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

WATER VIOLATES THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 10th 12, 07:25 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default WATER VIOLATES THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

Consider the "somewhat mysterious" pressure emerging between and
PUSHING APART the plates of a constant-charge capacitor immersed in
water:

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://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."

Common sense forces one to conclude that, if the mysterious pressure
pushes the plates apart, then it will constantly pump water through a
small hole punched in one of the plates. But the constant flow through
the hole can in principle be harnessed to do work and so the second
law of thermodynamics is violated. Could common sense be misleading in
this case?

Other manifestations of the mysterious pressu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1At3Gcd-No
Floating Water Bridge - Elmar Fuchs (SETI Talks)

A tentative explanation of the mysterious pressu

http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev2.pdf
August 12, 2004, Pentcho Valev: Biased Thermal Motion and the Second
Law of Thermodynamics

Pentcho Valev

  #2  
Old February 10th 12, 01:07 PM posted to sci.astro
Tonico
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 120
Default WATER VIOLATES THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

On Feb 10, 8:25*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Consider the "somewhat mysterious" pressure emerging between and
PUSHING APART the plates of a constant-charge capacitor immersed in
water:

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-E...ry-Modern-Pers...
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://www.amazon.com/Classical-Elec...econd-Physics/...
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."

Common sense forces one to conclude that, if the mysterious pressure
pushes the plates apart, then it will constantly pump water through a
small hole punched in one of the plates. But the constant flow through
the hole can in principle be harnessed to do work and so the second
law of thermodynamics is violated. Could common sense be misleading in
this case?

Other manifestations of the mysterious pressu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1At3Gcd-No
Floating Water Bridge - Elmar Fuchs (SETI Talks)

A tentative explanation of the mysterious pressu

http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev2.pdf
August 12, 2004, Pentcho Valev: Biased Thermal Motion and the Second
Law of Thermodynamics

Pentcho Valev



Idiot
  #3  
Old February 10th 12, 03:27 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Richard Tobin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 230
Default WATER VIOLATES THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

In article ,
Pentcho Valev wrote:

Common sense forces one to conclude that, if the mysterious pressure
pushes the plates apart, then it will constantly pump water through a
small hole punched in one of the plates.


And what does experiment tell you?

-- Richard
  #4  
Old February 10th 12, 05:55 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Androcles[_69_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 36
Default WATER VIOLATES THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS


"Richard Tobin" wrote in message
...
| In article
,
| Pentcho Valev wrote:
|
| Common sense forces one to conclude that, if the mysterious pressure
| pushes the plates apart, then it will constantly pump water through a
| small hole punched in one of the plates.
|
| And what does experiment tell you?
|
| -- Richard
Experiment tells us:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venturi_effect
Valev is out of his mysterious depth, he will not violate the
second law of thermodynamics.







  #5  
Old February 10th 12, 07:44 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default WATER VIOLATES THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

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."

So the pressure difference will constantly pump water through a small
hole punched in one of the plates, won't it?

Pentcho Valev

  #6  
Old February 13th 12, 04:14 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Androcles[_69_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 36
Default WATER VIOLATES THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS


"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
| The following reasoning by Granville Sewell is valid

No it is NOT valid!


  #7  
Old February 14th 12, 10:01 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default WATER VIOLATES 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:

PREMISE: Mr. X and Mr. Y are identical twins.
CONCLUSION: Mr. X looks exactly like Mr. Y.

the combination "false premise, true conclusion" is virtually
impossible.

Consider an oversimplified version of Carnot's 1824 argument:

PREMISE: Heat is an indestructible substance (cannot be converted into
work in the heat engine).
CONCLUSION (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 the
premise is false. Should scientists have concluded that the prior
probability of the conclusion is virtually zero? In other words,
should they have considered the combination "false premise, true
conclusion" as virtually impossible, and rejected the conclusion?

If Carnot's conclusion cannot be true, as the analogy with the twins
suggests, then Clausius 1850 argument abandoning Carnot's false
premise and deducing the same conclusion (prototype of the second law
of thermodynamics) from another (true) premise must be invalid. That
is, there must be some auxiliary assumptions in Clausius' 1850 paper
which are false. Consider the phrases in capitals: "THE ONLY CHANGE"
and "WITHOUT ANY EXPENDITURE OF FORCE OR ANY OTHER CHANGE":

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."

In fact, the two-substances process considered by Clausius presupposes
the constant 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 fact that, spontaneously, heat always flows from hot to cold
(which is Clausius' new premise) by no means implies that the operator-
driven two-substances process considered by Clausius is unable to
transfer heat from cold to hot. Clausius' argument is invalid.

Pentcho Valev

  #8  
Old February 15th 12, 12:45 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default WATER VIOLATES THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

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 pressure difference will constantly pump water through a small
hole punched in one of the plates, in violation of the second law of
thermodynamics. More effects produced by the mysterious pressure
emerging between the plates are shown here (but the author does not
consider the pressure as a non-conservative force doing work at the
expense of heat absorbed from the surroundings, which misleads him
into believing that the law of energy conservation is violated):

http://energythic.com/view.php?node=208
"...force that creates a pressure-difference at the edge of a flat
capacitor when merged into a liquid dielectric, and pushes up a liquid
column between the plates..."

Pentcho Valev

  #9  
Old February 15th 12, 01:08 AM posted to sci.astro
Tonico
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 120
Default WATER VIOLATES THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

On Feb 15, 1:45*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
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 pressure difference will constantly pump water through a small
hole punched in one of the plates, in violation of the second law of
thermodynamics. More effects produced by the mysterious pressure
emerging between the plates are shown here (but the author does not
consider the pressure as a non-conservative force doing work at the
expense of heat absorbed from the surroundings, which misleads him
into believing that the law of energy conservation is violated):

http://energythic.com/view.php?node=208
"...force that creates a pressure-difference at the edge of a flat
capacitor when merged into a liquid dielectric, and pushes up a liquid
column between the plates..."

Pentcho Valev




Idiot
  #10  
Old February 15th 12, 12:33 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default WATER VIOLATES THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

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 pressure difference will constantly pump water through a small
hole punched in one of the plates, in violation of the second law of
thermodynamics. The hole could be drilled at the level of points 3 and
5 in FIG. 1 below:

http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~yec...MagnFluids.pdf
"FIG. 1. Two charged condenser plates partly immersed in a dielectric
liquid. (...) FIG. 2. The hydrostatic pressure variation from point 1
to point 5 in Fig. 1."

Pentcho Valev

 




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
GR violates SR and Einstein rejected black holes Koobee Wublee Astronomy Misc 3 February 22nd 11 01:52 AM
GR violates SR and Einstein rejected black holes Koobee Wublee Astronomy Misc 0 February 18th 11 06:45 PM
Einstein's Second Postulate Violates His First. Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 0 December 16th 08 10:57 AM
Einstein's Second Postulate Violates His First. Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 December 13th 08 12:04 PM
Einstein's Second Postulate Violates His First. Androcles[_8_] Astronomy Misc 15 December 8th 08 10:36 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:07 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.