Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
WATER VIOLATES THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
5 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Feb 10, 2012, 1:25:32 AM2/10/12
to
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-Electromagnetic-Theory-Modern-Perspective/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-Electricity-Magnetism-Second-Physics/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 pressure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1At3Gcd-No
Floating Water Bridge - Elmar Fuchs (SETI Talks)
A tentative explanation of the mysterious pressure:
http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev2.pdf
August 12, 2004, Pentcho Valev: Biased Thermal Motion and the Second
Law of Thermodynamics
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
PUSHING APART the plates of a constant-charge capacitor immersed in
water:
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Electromagnetic-Theory-Modern-Perspective/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-Electricity-Magnetism-Second-Physics/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 pressure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1At3Gcd-No
Floating Water Bridge - Elmar Fuchs (SETI Talks)
A tentative explanation of the mysterious pressure:
http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev2.pdf
August 12, 2004, Pentcho Valev: Biased Thermal Motion and the Second
Law of Thermodynamics
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Tonico
Feb 10, 2012, 7:07:54 AM2/10/12
to
On Feb 10, 8:25 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> 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-Electromagnetic-Theory-Modern-Pers...
> Consider the "somewhat mysterious" pressure emerging between and
> PUSHING APART the plates of a constant-charge capacitor immersed in
> water:
>
> 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-Electricity-Magnetism-Second-Physics/...
> 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."
>
Richard Tobin
Feb 10, 2012, 9:27:19 AM2/10/12
to
In article <c222a739-9899-40e5...@s13g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
-- Richard
Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> 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?
>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.
-- Richard
Androcles
Feb 10, 2012, 11:55:15 AM2/10/12
to
"Richard Tobin" <ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:jh39g7$1eeh$1...@matchbox.inf.ed.ac.uk...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venturi_effect
Valev is out of his mysterious depth, he will not violate the
second law of thermodynamics.
Pentcho Valev
Feb 10, 2012, 1:44:47 PM2/10/12
to
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/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
pva...@yahoo.com
"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
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
Feb 13, 2012, 3:17:52 AM2/13/12
to
The following reasoning by Granville Sewell is valid (and not
necessarily leads to creationist conclusions):
http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/AML_3497.pdf
A second look at the second law, Granville Sewell, Mathematics
Department, University of Texas, El Paso, United States: "If an
increase in order is extremely improbable when a system is closed
["isolated" is more correct], it is still extremely improbable when
the system is open, unless something is entering which makes it not
extremely improbable. (...) Order can increase in an open system, not
because the laws of probability are suspended when the door is open,
but simply because order may walk in through the door.... If we found
evidence that DNA, auto parts, computer chips, and books entered
through the Earth's atmosphere at some time in the past, then perhaps
the appearance of humans, cars, computers, and encyclopedias on a
previously barren planet could be explained without postulating a
violation of the second law here.... But if all we see entering is
radiation and meteorite fragments, it seems clear that what is
entering through the boundary cannot explain the increase in order
observed here."
Natural or artificial devices violating the second law of
thermodynamics (converting heat into work cyclically and isothermally)
would be commonplace if it were not for a major inconvenience: they
function extremely slowly, due to the lack of initial temperature
gradient responsible for the heat supply. That is, the lifetime of
such a device would prove too short - natural forces would destroy it
before considerable amount of work could be produced or even before
the anti-second-law behaviour could become noticeable. And, what is
even more important, people do not like slow engines. If engines are
too slow and cannot make money, then they simply cannot exist and that
is a Supreme Law of Nature. Anyone questioning the Supreme Law
automatically becomes a "perpetuum mobile of the second kind"
constructor, that is, he/she is just as mad as people trying to
extract energy out of nothing.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
necessarily leads to creationist conclusions):
http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/AML_3497.pdf
A second look at the second law, Granville Sewell, Mathematics
Department, University of Texas, El Paso, United States: "If an
increase in order is extremely improbable when a system is closed
["isolated" is more correct], it is still extremely improbable when
the system is open, unless something is entering which makes it not
extremely improbable. (...) Order can increase in an open system, not
because the laws of probability are suspended when the door is open,
but simply because order may walk in through the door.... If we found
evidence that DNA, auto parts, computer chips, and books entered
through the Earth's atmosphere at some time in the past, then perhaps
the appearance of humans, cars, computers, and encyclopedias on a
previously barren planet could be explained without postulating a
violation of the second law here.... But if all we see entering is
radiation and meteorite fragments, it seems clear that what is
entering through the boundary cannot explain the increase in order
observed here."
