Take a suspended and stretched spring. It can lift a weight as it contracts, that is, we GAIN work. However, in order to restore the initial stretched state of the spring, we must SPEND work so there is no net gain. If both contraction and stretching are carried out in a reversible fashion, the net work gained at the end of the cycle is zero.

Consider again a suspended and stretched spring but this time it is "chemical", that is, we have one of the macroscopic contractile polymers described by Dan Urry in:

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"

If, before contraction, we add acid (H+) to the system, the force of contraction and, respectively, the work gained as the polymer reversibly contracts increase. Then, just before stretching, we remove the added H+ from the system: the force of contraction and, respectively, the work spent as we reversibly stretch the polymer decrease. At the end of the cycle, THE NET WORK GAINED FROM CONTRACTION AND STRETCHING IS POSITIVE.

So far things go against the second law of thermodynamics but the complete account requires that the net work gained from adding H+ to and removing H+ from the system be evaluated. If it is positive or zero, the second law is definitively violated. If it is negative, the second law is saved for the moment.

In the absence of the polymer, adding H+ to and removing the same amount of H+ from the system, in a reversible fashion, would amount to zero net work gained. The polymers designed by Urry, however, release H+ as they contract, and absorb H+ as we stretch them. It is easy to see (for people experienced in electrochemistry at least) that this makes the net work gained from reversibly adding H+ to and then removing the same amount of H+ from the system POSITIVE.

Conclusion: The reversible cycle:

1. The polymer is stretched. We add H+ to the system.
2. The polymers contracts and lifts a weight.
3. We remove the same amount of H+ from the system.
4. We stretch the polymer and restore the initial state of the system.

violates the second law of thermodynamics.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Yes PV;

There is no such thing as a closed thermodynamic system. It is not possible. This is another example of how common physics is completely incorrect.

Common physics cannot account for biological system of heat and entropy. A biological system breaks the first and second wishful laws of thermodynamics. From now on I will refer to the laws as hypothesis.

For all that is understood about thermodynamics, It is not seen that the second hypothesis breaks the first hypothesis.

Second hypothesis: Entropy. A closed system always loses energy over time.
First hypothesis: Conservation of energy.
These two are antithetical to each other. A system cannot have entropy and maintain a conservation of energy.

Keep hammering away PV. I enjoy your work.
Aaron

A good thought experiment needs a good thinker, which Pentcho Valev Palin is definitively not.
He talks a lot about his rubber, but he never writes down the heat and entropy balance.
In this way he can make the hypothesis he wants and come to crazy conclusions.

How will he be able the pump ions in and out of this system in a reversible way?
And where will these ions be stored to and released from?
And why doesn't Sarah Valev include this storage into the balance, as well as the pumping device?

Only a fool can write such absurdities.
Yet it took him several weeks to come to this revised story.
For sure in the coming years he will come again and repeat this nonsense at nauseum.

In the past such idiot were folklore in university canteens: failed students, burned out professors, ...
Today these cases blather on the net.

If a constant-charge parallel-plate capacitor is totally immersed in water, the force of attraction between the plates is 80 times weaker than the force of attraction in vacuum. However, if we thrust some solid dielectric between the plates (not necessarily occupying the whole distance between them - it could be rather thin), the force of attraction becomes even greater than in vacuum. Accordingly, the following four-step cycle (carried out very slowly) violates the second law of thermodynamics:

1. Plates are immersed and fixed. We thrust the solid dielectric.
2. Plates get closer. We GAIN work.
3. We withdraw the solid dielectric.
4. Plates get apart; initial state restored. We SPEND work.

When the plates are immersed in a liquid dielectric (water), some additional pressure between them emerges, pushes them apart and so counteracts their electrostatic attraction (W. Panofsky, M. Phillips, Classical Electricity and Magnetism, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts (1962), pp. 111-116). If the plates are vertical and only partially immersed, the same pressure forces the liquid between the plates to rise above the surface of the water pool (see fig. 6-7 on p. 112 in Panofsky's book). What if one punches a small hole in one of the plates, just above the surface of the pool? Will the lifted water leak through the hole and fall? If lifting is due to an additional pressure generated within the bulk, as assumed by Panofsky and Phillips, then water WILL leak through the hole and the second law will be violated. No matter how weak the waterfall is, theoretically it can rotate a waterwheel

The perpetuum mobile of the second kind described above (as well as the one described below) will never become a money-spinner and will not solve the energy problems of humankind. However Nature may occasionally have used such (inefficient from an anthropocentric point of view) mecanisms and the knowledge of them could make us unexpectedly rich in some unconventional sense.

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Take a suspended and stretched spring. It can lift a weight as it contracts, that is, we GAIN work. However, in order to restore the initial stretched state of the spring, we must SPEND work so there is no net gain. If both contraction and stretching are carried out in a reversible fashion, the net work gained at the end of the cycle is zero.

Consider again a suspended and stretched spring but this time it is "chemical", that is, we have one of the macroscopic contractile polymers described by Dan Urry in:

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"

If, before contraction, we add acid (H+) to the system, the force of contraction and, respectively, the work gained as the polymer reversibly contracts increase. Then, just before stretching, we remove the added H+ from the system: the force of contraction and, respectively, the work spent as we reversibly stretch the polymer decrease. At the end of the cycle, THE NET WORK GAINED FROM CONTRACTION AND STRETCHING IS POSITIVE.

