🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 24, 3:28 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 24, 1:03 am, dwhig...@peoplepc.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 21, 5:32 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 21, 11:59 am, "rayoha...@yahoo.com.ar" <juanp...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 21, 3:52 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 21, 4:46 am, "rayoha...@yahoo.com.ar" <juanp...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote in sci.physics:
>
> > > > > > On Jan 20, 10:21 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jan 18, 2:58 pm, blackboab <blackb...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > > > > > > sci.physics:
>
> > > > > > > > The second law of thermodynics says that the direction of time is
> > > > > > > > dictated by the increase of entropy,.
>
> > > > > > > Does it? Why don't you read Jos Uffink's paper:
>
> > > > > > >http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
> > > > > > > Jos Uffink: "This summary leads to the question whether it is fruitful
> > > > > > > to see irreversibility or time-asymmetry as the essence of the second
> > > > > > > law. Is it not more straightforward, in view of the unargued
> > > > > > > statements of Kelvin, the bold claims of Clausius and the strained
> > > > > > > attempts of Planck, to give up this idea? I believe that Ehrenfest-
> > > > > > > Afanassjewa was right in her verdict that the discussion about the
> > > > > > > arrow of time as expressed in the second law of the thermodynamics is
> > > > > > > actually a RED HERRING."
>
> > > > > > > Jos Uffink:http://www.phys.uu.nl/igg/jos/
>
> > > > > > > Pentcho Valev
> > > > > > > pva...@yahoo.com
>
> > > > > > i had looked that article. it is interesting, but any consideration of
> > > > > > thermodynamics that not relate this to statistical mechanics seems to
> > > > > > me out of target. and it get lost in mathematical considerations about
> > > > > > things as for example
> > > > > > when a process is irreversible or not. it get lost, because if you not
> > > > > > look at the microscopic level, then you cannot look for a basis from
> > > > > > which assume good sense. take a look to the article and u will see
> > > > > > that.
>
> > > > > You mean there is no "good sense" in classical thermodynamics?
> > > > > Ironically, the alleged STRENGTH of that science was that it was
> > > > > PHENOMENOLOGICAL, that is, it did not have to deal with the
> > > > > microscopic level and yet it could give, through rigorous deduction,
> > > > > valuable results. But you can verify this. Take a look at Clausius
> > > > > 1850 deduction of the original version of the second law of
> > > > > thermodynamics: "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.":
>
> > > > >http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/Clausius.html
> > > > > "Ueber die bewegende Kraft der Warme" 1850 Clausius: "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."
>
> > > > > If Clausius deduction is invalid (try to discover why it IS invalid),
> > > > > then you are right: there is no "good sense" in classical
> > > > > thermodynamics.
>
> > > > > Pentcho Valev
> > > > > pva...@yahoo.com
>
> > > > no, classical thermodynamics has sense, it is a very good theory, but
> > > > it has no sense when u try to link it with arrow time, that is another
> > > > story, I had expressed wrong (the word this sings to a preferred arrow
> > > > time direction, sorry for that), and u then had a bad interpretation,
> > > > it is my fault, read entirely what i´d writed.
>
> > > Let me translate yout statement that classical thermodynamics "is a
> > > very good theory, but it has no sense when u try to link it with arrow
> > > time" in the following way: The version of second law saying perpetuum
> > > mobile of the second kind is impossible is correct; the version of the
> > > second law saying the entropy always increases is nonsense. I disagree
> > > with the first part (perpetuum mobile of the second kind IS POSSIBLE)
> > > but this disagreement of mine is irrelevant for the moment.
>
> > I responded 4 hours earlier to let you know I had already been there
> > 18 years ago. Please let us hear your version. DWH
>
> My version of what? If you mean perpetuum mobile of the second kind,
> see for instance my two comments in:
>
> http://waterinbiology.blogspot.com/2007/02/why-does-water-do-that.html
>
> Pentcho Valev

I responded to you as well in my last response to ray. I had not given
the subject bmuch thought in the last 18 years and it has been very
refreshing, and I thank you for broaching said subject. I have had an
epiphany and no longer believe a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd
kind would have to have existed forever. I am an extreme agnostic, but
I now think that Mother Nature works in mysterious ways, far beyond
our puny ability to understand, and is grooming me to help her revise
the 2nd law! Regards, DWH.                                      >
pva...@yahoo.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -