HOW TO VIOLATE THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

Take a suspended and stretched spring. It can lift a weight as it
contracts, that is, we GAIN work. However, in order to restore the
initial stretched state of the spring, we must SPEND work so there is
no net gain. If both contraction and stretching are carried out in a
reversible fashion, the net work gained at the end of the cycle is
zero.

Consider again a suspended and stretched spring but this time it is
"chemical", that is, we have one of the macroscopic contractile
polymers described by Dan Urry in:

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"

If, before contraction, we add acid (H+) to the system, the force of
contraction and, respectively, the work gained as the polymer
reversibly contracts increase. Then, just before stretching, we remove
the added H+ from the system: the force of contraction and,
respectively, the work spent as we reversibly stretch the polymer
decrease. At the end of the cycle, THE NET WORK GAINED FROM
CONTRACTION AND STRETCHING IS POSITIVE.

So far things go against the second law of thermodynamics but the
complete account requires that the net work gained from adding H+ to
and removing H+ from the system be evaluated. If it is positive or
zero, the second law is definitively violated. If it is negative, the
second law is saved for the moment.

In the absence of the polymer, adding H+ to and removing the same
amount of H+ from the system, in a reversible fashion, would amount to
zero net work gained. The polymers designed by Urry, however, release H
+ as they contract, and absorb H+ as we stretch them. It is easy to
see (for people experienced in electrochemistry at least) that this
makes the net work gained from reversibly adding H+ to and then
removing the same amount of H+ from the system POSITIVE.

Conclusion: The reversible cycle:

1. The polymer is stretched. We add H+ to the system.
2. The polymers contracts and lifts a weight.
3. We remove the same amount of H+ from the system.
4. We stretch the polymer and restore the initial state of the system.

violates the second law of thermodynamics.

Pentcho Valev

If a constant-charge parallel-plate capacitor is totally immersed in
water, the force of attraction between the plates is 80 times weaker
than the force of attraction in vacuum. However, if we thrust some
solid dielectric between the plates (not necessarily occupying the
whole distance between them - it could be rather thin), the force of
attraction becomes even greater than in vacuum. Accordingly, the
following four-step cycle (carried out very slowly) violates the
second law of thermodynamics:

1. Plates are immersed and fixed. We thrust the solid dielectric.
2. Plates get closer. We GAIN work.
3. We withdraw the solid dielectric.
4. Plates get apart; initial state restored. We SPEND work.

When the plates are immersed in a liquid dielectric (water), some
additional pressure between them emerges, pushes them apart and so
counteracts their electrostatic attraction (W. Panofsky, M. Phillips,
Classical Electricity and Magnetism, Addison-Wesley, Reading,
Massachusetts (1962), pp. 111-116). If the plates are vertical and
only partially immersed, the same pressure forces the liquid between
the plates to rise above the surface of the water pool (see fig. 6-7
on p. 112 in Panofsky's book). What if one punches a small hole in one
of the plates, just above the surface of the pool? Will the lifted
water leak through the hole and fall? If lifting is due to an
additional pressure generated within the bulk, as assumed by Panofsky
and Phillips, then water WILL leak through the hole and the second law
will be violated. No matter how weak the waterfall is, theoretically
it can rotate a waterwheel…

The perpetuum mobile of the second kind described above (as well as
the one described below) will never become a money-spinner and will
not solve the energy problems of humankind. However Nature may
occasionally have used such (inefficient from an anthropocentric point
of view) mecanisms and the knowledge of them could make us
unexpectedly rich in some unconventional sense.

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Take a suspended and stretched spring. It can lift a weight as it
contracts, that is, we GAIN work. However, in order to restore the
initial stretched state of the spring, we must SPEND work so there is
no net gain. If both contraction and stretching are carried out in a
reversible fashion, the net work gained at the end of the cycle is
zero.

Consider again a suspended and stretched spring but this time it is
"chemical", that is, we have one of the macroscopic contractile
polymers described by Dan Urry in:

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"

If, before contraction, we add acid (H+) to the system, the force of
contraction and, respectively, the work gained as the polymer
reversibly contracts increase. Then, just before stretching, we remove
the added H+ from the system: the force of contraction and,
respectively, the work spent as we reversibly stretch the polymer
decrease. At the end of the cycle, THE NET WORK GAINED FROM
CONTRACTION AND STRETCHING IS POSITIVE.

