View Single Post
  #8  
Old November 10th 11, 11:29 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
konyberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default VERSIONS OF THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

On Nov 10, 2:40*pm, "Tim Golden BandTech.com"
wrote:
On Nov 5, 3:22*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:





If a constant-charge parallel-plate capacitor is totally immersed in
water, the force of attraction between the plates is 80 times weaker
than the force of attraction in vacuum. However, if we thrust some
solid dielectric between the plates (not necessarily occupying the
whole distance between them - it could be rather thin), the force of
attraction becomes even greater than in vacuum. Accordingly, the
following four-step cycle (carried out very slowly) violates the
second law of thermodynamics:


1. Plates are immersed and fixed. We thrust the solid dielectric.
2. Plates get closer. We GAIN work.
3. We withdraw the solid dielectric.
4. Plates get apart; initial state restored. We SPEND work.


When the plates are immersed in a liquid dielectric (water), some
additional pressure between them emerges, pushes them apart and so
counteracts their electrostatic attraction (W. Panofsky, M. Phillips,
Classical Electricity and Magnetism, Addison-Wesley, Reading,
Massachusetts (1962), pp. 111-116). If the plates are vertical and
only partially immersed, the same pressure forces the liquid between
the plates to rise above the surface of the water pool (see fig. 6-7
on p. 112 in Panofsky's book). What if one punches a small hole in one
of the plates, just above the surface of the pool? Will the lifted
water leak through the hole and fall? If lifting is due to an
additional pressure generated within the bulk, as assumed by Panofsky
and Phillips, then water WILL leak through the hole and the second law
will be violated. No matter how weak the waterfall is, in principle it
can rotate a waterwheel...


The perpetuum mobile of the second kind described above will never
become a money-spinner and will not solve the energy problems of
humankind. However Nature may occasionally have used such (inefficient
from an anthropocentric point of view) mecanisms and the knowledge of
them could make us unexpectedly rich in some unconventional sense.


Pentcho Valev


I believe that you may have overlooked the work done on the dielectric
itself. The change in capacitance is also left out of your analysis.
It's a bit muddled, but good for you for going after thermodynamics
and a bit of electricity too. I'm used to your relativity criticism
and read some of it.

Please consider this in your thermodynamic analysis:
* *The interpretation of heat as vibrating atoms is compromised in the
solid state, where heat propagation remains remarkably slow. In say a
crystalline lattice we witness atoms in contact with each other to the
point that sound propagates readily through the lattice, which is a
vibration of the atoms at quite a faster rate of propagationa. Where
is the additional room for the heat mode and how can it be so slow?
Where is this discussion in the literature? For the lack of discussion
I would say that the modern interpretation of heat as vibrating atoms
is flawed. This is an interesting crux to focus on, for it is geometry
which has been offended. It is such a plain and simple problem that I
find it difficult to understand how we all were hoodwinked.

I suppose you can take this analysis back to the same era as your
relativity criticisms. During the late 1800's tremendous energy was
spent on electromagnetic phenomena, and Maxwell always attempted to
integrate heat into his electromagnetic analysis. Could it be that
people just got worn out after fifty or so years of struggling and
threw in the towel? The rest of us are caught, for if we fail to mimic
the status quo then we are viewed as inadequate for our inability to
mimic. Then too, it is not quite enough to simply criticize the status
quo. What we really want is a clean(er) replacement. Still, it is by
such criticisms that the leads can be found.

I do respect your criticism of entropy and I find it difficult to
accept. But this is somewhat like the conservation of energy; an even
more difficult law to challenge, yet since energy lays all about us
then who are we to claim that it is zero? No, we can't very well
challenge all of thermodynamics since heat flow is a fairly well
behaved and understood phenomenon. But have they really got a clean
theory? Nah. There are so many odd-ball details that have only curve
fitters equations that we cannot call this theory. It seems we need
more dynamics within the basis.

*- Timhttp://bandtech.com/polysigned



Hi.

It's just a confusion of terms.
Inner energy leads to temperature. Work leads to warmth.

KON