Comments on "Experimental Test of Duncan's Paradox by Sheehan et al"

by M. Kostic

"If anyone could discover a possibility and utilize 'PMM2-Perpetual Motion Machine of the Second Kind', i.e., Violation of the Second Law of thermodynamics, one would become the most prominent luminary ('Super Nobel Prize winner-like'), and if "such impossibility" were possible and applicable, one would become the richest person in the whole world!"

*

The current frenzy about the Second Law violation (getting 'useful energy' from within equilibrium alone-PMM2) is in many ways similar to the prior frenzy about the First Law violation (getting 'energy' from nowhere-PMM1).

The existence of perpetual non-uniform properties without perpetual mass-energy transfer (stationary non-uniform temperatures or other properties, very often observed in nature), does not violate the Second Law of thermodynamics. The perpetual, quasi-equilibrium structures (with bounded, stationary non-uniform properties within gravity, electro-chemical fields, etc.) are abundant in nature. As “field-charged bounded structures,” sometimes with subtle work-potential, they may provide limited, transient work only, but not perpetual work to violate the Second Law of thermodynamics, as some are misled to believe. For example, hydrostatic pressure distribution in a container, or adiabatic atmospheric-temperature distribution, or non-uniform distribution of other properties in a stationary equilibrium (like a heated adiabatic-container, compressed container, charged condenser, battery cell, fuel compound, etc.). We called the above a “structural equilibrium” (with non-uniform properties), as opposed to simple 'ideal thermodynamic equilibrium' (with uniform properties), see Appendix.

Back to Dissecting the 2ndLaw Challenges and the 'So-called Paradoxes' and (LtoE)

Click to Enlarge Photos: Isentropic Temperature Oscillator & Second Law Challenges 

  This is my response to Professor Daniel Sheehan, but also my public position as related to the Second Law of thermodynamics (2nd Law) and to its apparent paradoxes and challenges. This response is posted and may be updated on my Web sites (at https://goo.gl/QW0e0x ), and to be communicated with others if and when needed. Therefore, it may be freely shared with anyone, and any relevant comment, discussion, or constructive criticism is welcomed.

    More at List and https://goo.gl/cJ56jO, see also 2nd Law and  "The Second Law and Entropy Misconceptions Demystified"

I have nothing but respect for the 'brave' Second Law ‘Challengers’ led by Professor Daniel Sheehan [1, 2, 3]. And, if it were not for Daniel's personal invitations for me to present at his last two Second Law Symposiums (2011 [2] & 2016 [3]), which have inspired and motivated me extraordinarily, I would not have been so passionately ‘dissecting’ the meanings and essence of the Second Law of thermodynamics [4, 5], and elusive entropy concept and its irreversible generation (production), as a quantitative measure of unavoidable irreversibility and universal validity of the Second Law [6].

I presume that I, as a strong advocate of the universal validity of the Second Law, have been invited by Professor Sheehan, to be persuaded and 'converted' to the Challengers -- but to the contrary -- after learning more about the Challengers’ elusive and misleading claims, it has motivated me to better focus and comprehend the essence of the Second Law and to reason the Challengers’ faults, as I have stated in my Presentation [7] at the last Challengers’ Second Law Symposium [3], in my Web postings, publications and manuscripts in progress, and my specific objections to the claims in their "hallmark paper" [1] as stated below.

I have scientifically reasoned the facts regarding the universality of the Second Law, at the Daniel’s 2011 & 2016 Symposiums [2, 3], but my relevant, scientific reasonings [4, 5, 6, 7] have not been comprehended or ‘conveniently ignored’ by some Second Law Challengers, led by Daniel, who is claiming that “There are now roughly three dozen theoretical proposals for its violation in the mainstream scientific literature, more than half of which have resisted resolution as of this date.  There are also experiments which purport to violate the second law, and not all of these have been discounted.  My experiments in particular, published in Found. Physics in 2014 [1], have not been disproved or shown to be in error in any meaningful way.”

 

Even if "more than half" of the challenges "have resisted resolution as of today" the other half have been disavowed and none has been verified to date. Especially problematic are incomplete, misleading and biased experimental results, as if the challengers are not comprehending or ‘conveniently ignoring’ the very fundamentals and essence of the Second Law of thermodynamics.

Claims by Professor Daniel Sheehan and the Challengers, that with creative devices, ‘Challengers' Demons’, it would be possible to embed them to an equilibrium environment and spontaneously extract stationary ‘useful work’, are fundamentally and scientifically unsound. Such claims are against natural forcing, reversible equivalency and equilibrium existence. Furthermore, if such magic and wishful ‘demon’ would be possible and embedded as a ‘black box’ in a system or environment at equilibrium, to produce a spontaneous, steady-state (perpetual) work-extracting process from within such equilibrium, it would also led to a ‘catastrophically unstable’ processes with a potential to 'siphon' all existing mass-energy in an infinitesimal-size singularity with infinite mass-energy density potential, a 'super black-hole-like'. If it were ever possible, we would not exist ‘as we know it’ here and now!

The Challengers misinterpret the fundamental laws, present elusive hypotheses and perform incomplete and misleading, biased experiments, always short of straightforward confirmation of their Second Law violation claims. That why all resolved, Challengers’ paradoxes and misleading violations of the Second Law to date, have been resolved in the favor of the Second Law and never against. We are still to witness a single, still open 'Second Law violation', to be verified and utilized. The current frenzy about the Second Law violation (a 'perpetual motion of the second-kind', getting 'useful energy' from within equilibrium alone) is in many ways similar to the prior frenzy about the First Law violation (getting 'energy' from nowhere). It is hard to believe that a serious scientist nowadays, who truly comprehend the Second  Law and its essence, would challenge it based on incomplete and elusive facts.

My Summary response to clarify and refute the experimental claims by Professor Sheehan and his collaborators in their "hallmark paper"(Found. Physics 2014 [1]), follows:

The last two concluding sentences of the paper [1] were, “In summary, Duncan’s temperature difference has been experimentally measured via differential hydrogen dissociation on tungsten and rhenium surfaces under high temperature blackbody cavity conditions. We know of no credible way to reconcile these results with standard interpretations of the second law.” The former sentence seems factual, except for the claim of ‘black-body cavity conditions’. But, even if within a black-body cavity (which should be a much larger size than the devices inside to minimize the latter influence on the former isothermal equilibrium), the existence of transient or perpetual non-uniform properties without perpetual mass-energy transfer (stationary non-uniform temperatures or other properties, very often observed in nature) does not violate the Second Law, see Appendix and elsewhere. The last sentence of the paper is misleading and faulty, since the paper results describe a non-homogeneous, "structural equilibrium" established after externally imposed non-equilibrium (by heating the container tube to very high temperatures). However, the Second Law, is classically stated for simple compressible substances allowing heat-work interactions only (where temperature is uniform at equilibrium), and in general it describes 'process conditions' during spontaneous and perpetual directional displacement of mass-energy (cyclic or stationary extraction of work), accompanied with irreversible generation (production) of entropy due to partial dissipation of work potential to thermal heat, which was not tested at all by the experiments [1], but only hypothetical, misleading and wishful claims stated. After all, before the 'Second Law violation' claims are stated, the reliable criteria for the Second Law violation, including proper definition and evaluation of entropy, should be established based on full comprehension of the fundamental Laws, see more at [2ndLaw.MKostic.com].

The subjective and defensive statements in [1] (e.g., that experiments “point to physics beyond the traditional understanding of the second law”), to justify and preserve their work and belief regarding the possibility of the Second Law violation, need further clarification and refutation, see several critical points below. The experiments relate to a special system with non-uniform temperature and other properties distribution due to chemical dissociation/recombination (under non-uniform chemical potential field), but do not represent the ideal black-body cavity with uniforme temperatures, as stated, and especially do not relate to the essence of the Second Law verification. Let me start with specific misleading and erroneous claims in [1], i.e., :

1. Most of the fundamental formulations of the phenomenological, classical thermodynamics (called “standard thermodynamics” in [1]), are reasoned and derived for the “simple compressible thermodynamic system,” the latter structure allows for heat and mechanical work interactions and storage only (not any chemical and other reactions), as well as for the ideal, black body cavities, with uniform thermodynamic properties in equilibrium (uniform temperatures and pressures in such simple material structures and systems); therefore, are "not literally applicable" for other more complex systems and interactions, as tested in [1], since other electro-chemical interactions and potentials must be accounted for all involved systems. The experimental system described in the paper is not nearly closed to the ideal black-body cavity, and the described, dissociation/recombination interactions between heterogeneous devices within a controlled isothermal tube (of the same order of magnitude size as the devices inside), are much more complex than simple thermo-mechanical interaction of simple compressible system in ideal black-body cavity.

