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

Why the False Second Law of Thermodynamics Still Holds



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 31st 17, 11:20 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Why the False Second Law of Thermodynamics Still Holds

"Davide Castelvecchi recently has an article published in Nature regarding on the same topic. The article highlighted that the laws of thermodynamics are many times "paradoxical," especially the second law of thermodynamics." http://www.scienceworldreport.com/ar...namic-laws.htm

The second law of thermodynamics has long been under attack but only for small, microscopic, quantum etc. systems:

Nature 2002: "Second law broken. Researchers have shown for the first time that, on the level of thousands of atoms and molecules, fleeting energy increases violate the second law of thermodynamics." http://www.nature.com/news/2002/0207...s020722-2.html

The truth is that MACROSCOPIC systems violating the second law of thermodynamics are COMMONPLACE. The problem is that misleading education diverts the attention from relevant examples:

"A necessary component of a heat engine, then, is that two temperatures are involved. At one stage the system is heated, at another it is cooled." http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py105/Heatengines.html

So educators present the two temperatures as NECESSARY and readily teach non-isothermal heat engines:

http://readingpenrose.files.wordpres...and-engine.gif

"All materials react to heat in some way. But this new shape-changing polymer reacts to temperatures as small as the touch of human skin to contract - in the process lifting as much as 1,000 times its own weight." http://gizmodo.com/this-new-shape-ch...-it-1759165438

"Stretchy Science: A Rubber Band Heat Engine. Learn how a rubber band can turn heat into mechanical work with this simple activity. [...] Your blow dryer essentially turned your rubber band into a heat engine - a machine that turns thermal energy into mechanical work." https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ber-band-heat/

The second law of thermodynamics would be long forgotten if isothermal analogs which almost obviously violate the second law of thermodynamics had been taught (one should only evaluate the work involved in a quasi-static cycle):

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

"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." http://www.google.com/patents/US5520672

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." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih..gov/pmc/ar...00645-0017.pdf

The following four-step isothermal cycle, if carried out quasi-statically (reversibly), clearly violates the second law of thermodynamics:

1. The polymer is initially stretched. The operator adds hydrogen ions (H+) to the system. The force of contraction increases.
2. The polymers contracts and lifts a weight.
3. The operator removes the same amount of H+ from the system. The force of contraction decreases.
4. The operator stretches the polymer and restores the initial state of the system.

The net work extracted from the cycle is positive unless the following is the case:

The operator, as he decreases and then increases the pH of the system (steps 1 and 3), does (loses; wastes) more work than the work he gains from weight-lifting.

However electrochemists know that, if both adding hydrogen ions to the system and then removing them are performed quasi-statically, the net work involved is virtually zero (the operator gains work if the hydrogen ions are transported from a high to a low concentration and then loses the same amount of work in the backward transport). That is, the net work involved in steps 1 and 3 is zero, and the net work extracted from steps 2 and 4 is positive, in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old November 1st 17, 08:48 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Why the False Second Law of Thermodynamics Still Holds

The second law of thermodynamics has an absurd implication:

If we have a reversible chemical reaction and a catalyst increases the rate of the forward reaction by a factor of, say, 745492, it obligatorily increases the rate of the reverse reaction by exactly the same factor, 745492, despite the fact that the two reactions - forward and reverse - may be entirely different (e.g. the diffusion factor is crucial for one but not important for the other) and accordingly require entirely different catalytic mechanisms.

The absurd implication is usually referred to as "Catalysts do not shift chemical equilibrium":

"A catalyst reduces the time taken to reach equilibrium, but does not change the position of the equilibrium. This is because the catalyst increases the rates of the forward and reverse reactions BY THE SAME AMOUNT." http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/higher...um/revision/2/

"In the presence of a catalyst, both the forward and reverse reaction rates will speed up EQUALLY... [...] If the addition of catalysts could possibly alter the equilibrium state of the reaction, this would violate the second rule of thermodynamics..." https://www.boundless.com/chemistry/...lyst-447-3459/

The absurd implication is not obeyed by chemical reactions of course. Here is a publication in Nature describing a catalyst accelerating the forward and SUPPRESSING the reverse reaction:

http://images.nature.com/m685/nature...mms3500-f1.jpg

Yu Hang Li et al. Unidirectional suppression of hydrogen oxidation on oxidized platinum clusters. https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms3500

