Tragicomical Thermodynamics

"Established during the 19th century, the Kelvin-Planck statement of the Second Law says, "It is impossible for any device that operates on a cycle to receive heat from a single reservoir and produce a net amount of work." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seco...thermodynamics

The statement is obviously false. This video presents a simple system - water placed in a strong electric field - obviously able to produce unlimited amount of work at the expense of heat absorbed from the surroundings (no other source of energy is conceivable):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17UD1goTFhQ
"The Formation of the Floating Water Bridge including electric breakdowns"

Work-producing devices in living systems are essentially perpetual motion machines of the second kind (fast-working mechanisms consuming external energy other than ambient heat have been superimposed at a later stage):

"Muscle contraction is normally mediated by the release of neurotransmitters from motor neurons. Here we demonstrate that protons can act as a direct transmitter from intestinal cells to stimulate muscle contraction. [...] In this study, we demonstrate that the space between the intestine and the muscle is acidified just prior to muscle contraction and that the release of caged protons is sufficient to induce muscle contraction." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2258244/

The artificial counterpart:

"pH sensitive or pH responsive polymers are materials which will respond to the changes in the pH of the surrounding medium by varying their dimensions. Such materials increase its size (swell) or collapse depending on the pH of their environment." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PH-sensitive_polymers

The work-producing cycle is easy to imagine. The experimentalist adds hydrogen ions to the system - the polymer swells or contracts and does work in the process - e.g. lifts a weight. The experimentalist removes the same amount of hydrogen ions from the system - the polymer resumes its initial state and a new cycle can begin:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._mechanism.jpg

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/valev/val3.gif

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...00645-0017.pdf
A. KATCHALSKY, POLYELECTROLYTES AND THEIR BIOLOGICAL INTERACTIONS, p. 15, Figure 4: "Polyacid gel in sodium hydroxide solution: expanded. Polyacid gel in acid solution: contracted; weight is lifted."

http://www.google.com/patents/US5520672
"When the pH is lowered (that is, on raising the chemical potential, μ, of the protons present) at the isothermal condition of 37°C, these matrices can exert forces, f, sufficient to lift weights that are a thousand times their dry weight."

The second law of thermodynamics is violated unless the experimentalist, in adding hydrogen ions to the system and then removing them, does (wastes) more work than the work gained as the polymer lifts the weight. However electrochemists know that, if both adding and removing are performed reversibly, the net work involved is zero (the experimentalist gains work if the hydrogen ions are transported from a high to a low concentration but then loses the same amount of work in the backward transport).

The second law of thermodynamics would be long forgotten if thermodynamicists had not confused it in a tragicomical way:

Clifford Truesdell, The Tragicomical History of Thermodynamics, 1822-1854, p. 6: "Finally, I confess to a heartfelt hope - very slender but tough - that even some thermodynamicists of the old tribe will study this book, master the contents, and so share in my discovery: Thermodynamics need never have been the Dismal Swamp of Obscurity that from the first it was and that today in common instruction it is; in consequence, it need not so remain." [....] p. 333: "Clausius' verbal statement of the "Second Law" makes no sense, for "some other change connected therewith" introduces two new and unexplained concepts: "other change" and "connection" of changes. Neither of these finds any place in Clausius' formal structure. All that remains is a Mosaic prohibition. A century of philosophers and journalists have acclaimed this commandment; a century of mathematicians have shuddered and averted their eyes from the unclean." https://www.amazon.com/Tragicomical-.../dp/1461394465

Jos Uffink, Bluff your way in the Second Law of Thermodynamics: "I therefore argue for the view that the second law has nothing to do with the arrow of time. [...] Before one can claim that acquaintance with the Second Law is as indispensable to a cultural education as Macbeth or Hamlet, it should obviously be clear what this law states. This question is surprisingly difficult. The Second Law made its appearance in physics around 1850, but a half century later it was already surrounded by so much confusion that the British Association for the Advancement of Science decided to appoint a special committee with the task of providing clarity about the meaning of this law.. However, its final report (Bryan 1891) did not settle the issue. Half a century later, the physicist/philosopher Bridgman still complained that there are almost as many formulations of the second law as there have been discussions of it. And even today, the Second Law remains so obscure that it continues to attract new efforts at clarification." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/313/1/engtot.pdf

Pentcho Valev