Can atmospheric heat be extracted successfully for electricity generation?

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2008/0061559.html
Whenever, any invention or idea has been presented, almost everytime that provokes howling violating 2nd law of thermodynamics. But, there are a few problems. The drinking duck toy, which has been invented 25 centuries ago in ancient China, working till today. Which is clearly, from any angle, works by extracting atmospheric heat.
At present, not only the above but some other patents too are. Once I have engaged in hot debate with physics graduate in this regard and challenged him to show that such machines violate 2nd law of thermodynamics by calculating the entropy of the process and showing that the entropy of the universe decreased at the end. But, he does showed his back. I want to know whether any kind of proper research done in this regard or is it another kind of "vital force" kind of theory that still makes many scientists and engineers blind.

The dipping bird toy is completely explained! You have the internet. Just type in the question. The toy works on the principles of thermodynamics and gravity. I'll repeat it: everything here is explained.

Just so you don't have to look for it: http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/science-questions/question608.htm

Well, me too is a graduate of physics and I myself don't need any further explanation. Long ago, I have got the explanation from Soviet physicist Y Perelman's books. I just want to evoke the debate that atmospheric heat can be extracted and be converted in electricity successfully.
Many physicists still relate such issues with violation of 2nd law of thermodynamics and discarded such attempts. But, if this toy can work in reality, why not a big machine which can create enough electricity to serve mankind.
Such a machine can solve environmental pollution and energy crisis simultaneously.

Oh? What physics did you study?

All energy sources should be examined, but there already exist viable alternative energies that do not rest upon precarious theories. Solar and wind are of immediate value, but geothermal, tidal, biofuel, and hydrogen are also feasible and should be pursued wherever it is practical to do so.

Red Aegis wrote:Oh? What physics did you study?

WHAT DO YOU WANT TO MEAN?

What specifically did you study? I can't make it more clear.

Rev Scare wrote:All energy sources should be examined, but there already exist viable alternative energies that do not rest upon precarious theories. Solar and wind are of immediate value, but geothermal, tidal, biofuel, and hydrogen are also feasible and should be pursued wherever it is practical to do so.

That's what I expected. Anything new at its starting point often seen with doubt and marked "precarious, unscientific" etc. I hope you also know about the limitations of those sources. Wind is very much unreliable and in night and cloudy weather, Sun is useless. Goethermal isn't available all over the world and such kind of limitations affects almost all "non-precarious" alternative energy sources.
You may argue for more research and development, but the question the same criteria can also be applied for atmospheric heat. Atmospheric heat is available all over the world, especially in tropical belt. This source is free of the shortcomings of all over "known" alternative energy sources.

Red Aegis wrote:What specifically did you study? I can't make it more clear.

The question isn't what I have studied, but rather whether we can count on atmospheric heat as a new source or not.