Another example of disobedience: Perpetual (limited only by the deterioration of the system) motion of dimer A_2 and monomer A between two catalytic surfaces, S1 and S2:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...SLTD-Fig1c.jpg

See the explanations he https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan%27s_Paradox

That catalysts can violate the second law of thermodynamics by shifting chemical equilibrium is presented by Wikipedia as a fact:

"Epicatalysis is a newly identified class of gas-surface heterogeneous catalysis in which specific gas-surface reactions shift gas phase species concentrations away from those normally associated with gas-phase equilibrium. [....] A traditional catalyst adheres to three general principles, namely: 1) it speeds up a chemical reaction; 2) it participates in, but is not consumed by, the reaction; and 3) it does not change the chemical equilibrium of the reaction. Epicatalysts overcome the third principle..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicatalysis

Yet scientists just repeat "Catalysts do not shift chemical equilibrium" and don't even think of questioning the absurdity. Why? Crimestop of course:

"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity." https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orw...hapter2.9.html

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old November 2nd 17, 10:17 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Why the False Second Law of Thermodynamics Still Holds

Philip Ball explains why Frank Wilczek's time crystals are bogus:

"But to make that happen, the researchers must deliver kicks to the spins, provided by a laser or pulses of microwaves, to keep them out of equilibrium. The time crystals are sustained only by constant kicking, even though - crucially - their oscillation doesn't match the rhythm of the kicking. The experiments are ingenious and the results show that this modified version of Wilczek's vision is feasible. But are we right to award the new findings this eye-catching new label, or are they really just a new example of a phenomenon that has been going on since the first primeval heart started beating? If these fancy arrangements of quantum spins deserve to be called time crystals, can we then say that we each already have a time crystal pulsing inside of us, keeping us alive?" http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/bl...cience-physics

That is, Frank Wilczek's time crystals are regularly "kicked" by the experimentalist. However, there are genuine time crystals "kicked" by ambient heat and breathtakingly violating the second law of thermodynamics. Here is perpetual (limited only by the deterioration of the system) motion of water in an electric field, obviously able to produce work - e.g. by rotating a waterwheel:

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

"The water movement is bidirectional, i.e., it simultaneously flows in both directions." https://www.wetsus.nl/home/wetsus-ne...n-innovation/1

The work will be done at the expense of what energy? The first hypothesis that comes to mind is:

At the expense of electric energy. The system is, essentially, an electric motor.

However, close inspection would suggest that the hypothesis is untenable. Scientists use triply distilled water to reduce the conductivity and the electric current passing through the system to minimum. If, for some reason, the current is increased, the motion stops - the system cannot be an electric motor.

If the system is not an electric motor, then it is ... a perpetual-motion machine of the second kind! Here arguments describing perpetual-motion machines as impossible, idiotic, etc. are irrelevant - the following conditional is valid:

IF THE SYSTEM IS NOT AN ELECTRIC MOTOR, then it is a perpetual-motion machine of the second kind.

In other words, if the work is not done at the expense of electric energy, then it is done at the expense of ambient heat, in violation of the second law of thermodynamics. No third source of energy is conceivable.

In the electric field between the plates of a capacitor, the same perpetual motion of water can be seen (we have a time crystal again):

" Liquid Dielectric Capacitor" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6KAH1JpdPg

In the capacitor system the rising water can repeatedly do work, e.g. by lifting floating weights. The crucial question is:

The work (lifting floating weights) will be done at the expense of what energy?

Obviously "electric energy" is not the correct answer - the capacitor is not an electric motor. Then the only possible answer remains "ambient heat". The system is a heat engine violating the second law of thermodynamics!

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
Second Law of Thermodynamics: Paradoxical or False? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 5 September 21st 17 02:48 PM
Why the Second Law of Thermodynamics Still Holds Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 4 September 5th 17 02:47 PM
Second Law of Thermodynamics: Obviously False Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 September 17th 16 02:00 PM
THE FALSE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 January 2nd 14 01:10 PM
School holds toy-gun buy-back Bast[_2_] Misc 3 June 11th 13 02:03 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:18 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.