🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 26, 1:51 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 26, 1:59 am, dwhig...@peoplepc.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> The problem with the so called perpetuum mobile of the second kind is
> that, although it is possible in principle, it would convert heat into
> work too slowly: the heat supply is exptremely slow for the simple
> reason that the temperature gradient is almost zero. So perhaps such a
> device would be totally useless as an alternative source of energy and
> in our pragmatic world this immediately renders it "impossible". I
> suspect the first living creatures were perpetual motion machines of
> the second kind but then much faster mechanisms using external energy
> other than heat (e.g. the energy of photons) were superimposed.
 > Pentcho Valev

Dear Pentcho,
   I'm sorry my subtlety was lost on you and I should let it go at
that but someone needs to point out to you that you are not on solid
ground with much of your thinking. The above for instance. Whether a
perpetual motion machine is possible or not is possibly debatable, but
what constitutes one is not. It must be completely self contained
regarding its source of power and can NEVER run down! Regards, DWH
> - Show quoted text -