Natural or artificial devices violating the second law of
thermodynamics (converting heat into work cyclically and isothermally)
would be commonplace if it were not for a major inconvenience: they
function extremely slowly, due to the lack of initial temperature
gradient responsible for the heat supply. That is, the lifetime of
such a device would prove too short - natural forces would destroy it
before considerable amount of work could be produced or even before
the anti-second-law behaviour could become noticeable. And, what is
even more important, people do not like slow engines. If engines are
too slow and cannot make money, then they simply cannot exist and that
is a Supreme Law of Nature. Anyone questioning the Supreme Law
automatically becomes a "perpetuum mobile of the second kind"
constructor, that is, he/she is just as mad as people trying to
extract energy out of nothing.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Tonico
Feb 13, 2012, 5:19:52 AM2/13/12
to
Androcles
Feb 13, 2012, 10:14:51 AM2/13/12
to
"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:da7e8971-118d-4bed...@l14g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
| The following reasoning by Granville Sewell is valid
No it is NOT valid!
Pentcho Valev
Feb 14, 2012, 4:01:16 AM2/14/12
to
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
pva...@yahoo.com
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
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
Feb 14, 2012, 6:45:05 PM2/14/12
to
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/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
"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."
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
pva...@yahoo.com
Tonico
Feb 14, 2012, 7:08:42 PM2/14/12
to
Pentcho Valev
Feb 15, 2012, 6:33:30 AM2/15/12
to
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/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
"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
5 in FIG. 1 below:
http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~yecko/ferro/papers/Fundamentals/Brevik_ElecMagnFluids.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
pva...@yahoo.com
Androcles
Feb 15, 2012, 10:28:17 AM2/15/12
to
news:2acda751-d05e-4ccd...@m24g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
lies, they'll still be lies.
| http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node44.html
| "However, in experiments in which a capacitor
Doesn't matter how often you copy and paste the same
| "However, in experiments in which a capacitor
lies, they'll still be lies.
Pentcho Valev
Feb 16, 2012, 2:35:34 AM2/16/12
to
http://proceedings.aip.org/resource/2/apcpcs/643/1/430_1
AIP Conf. Proc. 643, pp. 430-435, Pentcho Valev 2002: "...as two
vertical constant-charge capacitor plates partially dip into a pool of
a liquid dielectric (e.g. water), the liquid between them rises high
above the surface of the rest of the liquid in the pool. Evidently, if
one punches a macroscopic hole in one of the plates, nothing could
prevent the liquid between the plates from leaking out through the
hole and generating an eternal waterfall outside the capacitor. This
hypothesis has been discussed on many occasions but so far no serious
counter-argument has been raised."
Experimental demonstration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6KAH1JpdPg
"Liquid Dielectric Capacitor"
More argumentation:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node44.html
fields: Pressure variation and stability, I. BREVIK: "FIG. 1. Two
AIP Conf. Proc. 643, pp. 430-435, Pentcho Valev 2002: "...as two
vertical constant-charge capacitor plates partially dip into a pool of
a liquid dielectric (e.g. water), the liquid between them rises high
above the surface of the rest of the liquid in the pool. Evidently, if
one punches a macroscopic hole in one of the plates, nothing could
prevent the liquid between the plates from leaking out through the
hole and generating an eternal waterfall outside the capacitor. This
hypothesis has been discussed on many occasions but so far no serious
counter-argument has been raised."
Experimental demonstration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6KAH1JpdPg
"Liquid Dielectric Capacitor"
More argumentation:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/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/~yecko/ferro/papers/Fundamentals/Brevik_ElecMagnFluids.pdf
Can. J . Phys., 60. 449 (1982), Fluids in electric and magnetic
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/~yecko/ferro/papers/Fundamentals/Brevik_ElecMagnFluids.pdf
fields: Pressure variation and stability, I. BREVIK: "FIG. 1. Two
Androcles
Feb 16, 2012, 11:52:56 AM2/16/12
to
There is no waterfall, you LYING bastard.
Pentcho Valev
Feb 17, 2012, 3:10:43 AM2/17/12
to
Consider an oversimplified picture of the arrangement of water dipoles
between the (vertical) plates of the capacitor:
P+ (-)(+) (-)(+) (-)(+)..........(-)(+) -P
where P+ and -P are the positive and negative plate respectively. This
arrangement has the lowest potential energy so any disturbance caused
by thermal motion can only increase the potential energy, at the
expense of heat absorbed from the surroundings. For instance, if the
second dipole on the left receives a thermal stroke and undergoes
rotation, the picture changes:
P+ (-)(+) (+)(-) (-)(+)..........(-)(+) -P
As a result, the electrostatic repulsion increases and the string
tends to stretch. Macroscopically, this is expressed as a hydrostatic
pressure on the plates. The force is non-conservative and can do work
at the expense of heat absorbed from the surroundings.
