|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |