A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

An Easily Refutable Version of the Second Law of Thermodynamics



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 19th 13, 03:02 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default An Easily Refutable Version of the Second Law of Thermodynamics

For a closed system (exchanges energy but not matter with the surroundings) the first law of thermodynamics defines the internal energy change, dU, to be:

dU = dQ - dW = dQ - FdX /1/

where dQ is the heat absorbed, dW is the work done by the system on the surroundings, F0 is the work-producing force and dX is the respective displacement.

Let us consider a system with two work-producing forces, F1 and F2 - here is an illustration:

http://chemmaster.co.in/chapters/img/SL42.jpg

We assume that the system does work UNDER ISOTHERMAL CONDITIONS (that is, the system converts heat absorbed from the surroundings into work but operates so slowly, virtually reversibly, that the temperature of both the system and the surroundings remains unchanged). The work done by this system on the surroundings is:

dW = dW1 + dW2 = F1dX1 + F2dX2 /2/

Is W a function of X1 and X2? If yes, the second law of thermodynamics (Kelvin's version) is obeyed - at the end of the (isothermal) cycle W returns to its initial value and no net work is done on the surroundings.

The following theorem is relevant:

Theorem: W is a function of X1 and X2 if and only if the mixed partial derivatives are equal:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-lEuHpTS9k
"Mixed Partial Derivatives"

Since F1 and F2 are in fact the first partial derivatives, the theorem can be expressed in the following way:

Theorem: W is a function of X1 and X2, that is, the second law is obeyed, if and only if:

dF1/dX2 = dF2/dX1 /3/

where "d" should be the partial derivative symbol - when X2 varies, X1 is fixed and vice versa.

In terms of the system with two work-producing forces which does work under isothermal conditions, the second law now states:

SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS (KELVIN'S VERSION): The partial derivatives dF1/dX2 and dF2/dX1 are EQUAL.

That is, if experiments show that the two sides of /3/ are equal, the second law is confirmed. If, however, experiments unambiguously show that the two sides of /3/ are not equal - e.g. dF1/dX2 is positive and dF2/dX1 negative - the second law of thermodynamics is false and will have to be abandoned..

Consider, for instance, the so-called "chemical springs". There are two types of macroscopic contractile polymers which on acidification (decreasing the pH of the system) contract and can lift a weight:

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp972167t
J. Phys. Chem. B, 1997, 101 (51), pp 11007 - 11028, Dan W. Urry, "Physical Chemistry of Biological Free Energy Transduction As Demonstrated by Elastic Protein-Based Polymers"

Polymers designed by Urry (U) absorb protons as their length, Lu, increases, whereas polymers designed by Katchalsky (K) release protons as their length, Lk, increases. (See discussion on p. 11020 in Urry's paper: "stretching causes an uptake of protons", for Urry's polymers, and "stretching causes the release of protons", for Katchalsky's polymers).

Let us assume that two macroscopic polymers, one of each type (U and K) are suspended in the same system. At constant temperature, IF THE SECOND LAW IS TRUE, we must have

dFu / dLk = dFk / dLu

where Fu0 and Fk0 are work-producing forces of contraction. The values of the partial derivatives dFu/dLk and dFk/dLu can be assessed from experimental results reported on p. 11020 in Urry's paper. As K is being stretched (Lk increases), it releases protons, the pH decreases and, accordingly, Fu must increase. Therefore, dFu/dLk is positive. In contrast, as U is being stretched (Lu increases), it absorbs protons, the pH increases and Fk must decrease. Therefore, dFk/dLu is negative. One partial derivative is positive, the other negative: this shows that the second law of thermodynamics is false.

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old December 19th 13, 06:34 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default An Easily Refutable Version of the Second Law of Thermodynamics

In 1824 Sadi Carnot deduced the second law of thermodynamics from a postulate that went against the future law of conservation of energy (the first law of thermodynamics). Here is an oversimplified but consonant with the quotations below presentation of (part of) Carnot's 1824 argument:

Postulate: Heat is an indestructible substance (caloric) that cannot be converted into work by the heat engine.
Consequence: A cold body accepting ALL THE HEAT taken from the warm body is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.