between the (vertical) plates of the capacitor:
P+ (-)(+) (-)(+) (-)(+)..........(-)(+) -P
where P+ and -P are the positive and negative plate respectively. This
arrangement has the lowest potential energy so any disturbance caused
by thermal motion can only increase the potential energy, at the
expense of heat absorbed from the surroundings. For instance, if the
second dipole on the left receives a thermal stroke and undergoes
rotation, the picture changes:
P+ (-)(+) (+)(-) (-)(+)..........(-)(+) -P
As a result, the electrostatic repulsion increases and the string
tends to stretch. Macroscopically, this is expressed as a hydrostatic
pressure on the plates. The force is non-conservative and can do work
at the expense of heat absorbed from the surroundings.
Androcles
Feb 17, 2012, 3:59:58 AM2/17/12
to
Force does not equate to motion.
Learn the basics, idiot.
Pentcho Valev
Mar 1, 2012, 11:39:40 AM3/1/12
to
http://www.kostic.niu.edu/2ndLaw/2011SecondLaw-frontmatter.pdf
AIP Conference Proceedings, Volume 1411, Second Law of Thermodynamics: Status and Challenges, San Diego, California, USA 14-15 June 2011: "No physical principle holds greater sway in the natural world than the second law of thermodynamics. It is widely regarded as the quintessential scientific truth, in large part because no exception to it has been recognized by the scientific community during its 150-year history. Over the last 20 years, however, this situation has changed. More than two dozen challenges to it have entered the mainstream scientific literature, the majority of which remain unresolved. (...) Competitions are most exciting when the stakes are high and the competitors evenly matched. After 150 years of preeminence, the second law finds itself in such a contest, where challenges have put its absolute status at risk. The outcome is uncertain, but for the first time it plays in an 'evenly split game.' That is, the second law is in a jeu parti: it is in jeopardy."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
AIP Conference Proceedings, Volume 1411, Second Law of Thermodynamics: Status and Challenges, San Diego, California, USA 14-15 June 2011: "No physical principle holds greater sway in the natural world than the second law of thermodynamics. It is widely regarded as the quintessential scientific truth, in large part because no exception to it has been recognized by the scientific community during its 150-year history. Over the last 20 years, however, this situation has changed. More than two dozen challenges to it have entered the mainstream scientific literature, the majority of which remain unresolved. (...) Competitions are most exciting when the stakes are high and the competitors evenly matched. After 150 years of preeminence, the second law finds itself in such a contest, where challenges have put its absolute status at risk. The outcome is uncertain, but for the first time it plays in an 'evenly split game.' That is, the second law is in a jeu parti: it is in jeopardy."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
Mar 10, 2012, 1:43:50 AM3/10/12
to
http://www.kostic.niu.edu/2ndLaw/2011SecondLaw-frontmatter.pdf
AIP Conference Proceedings, Volume 1411, Second Law of Thermodynamics: Status and Challenges, San Diego, California, USA 14-15 June 2011: "No physical principle holds greater sway in the natural world than the second law of thermodynamics. It is widely regarded as the quintessential scientific truth, in large part because no exception to it has been recognized by the scientific community during its 150-year history. Over the last 20 years, however, this situation has changed. More than two dozen challenges to it have entered the mainstream scientific literature, the majority of which remain unresolved. (...) Competitions are most exciting when the stakes are high and the competitors evenly matched. After 150 years of preeminence, the second law finds itself in such a contest, where challenges have put its absolute status at risk. The outcome is uncertain, but for the first time it plays in an 'evenly split game.' That is, the second law is in a jeu parti: it is in jeopardy."
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-03/09/230-percent-efficient-leds
AIP Conference Proceedings, Volume 1411, Second Law of Thermodynamics: Status and Challenges, San Diego, California, USA 14-15 June 2011: "No physical principle holds greater sway in the natural world than the second law of thermodynamics. It is widely regarded as the quintessential scientific truth, in large part because no exception to it has been recognized by the scientific community during its 150-year history. Over the last 20 years, however, this situation has changed. More than two dozen challenges to it have entered the mainstream scientific literature, the majority of which remain unresolved. (...) Competitions are most exciting when the stakes are high and the competitors evenly matched. After 150 years of preeminence, the second law finds itself in such a contest, where challenges have put its absolute status at risk. The outcome is uncertain, but for the first time it plays in an 'evenly split game.' That is, the second law is in a jeu parti: it is in jeopardy."