So far things go against the second law of thermodynamics but the complete account requires that the net work gained from adding H+ to and removing H+ from the system be evaluated. If it is positive or zero, the second law is definitively violated. If it is negative, the second law is saved for the moment.

In the absence of the polymer, adding H+ to and removing the same amount of H+ from the system, in a reversible fashion, would amount to zero net work gained. The polymers designed by Urry, however, release H+ as they contract, and absorb H+ as we stretch them. It is easy to see (for people experienced in electrochemistry at least) that this makes the net work gained from reversibly adding H+ to and then removing the same amount of H+ from the system POSITIVE.

Conclusion: The reversible cycle:

1. The polymer is stretched. We add H+ to the system.
2. The polymers contracts and lifts a weight.
3. We remove the same amount of H+ from the system.
4. We stretch the polymer and restore the initial state of the system.

violates the second law of thermodynamics.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Yet another idiot device

The famous money-spinner which, if realized, would convince initially businessmen and later scientists that the second law of thermodynamics is false:

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Perpetual+motion+machine+of+the+second+kind
"Perpetual motion of the second kind refers to a device that extracts heat from a source and then converts this heat completely into other forms of energy, a process which satisfies the principle of conservation of energy. A dramatic scheme of this type would be an ocean liner, which extracts heat from the nearly limitless oceanic source and then uses this heat for propulsion. This type of perpetual motion is, however, precluded by the second law of thermodynamics which is sometimes stated as "A perpetuum mobile of the second kind cannot exist."

Even if the second law is false propulsion would still be impossible since the ocean and the liner would be at almost the same temperature and in such almost isothermal conditions the heat exchange would be extremely slow. Businessmen do not like extremely slow processes so they will remain convinced forever that the second law is true. Scientists will also remain convinced forever that the second law is true.

Pentcho Valev wrote:

If a constant-charge parallel-plate capacitor is totally immersed in water, the force of attraction between the plates is 80 times weaker than the force of attraction in vacuum. However, if we thrust some solid dielectric between the plates (not necessarily occupying the whole distance between them - it could be rather thin), the force of attraction becomes even greater than in vacuum. Accordingly, the following four-step cycle (carried out very slowly) violates the second law of thermodynamics:

1. Plates are immersed and fixed. We thrust the solid dielectric.
2. Plates get closer. We GAIN work.
3. We withdraw the solid dielectric.
4. Plates get apart; initial state restored. We SPEND work.

When the plates are immersed in a liquid dielectric (water), some additional pressure between them emerges, pushes them apart and so counteracts their electrostatic attraction (W. Panofsky, M. Phillips, Classical Electricity and Magnetism, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts (1962), pp. 111-116). If the plates are vertical and only partially immersed, the same pressure forces the liquid between the plates to rise above the surface of the water pool (see fig. 6-7 on p. 112 in Panofsky's book). What if one punches a small hole in one of the plates, just above the surface of the pool? Will the lifted water leak through the hole and fall? If lifting is due to an additional pressure generated within the bulk, as assumed by Panofsky and Phillips, then water WILL leak through the hole and the second law will be violated. No matter how weak the waterfall is, theoretically it can rotate a waterwheel

The perpetuum mobile of the second kind described above (as well as the one described below) will never become a money-spinner and will not solve the energy problems of humankind. However Nature may occasionally have used such (inefficient from an anthropocentric point of view) mecanisms and the knowledge of them could make us unexpectedly rich in some unconventional sense.

Take a suspended and stretched spring. It can lift a weight as it contracts, that is, we GAIN work. However, in order to restore the initial stretched state of the spring, we must SPEND work so there is no net gain. If both contraction and stretching are carried out in a reversible fashion, the net work gained at the end of the cycle is zero.

Consider again a suspended and stretched spring but this time it is "chemical", that is, we have one of the macroscopic contractile polymers described by Dan Urry in:

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"

If, before contraction, we add acid (H+) to the system, the force of contraction and, respectively, the work gained as the polymer reversibly contracts increase. Then, just before stretching, we remove the added H+ from the system: the force of contraction and, respectively, the work spent as we reversibly stretch the polymer decrease. At the end of the cycle, THE NET WORK GAINED FROM CONTRACTION AND STRETCHING IS POSITIVE.

So far things go against the second law of thermodynamics but the complete account requires that the net work gained from adding H+ to and removing H+ from the system be evaluated. If it is positive or zero, the second law is definitively violated. If it is negative, the second law is saved for the moment.

In the absence of the polymer, adding H+ to and removing the same amount of H+ from the system, in a reversible fashion, would amount to zero net work gained. The polymers designed by Urry, however, release H+ as they contract, and absorb H+ as we stretch them. It is easy to see (for people experienced in electrochemistry at least) that this makes the net work gained from reversibly adding H+ to and then removing the same amount of H+ from the system POSITIVE.

Conclusion: The reversible cycle:

1. The polymer is stretched. We add H+ to the system.
2. The polymers contracts and lifts a weight.
3. We remove the same amount of H+ from the system.
4. We stretch the polymer and restore the initial state of the system.

violates the second law of thermodynamics.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

It would be really a full time job to debunk all the idiocies from Palin Valev.