CRUCIAL THEOREM IN THERMODYNAMICS
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Chapt 3, Fiberglass Experiment; using only luminosity for distance measure #62; ATOM TOTALITY
Next: 3 cosmological models
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 6 May 2010 16:07 Pentcho Valev wrote on Thu, 06 May 2010 01:07:56 -0700: > Kelvin's version of the second law of thermodynamics: It is impossible > to perform a cyclic process with no other result than that heat is > absorbed from a reservoir, and work is performed. > > THEOREM: Kelvin's version of the second law is true if and only if, > whenever two INTERACTING heat engines absorb heat from a reservoir (the > surroundings) and perform reversible work, the following equality of > partial derivatives holds: > > (dF1 / dX2)_X1 = (dF2 / dX1)_X2 > > where "d" is the sign for partial derivative, F1 and F2 are work- > producing forces and X1 and X2 are the respective displacements. If the > two partial derivatives are not equal, the second law is false. > > Consider INTERACTING "chemical springs". There are two types of > macroscopic contractile polymers which on acidification (decreasing the > pH of the system) contract and can lift a weight: > > 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" > > Polymers designed by Urry (U) absorb protons on stretching (as their > length, Lu, increases), whereas polymers designed by Katchalsky (K) > release protons on stretching (as their length, Lk, increases). (See > discussion on p. 11020 in Urry's paper). > > Let us assume that two macroscopic polymers, one of each type (U and K) > are suspended in the same system. At constant temperature, if the second > law is true, we must have > > (dFu / dLk)_Lu = (dFk / dLu)_Lk > > where Fu>0 and Fk>0 are work-producing forces of contraction. The values > of the partial derivatives (dFu/dLk)_Lu and (dFk/dLu)_Lk can be > assessed from experimental results reported on p. 11020 in Urry's paper. > As K is being stretched (Lk increases), it releases protons, the pH > decreases and, accordingly, Fu must increase. Therefore, (dFu/ dLk)_Lu > is positive. In contrast, as U is being stretched (Lu increases), it > absorbs protons, the pH increases and Fk must decrease. Therefore, > (dFk/dLu)_Lk is negative. > > One partial derivative is positive, the other negative: this proves that > the second law of thermodynamics is false. Nope, only proves *again* that you do not understand it. -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 7 May 2010 09:50 Albertito wrote on Fri, 07 May 2010 04:34:04 -0700: > On 6 mayo, 10:07, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> Kelvin's version of the second law of thermodynamics: It is impossible >> to perform a cyclic process with no other result than that heat is >> absorbed from a reservoir, and work is performed. >> >> THEOREM: Kelvin's version of the second law is true if and only if, >> whenever two INTERACTING heat engines absorb heat from a reservoir (the >> surroundings) and perform reversible work, the following equality of >> partial derivatives holds: >> >> (dF1 / dX2)_X1 = (dF2 / dX1)_X2 >> >> where "d" is the sign for partial derivative, F1 and F2 are work- >> producing forces and X1 and X2 are the respective displacements. If the >> two partial derivatives are not equal, the second law is false. >> >> Consider INTERACTING "chemical springs". There are two types of >> macroscopic contractile polymers which on acidification (decreasing the >> pH of the system) contract and can lift a weight: >> >> 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" >> >> Polymers designed by Urry (U) absorb protons on stretching (as their >> length, Lu, increases), whereas polymers designed by Katchalsky (K) >> release protons on stretching (as their length, Lk, increases). (See >> discussion on p. 11020 in Urry's paper). >> >> Let us assume that two macroscopic polymers, one of each type (U and K) >> are suspended in the same system. At constant temperature, if the >> second law is true, we must have >> >> (dFu / dLk)_Lu = (dFk / dLu)_Lk >> >> where Fu>0 and Fk>0 are work-producing forces of contraction. The >> values of the partial derivatives (dFu/dLk)_Lu and (dFk/dLu)_Lk can >> be assessed from experimental results reported on p. 11020 in Urry's >> paper. As K is being stretched (Lk increases), it releases protons, the >> pH decreases and, accordingly, Fu must increase. Therefore, (dFu/ >> dLk)_Lu is positive. In contrast, as U is being stretched (Lu >> increases), it absorbs protons, the pH increases and Fk must decrease. >> Therefore, (dFk/dLu)_Lk is negative. >> >> One partial derivative is positive, the other negative: this proves >> that the second law of thermodynamics is false. >> >> Pentcho Valev >> pva...