Unpublished notes written in the period 1824-1832 reveal that, after discovering the first law of thermodynamics (much earlier than the official discovery), Carnot started to doubt the necessity for a cold body:

http://www.nd.edu/~powers/ame.20231/carnot1897.pdf
REFLECTIONS ON THE MOTIVE POWER OF HEAT, Sadi Carnot: p. 225: "Heat is simply motive power, or rather motion which has changed form. It is a movement among the particles of bodies. Wherever there is destruction of motive power there is, at the same time, production of heat in quantity exactly proportional to the quantity of motive power destroyed. Reciprocally, wherever there is destruction of heat, there is production of motive power." p. 222: "Could a motion (that of radiating heat) produce matter (caloric)? No, undoubtedly; it can only produce a motion. Heat is then the result of a motion. Then it is plain that it could be produced by the consumption of motive power, and that it could produce this power. All the other phenomena - composition and decomposition of bodies, passage to the gaseous state, specific heat, equilibrium of heat, its more or less easy transmission, its constancy in experiments with the calorimeter - could be explained by this hypothesis. But it would be DIFFICULT TO EXPLAIN WHY, IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF MOTIVE POWER BY HEAT, A COLD BODY IS NECESSARY; why, in consuming the heat of a warm body, motion cannot be produced."

It seems that, almost 200 years later, Carnot's question is still relevant:

Carnot's question (asked after discovering the first law of thermodynamics): WHY, IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF MOTIVE POWER BY HEAT, A COLD BODY IS NECESSARY?

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old December 20th 13, 05:21 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default An Easily Refutable Version of the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Carnot's question: WHY, IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF MOTIVE POWER BY HEAT, A COLD BODY IS NECESSARY?

Answer: Generally a cold body is not necessary, that is, the second law of thermodynamics is false. The cold body is only TECHNOLOGICALLY necessary as it makes heat engines fast-working. Heat engines working under isothermal conditions (in violation of the second law of thermodynamics) are possible but are too slow-working to be of interest to the industry. Thermodynamicists hate them for obvious reasons. In order to publish their results, experimentalists should either explain that the second law is not violated because crocodiles cannot fly or act as if their findings have nothing to do with the laws of thermodynamics:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/48889
"Researchers at Hong Kong Polytechnic University claim to have invented a new kind of graphene-based "battery" that runs solely on ambient heat. The device is said to capture the thermal energy of ions in a solution and convert it into electricity."

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip...1063/1.4825269
Electricity generated from ambient heat across a silicon surface, Appl. Phys. Lett. 103, 163902 (2013): "We report generation of electricity from the limitless thermal motion of ions across a two-dimensional (2D) silicon (Si) surface at room temperature. (...) This finding provides a self-charging technology for energy harvesting from ambient heat."

http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.0161
Self-Charged Graphene Battery Harvests Electricity from Thermal Energy of the Environment, Zihan Xu et al: "Moreover, the thermal velocity of ions can be maintained by the external environment, which means it is unlimited. However, little study has been reported on converting the ionic thermal energy into electricity. Here we present a graphene device with asymmetric electrodes configuration to capture such ionic thermal energy and convert it into electricity. (...) To exclude the possibility of chemical reaction, we performed control experiments... (...) In conclusion, we could not find any evidences that support the opinion that the induced voltage came from chemical reaction. The mechanism for electricity generation by graphene in solution is a pure physical process..."

http://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/...ett.108.097403
"Physicists have known for decades that, in principle, a semiconductor device can emit more light power than it consumes electrically. Experiments published in Physical Review Letters finally demonstrate this in practice, though at a small scale. (...) Decreasing the input power to 30 picowatts, the team detected nearly 70 picowatts of emitted light. The extra energy comes from lattice vibrations, so the device should be cooled slightly, as occurs in thermoelectric coolers. These initial results provide too little light for most applications. However, heating the light emitters increases their output power and efficiency, meaning they are like thermodynamic heat engines..."

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/48882
"At first glance this conversion of waste heat to useful photons could appear to violate fundamental laws of thermodynamics, but lead researcher Parthiban Santhanam of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology explains that the process is perfectly consistent with the second law of thermodynamics. "The most counterintuitive aspect of this result is that we don't typically think of light as being a form of heat. Usually we ignore the entropy and think of light as work," he explains. "If the photons didn't have entropy (i.e. if they were a form of work, rather than heat), this would break the second law. Instead, the entropy shows up in the outgoing photons, so the second law is satisfied."

http://www.dailytech.com/An+Incredib...ticle21285.htm
"Overcoming technical challenges, the University of Illinois team used an atomic force microscope tip as a temperature probe to make the first nanometer-scale temperature measurements of a working graphene transistor. What they found was that the resistive heating ("waste heat") effect in graphene was weaker than its thermo-electric cooling effect at times. (...) Further, as the heat is converted back into electricity by the device, graphene transistors may have a two-fold power efficiency gain, both in ditching energetically expensive fans and by recycling heat losses into usable electricity.. Professor King describes, "In silicon and most materials, the electronic heating is much larger than the self-cooling. However, we found that in these graphene transistors, there are regions where the thermoelectric cooling can be larger than the resistive heating, which allows these devices to cool themselves."

