Reflections on the Universal Validity of the Second Law of Thermodynamics "After all, before the '2nd Law violation' claims are stated, the reliable criteria for the 2nd Law violation, including proper definition and evaluation of entropy, should be established based on full comprehension of the fundamental Laws." See also Dissecting 2ndLaw Challenges [https://goo.gl/cJ56jO] * Maxwell's Demon *(2020): Editorial: The Second Law and Entropy Misconceptions Demystified. Entropy 2020, 22, 648 * (OR) (2020): Maxwell's Demon Demystified or http://Maxwell-Demon.MKostic.com "It is hard to believe that a serious scientist, 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 2nd Law of thermodynamics.
The current frenzy about the 2nd Law violation (getting 'useful energy' from within equilibrium-PMM2) is in many ways similar to the prior frenzy about the 1st Law violation (getting 'energy' from nowhere-PMM1). * 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. 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. The perpetual, stationary quasi-equilibrium structures (with bounded 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. [BUT! 'Making something hotter and cooler' (temperature difference) does not necessarily imply heat transfer from lower to higher temperature, since it could be done by adiabatic (ideally isentropic) expansion without heat transfer (e.g., as in refrigeration processes, 'vortex tube', etc.), either external work is applied or internal work-potential (possibly 'correlation' potential) is 'converted' to thermal non-equilibrium], see Appendix.M. Kostic, Challenges to the Second Law Challengers, Limits to the Second Law of Thermodynamics Symposium, 2016.
 Reflections on the Universal Validity of the Second Law of Thermodynamics M. Kostic, Professor Emeritus, Mechanical Engineering Department, Northern Illinois University www.kostic.niu.edu * Email: kostic@niu.edu
Presentation (PDF-Layout) *PPT Slides: Paradox, No HOPE, Process, 2nd&1st Laws, S.Equilibrium, Reasoning, Boltzmann, Demon
Picnic Photo(More-And)*Some feedbacks: What is this guy like?, You wore several hats...
 The following NOTE is motivated by my recent work on a series of manuscripts (in progress) regarding the essence and universal validity of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (2nd Law) and physical meaning of entropy, including my recent participation in the 2nd Law Symposium in San Diego, California, and it is prompted by a very recent email from Dr. Polihronov, an author of a vortex-tube related paper in Physical Review Letters, 054504, 2012, stating that "vortex tube is in apparent violation of the second law of thermodynamics," see elsewhere. After my reply to him,
I received a prompt response from Dr. Polihronov, stating, "I fully agree with your analysis about the second law in vortex tubes … they appear to violate second law (yet they do not)." Similarly, at the recent 2nd Law Symposium in San Diego (June 2016, see above), a number of participants could not have been taken seriously, and others talked about "anomalies, challenges, apparent violation, ..." but without clear and scientific criteria for the 2nd Law violation. After I presented my reasoning that, "Just achieving a sustainable non-equilibrium state is not a violation of the Second Law. ..." and clear, scientific criteria for the 2nd Law violation, "The 'challengers' need to demonstrate and quantify destruction of entropy to challenge universal validity of the Second Law.", a number of respected participants expressed full agreement with my position that the 2nd Law violation has not been proved yet. More details are available at Challenges to the Second Law Challengers.
The purpose of this correspondence is to emphasize my position on the universality of the 2nd Law and to make aware the future contributors that sound and objective evaluation of the manuscripts, claiming violation of the 2nd Law without due rigor and valid criteria for the violation, should be objectively performed based on scientific reasoning and comprehensible proofs, not “apparent” subjective and partial claims. With that in mind, I still like to keep my eyes and ears open for respectful and constructive discussions.
Sincerely and respectfully yours, MK "Nothing occurs locally, nor globally in the universe, without mass-energy exchange/conversion and entropy production. It is crystal-clear (to me) that all confusions related to the far-reaching fundamental Laws of Thermodynamics, and especially the Second Law (Abstract-CiteSeerX), are due to the lack of their genuine and subtle comprehension." > Sadi Carnot's Reflections <*> Clausius Theory of Heat <
|
