THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

If a constant-charge parallel-plate capacitor is immersed in water, a
pressure develops between the plates that greatly exceeds the pressure
outside the capacitor plates. (W. Panofsky, M. Phillips, Classical
Electricity and Magnetism, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts,
1962, pp. 112-116). If the capacitor plate is very thin, we can
imagine a sharp drop in pressure across it; then the following
conclusion is unavoidable:

Punching a small hole in the plate will result in an eternal water
flow through the hole, from inside to the outside of the capacitor, in
violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

A few years ago, at the 2002 First International Conference on Quantum
Limits to the Second Law, I called the effect "dynamic equilibrium":

http://link.aip.org/link/?APCPCS/643/430/1
"Two testable paradigms - the system performing two types of
reversible work and the system in dynamical equilibrium - suggest that
perpetuum mobile of the second kind in the presence of an operator is
possible."

The scientific community remained silent and hostile but still from
time to time Panofsky-Phillips pressure leaves scientists speechless:

http://www.physorg.com/news110191847.html
"When exposed to a high-voltage electric field, water in two beakers
climbs out of the beakers and crosses empty space to meet, forming the
water bridge. The liquid bridge, hovering in space, appears to the
human eye to defy gravity."

In his 1824 Memoire Carnot dealt with two reversible heat engines
which DID NOT INTERACT. In 1850 Clausius used NON-INTERACTING heat
engines again:

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."

NON-INTERACTION means that the work-producing force generated by the
first engine, F1, is independent of the displacement, X2, in the
second engine, and vice versa:

dF1/dX2 = dF2/dX1 = 0

where "d" is the partial derivative symbol. It can be shown that, if
the two reversible heat engines DO INTERACT and the conditions are
isothermal, the equation:

dF1/dX2 = dF2/dX1

is a consequence of the second law of thermodynamics (Kelvin's
version). That is, if the partial derivatives dF1/dX2 and dF2/dX1 are
not equal, heat from a single reservoir CAN, cyclically, be converted
into work, in violation to the second law of thermodynamics. This is
the first testable paradigm - "the system performing two types of
reversible work" - referred to above (the second testable paradigm is
"the system in dynamic equilibrium"). Consider, for instance,
INTERACTING "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 on stretching (as their
length, Lu, increases), whereas polymers designed by Katchalsky (K)
release protons on stretching (as their length, Lk, increases). (See
discussion on p. 11020 in Urry's paper).

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)_Lu = (dFk / dLu)_Lk

where Fu0 and Fk0 are work-producing forces of contraction. The
values of the partial derivatives (dFu/dLk)_Lu and (dFk/dLu)_Lk 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)_Lu is positive. In contrast, as U is being stretched (Lu
increases), it absorbs protons, the pH increases and Fk must decrease.
Therefore, (dFk/dLu)_Lk is negative. One partial derivative is
positive, the other negative: this proves that the second law of
thermodynamics is false.

The second law of thermodynamics is false but heat engines converting,
isothermally, heat into work are extremely slow and incommensurable
with human practice. See more he

http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev2.pdf
BIASED THERMAL MOTION AND THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote in news:f60f6637-11e9-49a0-a9d6-
:

If a constant-charge parallel-plate capacitor is immersed in water, a
pressure develops between the plates that greatly exceeds the pressure
outside the capacitor plates. (W. Panofsky, M. Phillips, Classical
Electricity and Magnetism, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts,
1962, pp. 112-116). If the capacitor plate is very thin, we can
imagine a sharp drop in pressure across it; then the following
conclusion is unavoidable:

Punching a small hole in the plate will result in an eternal water
flow through the hole, from inside to the outside of the capacitor, in
violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

What happens at the plate edges? Don't they ammount to a hole as well?

On Dec 23, 4:02*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.physorg.com/news110191847.html
"When exposed to a high-voltage electric field, water in two beakers
climbs out of the beakers and crosses empty space to meet, forming the
water bridge.
One can't build a perpetual motion machine using this
phenomenon. Energy is used up by the resistance of the water to
electric current. There is an electric current passing through the
water. The water is heating up in the bridge and in both beakers of
water. It heats until the bridge collapses.
According to your false logic, every electric motor violates the
second law of thermodynamics. One places an electric field on the
wires, and the motor does work. However, electric motors don't violate
the law of thermodynamics.
The transformation of the water from a beaker into a bridge is
caused by work, not heat. No heat was conducted in this experiment.
The electric field was generated by a power supply. The electric field
pushes electric charges. When an electric field pushes electric
charges, there is a transfer of energy called work.
Heat is energy that is transferred due to a difference in
temperature. The energy did not go into the water because of a
difference of temperature. No difference in temperature was measured
between the beakers before or after the experiment.
Perhaps you can help the scientific community understand as
follows. Explain where the heat is flowing when the water bridge
forms. Describe the apparatus, and tell us what the temperature
distribution was like in the apparatus. Point out to us the high
temperature and low temperature parts of the set up. The explain to us
how heat was transferred from a low to high temperature reservoir
without any other change in the system.
The second law: A closed system can not transfer heat from a low
temperature reservoir to a high temperature reservoir without
changing in the system.
So where are the low and high temperature reservoirs !-)