Here is an exception - the possible violation to the second law is referred to in an explicit manner:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1207/1207.6599.pdf
"We have studied the Si devices to generate electricity from thermal motion of ions in aqueous electrolyte solutions at room temperature. (...) However,, this finding does not agree with the second law of thermodynamics, which limits the utilization of the random thermal motion of ions to be spontaneously collected to produce electricity. We cannot explain why either this experiment or the previous experiment of graphene did not agree with the traditional theory. More research will be required to fully understand this phenomenon."

Pentcho Valev
  #4  
Old December 21st 13, 02:35 AM posted to sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 228
Default An Easily Refutable Version of the Second Law of Thermodynamics

I find this newsgroup profoundly depressing! Pentcho Valev is still posting minor variations of the same material - at least daily - seemingly unaware that a single article in a mainstream scientific journal would have vastly more impact on the scientific community that he is seeking to influence.

To see any human being wilfully waste their life with such a mindless obsession is sad. What on earth are his psychiatric nurses doing allowing him access to the internet!

  #5  
Old December 21st 13, 09:27 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default An Easily Refutable Version of the Second Law of Thermodynamics

A "perpetual motion machine of the second kind", although one of obviously no practical use, can be based on the following effect. If a constant-charge parallel-plate capacitor is immersed in a liquid dielectric, e.g. water:

http://www.spiraxsarco.com/images/re...Fig_3_16_9.gif

the force of attraction between the plates SHARPLY DECREASES - for water, it becomes 80 times weaker. However, if instead of liquid dielectric one thrusts some solid dielectric between the plates, the force of attraction the plates exert on one another (slightly) INCREASES. In both cases the dielectric between the plates - liquid or solid - polarizes and the picture of polarization is quite standard; yet when the dielectric is liquid (water) the force of attraction between the plates decreases by a factor of 80 while in the case of solid dielectric the force of attraction increases. Where does the drastic difference come from?

Two things are su 1. The sharp decrease of the force of attraction in the case of liquid dielectric "cannot be explained by electrical forces alone". 2. In the case of liquid dielectric, a "mysterious" pressure emerges between the plates that pushes them apart and so counteracts the original electric force of attraction between them:

http://www.amazon.com/Classical-Elec.../dp/0486439240
Classical Electricity and Magnetism: Second Edition (Dover Books on Physics), Wolfgang K. H. Panofsky, Melba Phillips, p. 114: "This means that if a system maintained at constant charge is totally surrounded by a dielectric liquid all mechanical forces will drop in the ratio 1/k. A factor 1/k is frequently included in the expression for Coulomb's law to indicate this decrease in force. The physical significance of this reduction of force, which is required by energy considerations, is often somewhat mysterious. It is difficult to see on the basis of a field theory why the interaction between two charges should be dependent upon the nature or condition of the intervening material, and therefore the inclusion of an extra factor 1/k in Coulomb's law lacks a physical explanation." p.115: "Therefore the decrease in force... cannot be explained by electrical forces alone." pp.115-116: "Thus the decrease in force that is experienced between two charges when they are immersed in a dielectric liquid can be understood only by considering the effect of the pressure of the liquid on the charges themselves. In accordance with the philosophy of the action-at-a-distance theory, no change in the purely electrical interaction between the charges takes place."

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-E.../dp/0763738271
Introduction to Electromagnetic Theory: A Modern Perspective, Tai Chow, p. 267: "Calculations of the forces between charged conductors immersed in a liquid dielectric always show that the force is reduced by the factor K. There is a tendency to think of this as representing a reduction in the electrical forces between the charges on the conductors, as though Coulomb's law for the interaction of two charges should have the dielectric constant included in its denominator. This is incorrect, however. The strictly electric forces between charges on the conductors are not influenced by the presence of the dielectric medium. The medium is polarized, however, and the interaction of the electric field with the polarized medium results in an INCREASED FLUID PRESSURE ON THE CONDUCTORS that reduces the net forces acting on them."

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/node44.html
"However, in experiments in which a capacitor is submerged in a dielectric liquid the force per unit area exerted by one plate on another is observed to decrease... (...) This apparent paradox can be explained by taking into account the difference in liquid pressure in the field filled space between the plates and the field free region outside the capacitor."