(a)yahoo.com > > You are right. The second law of thermodynamics is false, because of: Only real ignorants and crackpots as you or Pentcho can do such strong statement... but this is so, because both of you never studied thermodynamics [*] and still less applied the second law to physical, chemical, biological, or engineering problems. > 1. There can't be isolated systems in Nature. The second law is defined for open systems. In the local formulation it is d_iS >= 0 which is valid for *both* isolated and open systems. The special form valid only for isolated systems is an easy form given in introductory treatmens as those that Pentcho never was able to understand in despite of his mistakes being corrected during many years... No room to give him a more general and advanced formalism, but even without that information any average student knows that a closed room is not really an isolated system, but it can be often treated as an islated system at very good approximation for certain scales of time. Only students below the average can see a problem here and claim with surprise "but the room cannot be isolated!". Of course, this is not reflecting a problem with introductory thermodynamics textbooks but student is reflecting the more absolute lack of understanding of science and of formal models. (...) > 2. Entropy is a bogus concept. You can define entropy in any fashion > you like. The definition of thermodynamic entropy is universal. The S which refers the above law (d_iS >= 0) is unambiguously defined in textbooks in thermodynamics. Those textbooks explains how to apply the expression for S to practical problems. There is something named informational entropy, which is related to something named information or ignorance, but confusions between different concepts is the basis for claims as yours. Also claims as: "We know that information can't be lost in our universe, but information is transferred from one system to another." are the source of many mistakes when placed in the hands of guys under the average student level some of whom present himself as a quantum gravity researcher in knol :-D Regardsssss [*] Nor relativity, mechanics, electrodynamics, gravity, Spanish language... :-D -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 7 May 2010 14:09
Albertito wrote on Fri, 07 May 2010 09:55:58 -0700: > On 7 mayo, 15:50, "Juan R." González-Álvarez > <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote: >> Albertito wrote on Fri, 07 May 2010 04:34:04 -0700: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 6 mayo, 10:07, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> Kelvin's version of the second law of thermodynamics: It is >> >> impossible to perform a cyclic process with no other result than >> >> that heat is absorbed from a reservoir, and work is performed. >> >> >> THEOREM: Kelvin's version of the second law is true if and only if, >> >> whenever two INTERACTING heat engines absorb heat from a reservoir >> >> (the surroundings) and perform reversible work, the following >> >> equality of partial derivatives holds: >> >> >> (dF1 / dX2)_X1 = (dF2 / dX1)_X2 >> >> >> where "d" is the sign for partial derivative, F1 and F2 are work- >> >> producing forces and X1 and X2 are the respective displacements. If >> >> the two partial derivatives are not equal, the second law is false. >> >> >> Consider INTERACTING "chemical springs". There are two types of >> >> macroscopic contractile polymers which on acidification (decreasing >> >> the pH of the system) contract and can lift a weight: >> >> >>http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp972167tJ. 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" >> >> >> Polymers designed by Urry (U) absorb protons on stretching (as their >> >> length, Lu, increases), whereas polymers designed by Katchalsky (K) >> >> release protons on stretching (as their length, Lk, increases). (See >> >> discussion on p. 11020 in Urry's paper). >> >> >> Let us assume that two macroscopic polymers, one of each type (U and >> >> K) are suspended in the same system. At constant temperature, if the >> >> second law is true, we must have >> >> >> (dFu / dLk)_Lu = (dFk / dLu)_Lk >> >> >> where Fu>0 and Fk>0 are work-producing forces of contraction. The >> >> values of the partial derivatives (dFu/dLk)_Lu and (dFk/dLu)_Lk >> >> can be assessed from experimental results reported on p. 11020 in >> >> Urry's paper. As K is being stretched (Lk increases), it releases >> >> protons, the pH decreases and, accordingly, Fu must increase. >> >> Therefore, (dFu/ dLk)_Lu is positive. In contrast, as U is being >> >> stretched (Lu increases), it absorbs protons, the pH increases and >> >> Fk must decrease. Therefore, (dFk/dLu)_Lk is negative. >> >> >> One partial derivative is positive, the other negative: this proves >> >> that the second law of thermodynamics is false. >> >> >> Pentcho Valev >> >> pva...(a)yahoo.com >> >> > You are right. The second law of thermodynamics is false, because of: >> >> Only real ignorants and crackpots as you or Pentcho can do such strong >> statement... but this is so, because both of you never studied >> thermodynamics [*] and still less applied the second law to physical, >> chemical, biological, or engineering problems. > > Firstly, learn some English. "Ignorant" is an adjective, not a noun, so > it isn't allowed a plural form as "ignorants". Who is that ignoramus > here? :-) Response: Albertito once again. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ignorants http://www.springerlink.com/content/yxr2qdawbxl3q3xp/ http://dbzer0.com/blog/arguments-from-ignorants > >> > 1. There can't be isolated systems in Nature. >> >> The second law is defined for open systems. In the local formulation it >> is >> >> d_iS >= 0 >> >> which is valid for *both* isolated and open systems. >> >> The special form valid only for isolated systems is an easy form given >> in introductory treatmens as those that Pentcho never was able to >> understand in despite of his mistakes being corrected during many >> years... >> >> No room to give him a more general and advanced formalism, but even >> without that information any average student knows that a closed room >> is not really an isolated system, but it can be often treated as an >> islated system at very good approximation for certain scales of time. >> >> Only students below the average can see a problem here and claim with >> surprise "but the room cannot be isolated!". Of course, this is not >> reflecting a problem with introductory thermodynamics textbooks but >> student is reflecting the more absolute lack of understanding of >> science and of formal models. > > There are _closed_systems_, _open_system_ and _isolated_system_. You > mentioned a closed room as an isolated system. That's a incorrect > example of isolated system, because a closed room fits more in the > concept of closed system (i.e. a closed system is that that can exchange > energy but no matter exchange with its surroundings). I said that even "any average student knows that a closed room is not really an isolated system". As said they know how and when it can be *approximately* treated as one. You do not and as was predicted above write with surprise: "but the room cannot be isolated!" :-D In any case the main point is that your claim the second law is wrong because no system is really isolated was plain nonsense. You did not know that d_iS >= 0 is valid with independence of d_eS. Yes, you never saw that formula before, but this is not a surprise for us; it happens that you never *really* studied thermodynamics (as Pentcho :-D). > >> (...) >> >> > 2. Entropy is a bogus concept. You can define entropy in any >> > fashion you like. >> >> The definition of thermodynamic entropy is universal. The S which >> refers the above law (d_iS >= 0) is unambiguously defined in textbooks >> in thermodynamics. >> >> >> Those textbooks explains how to apply the expression for S to practical >> problems. >> >> There is something named informational entropy, which is related to >> something named information or ignorance, but confusions between >> different concepts is the basis for claims as yours. > > From your stupid concept of entropy it arises a so called arrow of time, > and then you make a problem of that arrow of time because of your stupid > and arbitrary definition of entropy. Yes, you claim that thermodynamics is stupid, just as you were for years claiming that relativity is stupid. It just happen that both are too difficult for you and this is the source of your dissispiration. > Please, answer this question: > > "Is our universe an open system, a closed system or it is > an isolated system?" Nobody knows. Some researchers claim it is isolated, others claim it is not. In any case the laws of thermodynamics are not built over cosmological speculations. The law d_iS >= 0 is independent of if universe is isolated or not, and has been excellently verified in experience. Any physicist, chemist, biologist, engineer... knows the second law and how to use it to explain observations and do predictions. Ignorants and crackpots as you and Pentcho make silly statements as: "The second law of thermodynamics is false." >> Also claims as: >> >> "We know that information can't be lost in our universe, but >> information is transferred from one system to another." >> >> are the source of many mistakes when placed in the hands of guys under >> the average student level some of whom present himself as a quantum >> gravity researcher in knol :-D >> >> Regardsssss > > P.S: Sigues siendo el mismo tonto del culo de siempre :-) Fortunately, your "quantum gravity research" (aka your nonsense) is not more available in knol. In fact it seems that your name was deleted from knol database and that you are not more posting nonsense and noise therein. Those are good news :-D http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics.relativity/2009-06/msg02522.html http://knol.google.com/k/albert-zotkin/quantum-gravity/2592crda49l3p/1# >> [*] Nor relativity, mechanics, electrodynamics, gravity, Spanish >> language... :-D >> >> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/ >> >> BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/ca...- >> Ocultar texto de la cita - >> >> - Mostrar texto de la cita - -- http://www.canonicalscience.org/ BLOG: http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html |