2. The perpetual quasi-equilibriums (with non-uniform but stationary properties) are abundant in nature, and do not violate the Second Law at all (see Appendix). For example, hydrostatic pressure distribution in a container, or adiabatic atmospheric-temperature distribution, or non-uniform distribution of other properties in a stationary equilibrium, in gravity, electro-chemical fields, etc. (like a heated adiabatic-container, compressed container, charged condenser, battery cell, fuel compound, etc.), also the presented results in [1]. We call the above a “structural equilibrium” (with perpetual non-uniform properties), as opposed to 'ideal thermodynamic equilibrium' (with uniform properties) between the simple compressible systems with boundary heat and work interactions only. This is but one of several other faults of the paper’s findings and conclusions [1].

3. The statements in Section 6 Discussion [1], “Within the traditional understanding of the second law, stationary temperature differentials such as those reported should not be possible.” This statement is arbitrary and not true, see also comments above. Likewise, “Second, the temperature differences in DP experiments generated Seebeck voltages that can drive currents—and did, through their thermocouple gauges—thus, were capable of performing work like a heat engine.” This is pure speculation, since we do not know what kind of process will re-establish if an electrical load (or a heat engine) is interfaced to utilize Seebeck-voltage or temperature differences within the described system.

Probably, after transition and discharge of initial electro-chemical potentials within new devices (species), another structural quasi-equilibrium (with different non-uniform properties) will re-establish, without further work extraction.

Furthermore, we do know that a perpetual thermocouple voltage difference in open-circuit without a load (the Seebeck-Peltier thermoelectric effect), could not perpetually work as a Peltier electro-generator, within a thermal equilibrium alone, since the electrons’ thermal-motion would also perpetually carry thermal-heat and thus require thermal non-equilibrium to operate perpetually, as defined by the Second Law of thermodynamics [8].

Short of perpetual, external work-source availability (non-equilibrium, external mass-energy fluxes) to drive an engine, any local quasi-equilibrium source with non-uniform properties within a surrounding in equilibrium, may deceive to be a perpetual work-source since it has a perpetual potential-difference at no load, but it has only a limited, internal work-potential. For example, any electrochemical cell alone, regardless of its design, has limited work-potential capacity and cannot provide perpetual work without its work-potential being replenished externally (by recharging or refueling).

Based on classical thermodynamics, after an initial non-equilibrium is externally imposed (as in the paper experiments [1]), the appropriate, 'perpetual structural-equilibrium' with properties gradients will establish as in the paper, but a perpetual, steady-state 'stationary process' with spontaneous work-extraction outside of an equilibrium is not possible, without perpetual external-work source. Such experiments could and should be performed to verify elusive hypotheses, and not wishful speculation claimed based on incomplete comprehension of the Second Law.

A simple question arises: Why the challengers (authors) have not experimentally verified, if a spontaneous, perpetual work extraction with stationary load is possible from within an environment in equilibrium? Or, they have avoided such straightforward experiments to be able to perpetually argue about their unrealistic speculations?

4. The last two concluding sentences of the paper were, “In summary, Duncan’s temperature difference has been experimentally measured via differential hydrogen dissociation on tungsten and rhenium surfaces under high temperature blackbody cavity conditions. We know of no credible way to reconcile these results with standard interpretations of the second law.” These assumptions and conclusions by the authors [1] are misleading and faulty, as already described above, and in the Summary Response (see also my PS Notes below).

References:

[1]  Sheehan, D.P., Mallin, D.J., Garamella, J.T. et al. Experimental Test of a Thermodynamic Paradox, Found Phys (2014) 44: 235. doi:10.1007/s10701-014-9781-5

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-014-9781-5

[2] Second Law of Thermodynamics: Status and Challenges, D.P. Sheehan, Editor; AIP Conference Volume 1411 (AIP, Melville, NY, 2011).