The "perpetual motion machine of the second kind" can be conceived by assuming that the liquid dielectric (water) is alternatively added to and removed from the capacitor-containing system depicted above. Ideally, lifting water to some height and then harnessing it to do work as it falls is a reversible cyclic process that involves zero net work. That is, ideally, we neither gain nor lose work as the liqud dielectric is added to and then removed from the system.

On the other hand, we can draw the capacitor plates together in the absence of the liquid dielectric - the force of attraction works for us - we gain work in the process.

Then we draw the plates apart in the presence of the liquid dielectric and restore the original distance between them. We lose work in the process but this lost work is, for water, 80 times smaller than the work gained when we drew the capacitor plates together in the absence of the dielectric.

Clearly we have a "perpetual motion machine of the second kind" that cyclically and under isothermal conditions converts heat extracted from the surroundings into work.

Pentcho Valev
  #6  
Old December 21st 13, 11:40 AM posted to sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 228
Default An Easily Refutable Version of the Second Law of Thermodynamics

I find this newsgroup profoundly depressing! Pentcho Valev is still posting minor variations of the same material - at least daily - seemingly unaware that a single article in a mainstream scientific journal would have vastly more impact on the scientific community that he is seeking to influence.

To see any human being wilfully waste their life with such a mindless obsession is sad. What on earth are his psychiatric nurses doing allowing him access to the internet!


  #7  
Old December 22nd 13, 10:29 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default An Easily Refutable Version of the Second Law of Thermodynamics

http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FA...es/node37.html
"There are several ways in which the second law of thermodynamics can be stated. Listed below are three that are often encountered. As described in class (and as derived in almost every thermodynamics textbook), although the three may not appear to have much connection with each other, they are equivalent. 1.No process is possible whose sole result is the absorption of heat from a reservoir and the conversion of this heat into work. [Kelvin-Planck statement of the second law] 2.No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body. [Clausius statement of the second law] 3.There exists for every system in equilibrium a property called entropy..."

"Whose sole result" in the Kelvin-Planck version means that the process is cyclic (the heat engine returns to its initial state) and at the end of the cycle we have e.g. some weight lifted, a corresponding loss of heat in the reservoir (surroundings), and NO OTHER CHANGES.

With this interpretation of "whose sole result" the Kelvin-Planck version (and similarly the Clausius version) is just a trivial truth that has nothing to do with the original idea behind the second law of thermodynamics. In the original idea the heat engine is assisted by an OPERATOR - e.g. the mad bleary-eyed perpetuum mobile constructor standing before the merciless jury of presumably sane scientists. The operator does undergo changes in the process (he presses buttons, his adrenal glands produce adrenaline in response to the stress etc) and these changes are INDISPENSABLE - without them (that is, in the absence of an operator), the heat engine would be unable to perform a cycle and return to its initial state. So the correct statements of the second law of thermodynamics a

1. No process is possible whose sole results are, on the one hand, the absorption of heat from a reservoir and the conversion of this heat into work, and, on the other, indefinite changes in the operator's body.

2. No process is possible whose sole results are, on the one hand, the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body, and, on the other, indefinite changes in the operator's body.

The "indefinite changes in the operator's body" addition is by no means trifling - it converts the Kelvin-Planck and Clausius versions, as presented in the quotation above, from trivial truths into falsifiable, and in the end even false, statements of the second law of thermodynamics.

Pentcho Valev
  #8  
Old December 22nd 13, 06:35 PM posted to sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 228
Default An Easily Refutable Version of the Second Law of Thermodynamics

I find this newsgroup profoundly depressing! Pentcho Valev is still posting minor variations of the same material - at least daily - seemingly unaware that a single article in a mainstream scientific journal would have vastly more impact on the scientific community that he is seeking to influence.

To see any human being wilfully waste their life with such a mindless obsession is sad. What on earth are his psychiatric nurses doing allowing him access to the internet!

  #9  
Old December 22nd 13, 11:20 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default An Easily Refutable Version of the Second Law of Thermodynamics

What is the probability that an arbitrary Mr. X looks exactly like an arbitrary Mr. Y? Clearly the prior probability is virtually zero. This means that for the argument:

Postulate: Mr. X and Mr. Y are identical twins.
Consequence: Mr. X looks exactly like Mr. Y.

the combination "false postulate, true consequence" is virtually impossible.

Consider an oversimplified version of Carnot's 1824 argument:

Carnot's 1824 postulate: Heat is an indestructible substance (caloric) that cannot be converted into work by the heat engine.
Consequence (prototype of the second law of thermodynamics): The reversible heat engine X working between the temperatures T1 and T2 is just as efficient as the reversible heat engine Y working between the same temperatures.

