Re: "Can the Second Law of Thermodynamics Be Circumvented?"

On Jun 24, 9:45 am, "Rup" <r...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
"Can the Second Law of Thermodynamics Be Circumvented?"

     The validity of the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics seems to be
beyond question. Under the first law, the total energy content of a closed
system must remain constant. Under the second law, the availability of that
energy for useful purposes must always decrease or remain constant. In
effect, the First Law of Thermodynamics states that you can't win and the
Second Law states that, furthermore, you can't break even. The First Law of
Thermodynamics is unquestionably true, energy can neither be created nor
destroyed, General Relativity not withstanding. The Second Law of
Thermodynamics stands on less firm ground because it is a law based upon
statistics. As such, it is in the same category as an actuarial table.

So far, you are correct. The problem here is that a majority of
readers lack a sufficient knowlege of basic physic principles to grasp
the concepts of Thermodynamics or Statistical Mechanics.

In fact, a majority of even engineering students employ Thermodynamics
by rote, without having developed any significant appreciation of
knowledge of the fundamentals of physics upon which form its basis.
I have to agree that your comparison of Thermodynamics to Actuarial
Science is excellent. Both are statistical in their nature, and both
supply practical solutions for practical problems. Still, neither
are basic science. The First Law of Themdynamis is base on the
fundamental physics axiom that energy can be neither created nor
destroyed. Hence, the First Law is so derived. The Second law is
simply and extension of the first law, and puts limits on the
transformation of one form of energy to another, and the extraction of
practical work (and here by work I refer to the classical physics
definition of "work".

Thermodynamics, at least to me as a physicists, puts a different spin
on long known priciples of basic physics, and substitues coined terms
like entropy, enthalpy, free and other existing physical concepts,
removes a bit of the need for the physics mathematical definitions for
them to be applied to practical problems, without recourse to the
fundamentals on which the terms are based

Actually, during my undergraduate college years as a physics major, I
had to complete three separate courses in Thermodynamics; One from
the physics department, one from the chemistry department, and the
third from the engineering department. All presented Thermodynamics
from a different perspective, employed differing terminology, and
after my 2nd year in physics, leaned absolutely nothing new.

     One who observes Brownian motion in a microscope might reasonably
conclude that,in principle at least, a nanomachine could be built which
would bypass the Second Law of Thermodynamics. When a liquid containing
microscopic particles is observed, the particles are seen to be in
continuous (Brownian) motion. That motion is caused by random thermal
impacts between the molecules of the liquid and the particles. If the
thermal motion of water molecules can produce a visibly observable motion in
particles which are at least 10^15 times as massive, it certainly not
unreasonable to believe that suitable nanomachines could organize the effect
to produce a useful mechanical output.

Sorry, this is science fiction, created by fantasy writers and not
educated basic scientists. It's quite easy to cross this line in
speculating, but it's has no scientific basis.

Now if you are really interested in nanomachines, I would direct you
for starters to a book called "Molecular Biology of the Gene" by
Watson, Hopkins, Roberts, Steitz, and Weiner (Published by Benjamin
Cummings Publising Company). This now somewhat classic text runs close
to 1200 pages and is not cheap.

There you can find actual depictions of real nanomachines, not
fictional ones. Start on page 503 in my copy of the 4th edition, in a
chapter entitled "The Replication of Bacterial Viruses". These are the
first nanomachines that I've ever encountered, and not designed by
man, but by nature.

Now, for something really scarey, Turn to another page, and there you
will find some nanomachines produced by nature. Start with page 184,
which contains a paagrphy titled "Bacterial Viruses (Phanges) --
Provide Simple, Easy-To-Study Chromosones".

Read though this section and turn to the following page, on which you
will observe a electron micrograph of a backteriophage T4.

Take a look at the electron micro-photograph, and if this isn't a
nanomachine produced by nature, I really don't know what you could
call it. It's a tiny device that attaches itself to bacteria using its
"legs" then proceeds to drill into the into the virus body to inject
its DNA.

It was short of a rude awakening when I learned that nanomachines like
this have existed for potentially millions of years before man, and
still exist. Sort of an eye opener isn't it. I was for at least me.

You should be able to take a look at this book in any major university
library, since it's now required reading for students. Kind of a
heavy read, but the photos and sketches are priceless. If hard
pressed, I could always scan 4 pages from the book and email them to
you.

My thoughts as a simple physicist is that though advances in the
techniques of modifying DNA, perhaps in possibly the next 200 years,
science may learn enought about encoded DNA in phage type genes to
manipulate the design of their nano-structures for useful ends.

The postulated nanomachines would
then be able to export energy to the outside environment that it obtained by
reducing the temperature of the liquid. The exported energy would be
converted to heat and raise the temperature of the external environment as
the output performed useful work. The resultant temperature difference
between the environment and the liquid will then cause the energy which had
done useful work to flow back into the liquid to return it to its original
temperature and allows the process to continue indefinitely.

Wow, wouldn't that just be great! ROFL. Still, where does all this
energy come from without destroying the environment here on planet
earth?

     James Clark Maxwell proposed a hypothetical perpetual motion machine,
known as Maxwell's Demon, which was not proven to be THEORETICALLY
unworkable for 75 years.

This tells me that you don't understand Maxwell's Demon, and hence
that you are not a physicist, or likely a physical scientist.

     There is a modification to the concept of Maxwell's Demon for which
there is, at least as yet, no valid theoretical objection. Suppose that the
two chambers of the Maxwell's Demon example no longer rely on a demon but
are separated by a diffusion membrane having a permeability from side A to
side B which is higher than the permeability from side B to side A. The
energy required to allow the membrane to make the decisions it needs to make
in order for it to function in this manner is available in the kinetic
energy of the gas molecules passing through it.

Actually, the process that you are describing is commonly termed
"Reverse Osmosis". It requires energy to expened for it to function.

     The first theoretical objection to this type of perpetual motion
machine that the author has found in literature is that it cannot work
because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Actually, you must have not researched this in any depth. You cannot
make a device like this work because it violates the conservation of
energy.

This is hardly a valid
objection since the arrangement is specifically designed to bypass the
limitations of that law.

Do it and you will likely earn a Nobel prize, which is from a
Statistical Mechanics viewpoint, highly unlikely.

Get a clue, this is not your censured website, this is usenet, where
anyone that points out the logical inconsistencies in your posts can
respond, as I am doing. So lets see if you have the character to post
this response to your private little website. Still, have fun. The web
hosters have lot to gain financially from guys like you. Actually,
that is the only reason that they allow the hosting of crackpot
science sites, and porno sites. Both make money for them.

Harry C.

.