So far things go against the second law of thermodynamics but the
complete account requires that the net work gained from adding H+ to
and removing H+ from the system be evaluated. If it is positive or
zero, the second law is definitively violated. If it is negative, the
second law is saved for the moment.

In the absence of the polymer, adding H+ to and removing the same
amount of H+ from the system, in a reversible fashion, would amount to
zero net work gained. The polymers designed by Urry, however, release H
+ as they contract, and absorb H+ as we stretch them. It is easy to
see (for people experienced in electrochemistry at least) that this
makes the net work gained from reversibly adding H+ to and then
removing the same amount of H+ from the system POSITIVE.

Conclusion: The reversible cycle:

1. The polymer is stretched. We add H+ to the system.
2. The polymers contracts and lifts a weight.
3. We remove the same amount of H+ from the system.
4. We stretch the polymer and restore the initial state of the
system.

violates the second law of thermodynamics.

Pentcho Valev

On Sep 20, 1:58*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
....
If, before contraction, we add acid (H+) to the
system, the force of contraction and, respectively,
the work gained as the polymer reversibly
contracts increase. Then, just before stretching,
we

.... use fairy magic to ...

remove the added H+ from the system: the force
of contraction and, respectively, the work spent
as we reversibly stretch the polymer decrease. At
the end of the cycle, THE NET WORK GAINED FROM
CONTRACTION AND STRETCHING IS POSITIVE.

Neglecting fairy magic of ion removal.

....
violates the second law of thermodynamics.

Every one of your posts increases system entropy, apparently to make
up for any gain you imagine.

David A. Smith

On Sep 20, 11:05*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
If a constant-charge parallel-plate capacitor is totally
immersed in water, the force of attraction between
the plates is 80 times weaker than the force of
attraction in vacuum. However, if we thrust some
solid dielectric between the plates (not necessarily
occupying the whole distance between them - it
could be rather thin), the force of attraction becomes
even greater than in vacuum.

Absolutely pure water will behave exactly as a solid dielectric does.

....
violates the second law of thermodynamics.

System entropy increases with every post you make.

David A. Smith

Leave it to Androcles the insane to simply put down any constructive
criticism.

It's easier to think that you're right when you close your eyes and
ears and ignore everyone else, isn't it?

In article
,
hdbanannah wrote:

Leave it to Androcles the insane to simply put down any constructive
criticism.

It's easier to think that you're right when you close your eyes and
ears and ignore everyone else, isn't it?

Get some information.

David A. Smith was correct when he responded:
"Absolutely pure water will behave exactly as a solid dielectric does."

Water is a polar molecule. Pure water is a very efficient dielectric.

"John Stafford" wrote in message
...
In article
,
hdbanannah wrote:

Leave it to Androcles the insane to simply put down any constructive
criticism.

It's easier to think that you're right when you close your eyes and
ears and ignore everyone else, isn't it?

Get some information.

Smiffy was attacking a person, just as the already plonked
banana ****wit is doing.

The famous money-spinner which, if realized, would convince initially
businessmen and later scientists that the second law of thermodynamics
is false:

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictiona...he+second+kind
"Perpetual motion of the second kind refers to a device that extracts
heat from a source and then converts this heat completely into other
forms of energy, a process which satisfies the principle of
conservation of energy. A dramatic scheme of this type would be an
ocean liner, which extracts heat from the nearly limitless oceanic
source and then uses this heat for propulsion. This type of perpetual
motion is, however, precluded by the second law of thermodynamics
which is sometimes stated as "A perpetuum mobile of the second kind
cannot exist."

Even if the second law is false propulsion would still be impossible
since the ocean and the liner would be at almost the same temperature
and in such almost isothermal conditions the heat exchange would be
extremely slow. Businessmen do not like extremely slow processes so
they will remain convinced forever that the second law is true.
Scientists will also remain convinced forever that the second law is
true.

