantage point as a part time staff member at a fringe Org - an Org which exists mainly for public relations purposes - can you tell yourself it's a RUMOR.
I'm sorry, but this sounds extremely unlikely, even at the Harlem Org. But continue.
Yes, you are having "WINS" in la la land.
Cat's Squirrel
Gold Meritorious Patron
Thanks for replying, though I'm afraid I have to disagree as I think what you're saying is only half the truth. I don't have Peck's book to hand (it's buried under too many papers and I must do something about that soon - entropy is certainly ruling in my home at the moment!) but I believe the point he was trying to make in it, as Robert Pirsig was in Lila when he addressed the same subject, is that life is constantly striving to decrease entropy and create "order from chaos."
Sure, the body dies and eventually decomposes (more entropy) but the elements which made up that body get returned to the earth to be of use to other life forms, such as worms, bacteria etc., which are themselves overcoming entropy. And when they die in turn, they decompose and get returned to the earth, and other life forms benefit from the extra nutrients created from that, and so on.
And then there's the question of the spirit which inhabited that body, and what it has learnt from that lifetime...
Tom_Booth
Patron with Honors
It's a rumor as far as I'm concerned until someone shows me in black and white published in an HCO Bulletin or policy letter or some such thing an explicit statement that Scientology staff aren't allowed to think or meditate or practice whatever other religion or spiritual discipline they might choose to practice. Then they will have to explain how this doesn't contradict the creed of a Scientologist and practically everything else Hubbard ever wrote or published regarding people's right to defend their own freedom stand up for their own values, think for themselves, be self determined, be in control of their own minds, be able to stop - change - and start their own thoughts, imagine red triangles of blue circles or "hold the corners of the room" with their minds etc. etc. etc.
They will have to spell out explicitly what practices are allowed and what practices are not allowed and have all these named practices clearly defined and the reasons why they are not allowed and some kind of hard research results provided showing when it was proven that any such practice is actually harmful or detrimental in any way.
As far as I'm concerned it's a malicious suppressive rumor apparently started years ago by who knows who which sounded reasonable enough that people believed it and tried to enforce it, after all, the auditors code does say not to mix practices, but as far as I can determine the rumor is actually without any foundation.
It may very well be that there are x-scientologists here who have had ethics actions and so forth taken out on them for practicing meditation or some such thing but apparently that was action that should not have been taken and was based upon a misinterpretation of the auditors code.
Similar threads