[3] Limits to the Second Law of Thermodynamics Symposium. D. P. Sheehan, Organizer, AAAS Pacific Division 97th Annual Meeting, University of San Diego, San Diego, California, June 16-17, 2016.

http://associations.sou.edu/aaaspd/2016SANDIEGO/Symposia16.html#12

[4] Kostic, M., Revisiting The Second Law of Energy Degradation and Entropy Generation: From Sadi Carnot’s Ingenious Reasoning to Holistic Generalization, Symposium on: "The Second Law of Thermodynamics: Status and Challenges": The 92nd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), University of San Diego, San Diego, CA, June 12-16, 2011. AIP Conf. Proc. 1411, 327-350 (2011); DOI: 10.1063/1.3665247.

www.kostic.niu.edu/2ndLaw/Second-Law-Holistic-Generalization-API.pdf

[5] Kostic, M., The Second Law and Entropy Misconceptions Demystified. Entropy 2020, 22, 648 * (Full-text HTML online * PDF)

      https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/6/648 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7517180/

[6] Kostic, M., The Elusive Nature of Entropy and Its Physical Meaning, Entropy 2014, 16(2), 953-967; DOI:10.3390/e16020953

[7] Kostic, M., Challenges to the Second Law Challengers: Reflections on the Universal Validity of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Presentation at Second Law Symposium [3], San Diego, 2016.

[8] Kostic, M., “Heat Flowing from Cold to Hot without External Intervention” Demystified: Thermal-Transformer and Temperature, arXiv:2001.05991 [PDF]

"It is hard to believe that a serious scientist nowadays, who truly comprehend the Second Law and its essence, would challenge it based on incomplete and elusive facts."

*

Thermodynamics is subtle and elusive. Sometimes, highly accomplished scientists in their fields, do not fully comprehend the essence of the Second Law of thermodynamics.

*

As the fundamental laws of nature and thermodynamics are expended from simple systems in physics and chemistry, to different space and time scales and to much more complex systems in biology, life and intelligent processes, there are more challenges to be comprehended and understood.

PS Notes:

Extended and updated Handouts of my Presentation at the recent Challengers’ Symposium [3], also posted on the Web [6]. The presentation (with handouts) consists of 76 Slides (including Appendices): (i) my ‘greetings and past activities’ since previous Symposium [2] (Slides 1-7), (ii) fundamentals Laws and concepts (Slides 8-31), (iii) challenges and reasoning of the universal validity of the 2nd Laws (Slides 32-41), (iv) concept of ‘structural equilibrium’ (Slides 42-49), (v) heat and thermal energy essence (Slides 50-54), (vi) Carnot and essence of reversibility (Slides 55-59), (vii) entropy fundamentals (Slides 60-64), (viii) ‘No Hope’ and conclusion (Slides 65-67), and (ix) Appendices (Slides 68-76).

I like to highlight the following statements from my presentation [6]: “Science thrives on ‘thoughtful’ speculations” (Slide 20); “I still like to keep my eyes and ears open for respectful and constructive discussions” (Slide 21); “As the laws are expended to diverse structures and scales, the structural equilibrium with non-uniform but sustainable properties need to be comprehended and the laws expended” (Slide 26); “At every space and time scale and without exception, ‘entropy is always generated’, and cannot be destroyed [i.e., universal validity of the 2nd Law without exception]” (Slide 28)”; “Challenging the Second Law helps better understand it! … and may help in discovery of new & useful processes and devices ‘to tap into a hidden sources of energy’ without violating the 2nd Law!” (Slide 34); “The Second Law of Thermodynamics Is Universal and Valid Without any Exceptions” (Slide 36); and “Tapping into structural equilibrium may deceive us to assume 2nd Law violation” (Slide 37).

To start public discussions: Here are a few steps to get you started: https://code.google.com/p/google-sites-disqus/wiki/HowToUse

Raveen's technique is one of the most commonly used: http://www.raveen.net/comments/create

And, Steegle has similar instructions: http://www.steegle.com/websites/google-sites-howtos/visitor-comments-google-spreadsheet-form

This is Prof. Kostic's Web site being transitioned from the original or Legacy Web(*) - sorry for broken links referring to it!