"However, while MIT's diode puts out more than twice as much energy in photons as it's fed in electrons, it doesn't violate the conservation of energy because it appears to draw in heat energy from its surroundings instead. When it gets more than 100 percentelectrically-efficient, it begins to cool down, stealing energy from its environment to convert into more photons. In slightly more detail, the researchers chose an LED with a small band gap, and applied smaller and smaller voltages. Every time the voltage was halved, the electrical power was reduced by a factor of four, but the light power emitted only dropped by a factor of two. The extra energy came instead from lattice vibrations."
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/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."
http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~yecko/ferro/papers/Fundamentals/Brevik_ElecMagnFluids.pdf
Can. J . Phys., 60. 449 (1982), Fluids in electric and magnetic fields: Pressure variation and stability, I. BREVIK: "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."
Trolls? Of course. In Bulgaria such trolls are dealt with simply and efficiently:
Can. J . Phys., 60. 449 (1982), Fluids in electric and magnetic fields: Pressure variation and stability, I. BREVIK: "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."
http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/valevfaq.htm
"What are Mr Valev's qualifications as a scientist? This is one of life's great mysteries. A literature search has revealed no publications. I had thought that Mr Valev worked at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, but Petr Kuzmic has pointed out that he is actually employed by the State Commission of Varieties, 125 Tzarigradsko Chaussee, Block 1, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria, and apparently it is only his web connection that comes through the Academy. Subsequently he described himself as the head (since 1994) of the Technological Laboratory of this Commission, and described its work as testing, approbation and control of seeds. Puzzlement on this subject extends even to Bulgaria, as B. V. Toshev, head of the Departments of Physical Chemistry and of Chemistry Education at the University of Sofia, noted in a message to the Chemistry Education Discussion List in April 2005, when he asked: "Who is Pentcho Valev? What is his education? Nobody in Bulgaria knows that. He does not belong either to the researchers or to the Bulgarian education community. I even wonder if he is a real man?!"
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/bulgarianscienceproblems/message/730
"Since 1998 I have been following the Internet presentations of a strange man named Pentcho Valev. His postings to different chemistry and physics professional forums come from an e-mail address belonging to the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. He has two mad ideas: the velocity of light is not constant and Einstein is a charlatan and Gibbs' thermodynamics is not correct. These two science paradigms zombie the scientific community; therefore the education based on them damages irreversibly the youth. Pentcho Valev was titled as a 'Bulgarian troll'. The forums did not ban him but the recommendation was: "Don't feed the troll and never reply or comment his postings". It is a clever recommendation! As a boy I thought the trolls lived in Scandinavia. Now, with some surprise, I recognize that many of them live in Bulgaria. Dear colleagues, do not feed the trolls - then, after some time, they will simply move to another place. It is worthless to argue with them. Have a nice weekend, B.V. Toshev"
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
Mar 12, 2012, 6:49:21 AM3/12/12
to
Something's going on in the world:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/48889
"Researchers at Hong Kong Polytechnic University claim to have invented a new kind of graphene-based "battery" that runs solely on ambient heat. The device is said to capture the thermal energy of ions in a solution and convert it into electricity."
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1203/1203.0161.pdf
"The energy of ionic thermal motion presents universally, which is as high as... (...) Moreover, the thermal velocity of ions can be maintained by the external environment, which means it is unlimited. However, little study has been reported on converting the ionic thermal energy into electricity. Here we present a graphene device with asymmetric electrodes configuration to capture such ionic thermal energy and convert it into electricity. An output voltage around 0.35 V was generated when the device was dipped into saturated CuCl2 solution, in which this value lasted over twenty days. (...) Full Methods and any associated references are available in the online version of the paper at www.nature.com/nature."
The second law of thermodynamics? Does it still hold "the supreme position among the laws of Nature"?
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/48889
"Researchers at Hong Kong Polytechnic University claim to have invented a new kind of graphene-based "battery" that runs solely on ambient heat. The device is said to capture the thermal energy of ions in a solution and convert it into electricity."
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1203/1203.0161.pdf
"The energy of ionic thermal motion presents universally, which is as high as... (...) Moreover, the thermal velocity of ions can be maintained by the external environment, which means it is unlimited. However, little study has been reported on converting the ionic thermal energy into electricity. Here we present a graphene device with asymmetric electrodes configuration to capture such ionic thermal energy and convert it into electricity. An output voltage around 0.35 V was generated when the device was dipped into saturated CuCl2 solution, in which this value lasted over twenty days. (...) Full Methods and any associated references are available in the online version of the paper at www.nature.com/nature."
The second law of thermodynamics? Does it still hold "the supreme position among the laws of Nature"?
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
0 new messages