Pentcho Valev wrote:

If a constant-charge parallel-plate capacitor is totally immersed in
water, the force of attraction between the plates is 80 times weaker
than the force of attraction in vacuum. However, if we thrust some
solid dielectric between the plates (not necessarily occupying the
whole distance between them - it could be rather thin), the force of
attraction becomes even greater than in vacuum. Accordingly, the
following four-step cycle (carried out very slowly) violates the
second law of thermodynamics:

1. Plates are immersed and fixed. We thrust the solid dielectric.
2. Plates get closer. We GAIN work.
3. We withdraw the solid dielectric.
4. Plates get apart; initial state restored. We SPEND work.

When the plates are immersed in a liquid dielectric (water), some
additional pressure between them emerges, pushes them apart and so
counteracts their electrostatic attraction (W. Panofsky, M. Phillips,
Classical Electricity and Magnetism, Addison-Wesley, Reading,
Massachusetts (1962), pp. 111-116). If the plates are vertical and
only partially immersed, the same pressure forces the liquid between
the plates to rise above the surface of the water pool (see fig. 6-7
on p. 112 in Panofsky's book). What if one punches a small hole in one
of the plates, just above the surface of the pool? Will the lifted
water leak through the hole and fall? If lifting is due to an
additional pressure generated within the bulk, as assumed by Panofsky
and Phillips, then water WILL leak through the hole and the second law
will be violated. No matter how weak the waterfall is, theoretically
it can rotate a waterwheel

The perpetuum mobile of the second kind described above (as well as
the one described below) will never become a money-spinner and will
not solve the energy problems of humankind. However Nature may
occasionally have used such (inefficient from an anthropocentric point
of view) mecanisms and the knowledge of them could make us
unexpectedly rich in some unconventional sense.

Take a suspended and stretched spring. It can lift a weight as it
contracts, that is, we GAIN work. However, in order to restore the
initial stretched state of the spring, we must SPEND work so there is
no net gain. If both contraction and stretching are carried out in a
reversible fashion, the net work gained at the end of the cycle is
zero.

Consider again a suspended and stretched spring but this time it is
"chemical", that is, we have one of the macroscopic contractile
polymers described by Dan Urry in:

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"

If, before contraction, we add acid (H+) to the system, the force of
contraction and, respectively, the work gained as the polymer
reversibly contracts increase. Then, just before stretching, we remove
the added H+ from the system: the force of contraction and,
respectively, the work spent as we reversibly stretch the polymer
decrease. At the end of the cycle, THE NET WORK GAINED FROM
CONTRACTION AND STRETCHING IS POSITIVE.

So far things go against the second law of thermodynamics but the
complete account requires that the net work gained from adding H+ to
and removing H+ from the system be evaluated. If it is positive or
zero, the second law is definitively violated. If it is negative, the
second law is saved for the moment.

In the absence of the polymer, adding H+ to and removing the same
amount of H+ from the system, in a reversible fashion, would amount to
zero net work gained. The polymers designed by Urry, however, release H
+ as they contract, and absorb H+ as we stretch them. It is easy to
see (for people experienced in electrochemistry at least) that this
makes the net work gained from reversibly adding H+ to and then
removing the same amount of H+ from the system POSITIVE.

Conclusion: The reversible cycle:

1. The polymer is stretched. We add H+ to the system.
2. The polymers contracts and lifts a weight.
3. We remove the same amount of H+ from the system.
4. We stretch the polymer and restore the initial state of the
system.

violates the second law of thermodynamics.

Pentcho Valev

Hello Androcles:

On Sep 21, 2:42*pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"John Stafford" wrote in message

...

In article
,
hdbanannah wrote:

Leave it to Androcles the insane to simply put down
any constructive criticism.

It's easier to think that you're right when you close
your eyes and ears and ignore everyone else, isn't it?

Get some information.

Smiffy was attacking a person, just as the already
plonked banana ****wit is doing.

Well, you have seen Pentcho tack on yet another "improvement" to your
response, displaying a clear lack of understanding what the second law
means. Apparently he is not aware that ships use thermally-driven
ocean currents to circumnavigate the globe more efficiently, and that
doing so is still not a violation of the second law.

Is posting disinformation (intentional or not) on topics, aiding or
countering the second law of thermodynamics, as applies to
information?

David A. Smith