By the years 1840-1850 it was definitively established that Carnot's postulate is false. Should scientists have concluded that the probability that the consequence is true is virtually zero? That is, should they have rejected the combination "false postulate, true consequence" as virtually impossible?

If the consequence of Carnot's 1824 false postulate cannot be true, as the analogy with the twins suggests, then Clausius 1850 argument abandoning Carnot's postulate and deducing the same consequence (prototype of the second law of thermodynamics) from another (true this time) postulate must be invalid:

Clausius' 1850 postulate: In a spontaneous process, heat always flows from hot to cold.
Consequence (prototype of the second law of thermodynamics): The reversible heat engine X working between the temperatures T1 and T2 is just as efficient as the reversible heat engine Y working between the same temperatures.

That is, apart from the true postulate, there must be some auxiliary assumption in Clausius' 1850 paper which is false. In the quotation below, the phrases in capitals - "THE ONLY CHANGE" and "WITHOUT ANY EXPENDITURE OF FORCE OR ANY OTHER CHANGE" - contain the false assumption:

http://www.mdpi.org/lin/clausius/clausius.htm
"Ueber die bewegende Kraft der Wärme", 1850, Rudolf Clausius: "Carnot assumed, as has already been mentioned, that the equivalent of the work done by heat is found in the mere transfer of heat from a hotter to a colder body, while the quantity of heat remains undiminished. The latter part of this assumption--namely, that the quantity of heat remains undiminished--contradicts our former principle, and must therefore be rejected... (...) It is this maximum of work which must be compared with the heat transferred. When this is done it appears that there is in fact ground for asserting, with Carnot, that it depends only on the quantity of the heat transferred and on the temperatures t and tau of the two bodies A and B, but not on the nature of the substance by means of which the work is done. (...) If we now suppose that there are two substances of which the one can produce more work than the other by the transfer of a given amount of heat, or, what comes to the same thing, needs to transfer less heat from A to B to produce a given quantity of work, we may use these two substances alternately by producing work with one of them in the above process. At the end of the operations both bodies are in their original condition; further, the work produced will have exactly counterbalanced the work done, and therefore, by our former principle, the quantity of heat can have neither increased nor diminished. THE ONLY CHANGE will occur in the distribution of the heat, since more heat will be transferred from B to A than from A to B, and so on the whole heat will be transferred from B to A. By repeating these two processes alternately it would be possible, WITHOUT ANY EXPENDITURE OF FORCE OR ANY OTHER CHANGE, to transfer as much heat as we please from a cold to a hot body, and this is not in accord with the other relations of heat, since it always shows a tendency to equalize temperature differences and therefore to pass from hotter to colder bodies."

It is easy to see that the two-substances process considered by Clausius presupposes the action of an OPERATOR; this operator constantly and unavoidably undergoes CHANGES, changes that are absent when heat spontaneously "shows a tendency to equalize temperature differences and therefore to pass from hotter to colder bodies". In other words, the trivial fact that, in a spontaneous process, in the absence of an operator, heat always flows from hot to cold by no means implies that heat will flow from hot to cold in a non-spontaneous operator-driven process as the one considered by Clausius. Clausius' argument is invalid - it is based on the false assumption expressed in the phrases "THE ONLY CHANGE" and "WITHOUT ANY EXPENDITURE OF FORCE OR ANY OTHER CHANGE".

Pentcho Valev
  #10  
Old December 23rd 13, 03:41 AM posted to sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 228
Default An Easily Refutable Version of the Second Law of Thermodynamics

I find this newsgroup profoundly depressing! Pentcho Valev is still posting minor variations of the same material - at least daily - seemingly unaware that a single article in a mainstream scientific journal would have vastly more impact on the scientific community that he is seeking to influence.

To see any human being wilfully waste their life with such a mindless obsession is sad. What on earth are his psychiatric nurses doing allowing him access to the internet!

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How to make alot of money easily!!!!!!!!!!! singleDad Misc 1 February 15th 09 07:12 AM
TO EARN EASILY 100 DOLLARS / MONTH [email protected] Space Shuttle 0 April 30th 08 04:35 PM
MDA deputy: PRC ASAT easily countered Allen Thomson Policy 9 February 3rd 07 08:10 PM
HOW (easily) COLUMBUS DISCOVERED AMERICA. Ed Conrad Astronomy Misc 6 July 10th 04 12:24 AM
Easily Visible with the naked eye.... Mark Watson UK Astronomy 12 November 10th 03 12:18 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.