mc2 is energy.

Please rephrase your question, or give more detail so we understand what you mean. Is any physics student correct? And about what?

Mr Mariappan,

With regards to the second law of thermodynamics, that is incontrovertible.

I don't see a problem with the mass 'deficiency' - that's simply the binding energy and in no sense violates the second law.

I don't see how the second law would be involved in this to begin with. Hence my question. It is indeed no violation of the first law (energy conservation, with mass contributing mc2).

Your answer is absoluely correct. It obeys first law of themodynamics. One form energy converted to another form of enery. My question is energy is equal to or equivalent mass defect and square of velocity.

Is mc 2 equal to energy or equivalent to energy?

mc2 is energy.

Mass and Energy is inter-convertible things even for a chemical process like burning of coal or paper we have the concept of mass defect.even energy can be converted into mass.every process that produce energy which leaves the system results in the mass defect in the system...

Dear Sir,

Your question is not specific. I'll try to answer. Concerning, the second law of thermodynamics: conservation of energy or the definition of entropy are right. Why? Because in any chemical process we have the conservation of the mass: sum of the fluxes at the input = sum of the flows at the outlets. Same thing for the conservation of energy.

This process may be a chemical reactor, a distillation, extraction, absorption, crystallization apparatus, etc.

As regards the definition of entropy, there are several objectives to be attained, namely: the quality of the physicochemical transformation if it is reversible or irreversible, the part of the calorific energy that can be transformed into mechanical work, and so on.

In the case of a nuclear reactor, where there are nuclear reactions, then the variation of the mass is equivalent to energy. This is in some way an application of Einstein's famous relationship which is written by Gert Van der Zwan.

I hope that this answer will help you understand these phenomena.

With my best wishes.

Adel OUESLATI

Entropy: A concept that is not a physical quantity

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230554936_Entropy_A_concept_that_is_not_a_physical_quantity

Logical error of the second law of thermodynamics:

1. There are many kinds of type 2 perpetual motion machines. Behind each type is a natural phenomenon.

Machine A: against the irreversibility of thermodynamics (diffusion, heat conduction, friction, etc) - dynamics;

Machine B: Utilizing the Difference of Carnot Efficiency (Reversible Thermodynamics) - Thermodynamics

2. A and B belong to different disciplines. There is a parallel relationship between them, and there is no logical mutual inevitability.

Heat 2 Logic: Experience induction, deny that A machine==》 B machine can not be manufactured==》 All material Kano efficiency: 1-T1/T2.

3. Logical of the second law of thermodynamics violates the physical logic that A and B cannot be inferred from each other.

4. the second law of thermodynamics elevates the "irreversibility", but it is only a kinetic experience.

5. See the annex for details.

It is Carnot, not Kano.

If there are many kinds of perpetual motion machines, why don't you build one?

The second law of thermodynamics is confused with its own logic. Physics is reasonable.

Thou shalt not interpret thy lack of knowledge as a sign of deep insight.

To make a case in point: Carnot efficiency can only be derived and thermodynamic entropy can only be defined if there are no perpetual motion machines. In fact it is the first (and only) assumption that Carnot makes.

Your statements are meaningless drivel. How can a law be confused with its own logic? How can anything be confused with its own logic? What does that even mean? Scientific discourse is not just stringing words together. It has to mean something.

However, there is no point in discussing this. In my experience believers in the fallacy of thermodynamics are not susceptible to any argument, and they usually lack understanding of the mathematics involved. The only convincing proof of your statements is to build a perpetual motion machine, of which you claim there are many. If you do succeed I will humbly apologize for my remarks and proclaim you are the greatest scientist ever.

I wish all the people on RG (and I've seen quite a few) who claim they can make a perpetual motion machine would actually build one, rather than "showing" that they exist.

Physics is not reasonable, it is a harsh mistress.

Charge moves Brownian in the container. The electric field in space varies. There is an inductive current on the nearby conductor. The temperature of the conductor increases, while the temperature of the container A decreases. This is inconsistent with the second law of thermodynamics. Is the second law of thermodynamics correct? Judge for yourself.

See pictures for details.

You are drawing your conclusion way too fast. First of all this is a thought experiment, or did you actually measure the temperature change? Secondly you leave out how the electric field varies. Is it you that does the varying? I could conceivably make a heat pump doing that, but then you put in work. No violation.. How do you prevent the charge just sticking to the surface due to the induced force by the conductor? Build a prototype and I bet you it won't work. Thought experiments mean nothing.

Here is another Perpetual Motion Machine with charges in media: A charge is placed off center in a sphere immersed in a dielectric. The charge polarizes the medium, creating a reaction field (search under "Onsager Reaction field" if you want to know more) which causes a force on the charge. Since the polarization is stronger where the charge is closer to the surface there is a net force propelling the particle forward. [This does not happen of course, but it might take you a while to figure out why].

For other Brownian Motion perpetual motion machines: read the chapter on the Brownian ratchet in Feynman's Lectures in Physics. There is also a vast collection of literature on Maxwell's Demon, and a lot of active research in that, which yet has to turn up one working example.

To be honest: it is an open question whether it is possible to use equilibrium fluctuations to create work from a one temperature reservoir. So far second law wins.

No mistake. It's a thought experiment. But the problem is not so complicated.

1. It's a charge doing Brownian motion, surrounded by insulating gases, such as helium.

2. The electric field in space varies with the change of the position of the charge.

3. There is an induced current in the nearby conductor.

4. There is no complex mechanism. The problem is that remote interaction can transfer energy remotely, not driven by temperature difference.

报错

Entropy is not a state variable, and there is a physical difference between it and internal energy.

In the textbook, the ideal gas entropy: S = n * Cv * In (T) +nR * In (V);

There are two problems:

1. The natural logarithm In(x) will submerge the unit system of volume and temperature [m3], [K].

2. The unit of temperature may be [K], or [mK]; the unit of volume may be [m3], or [cm3]. The results are different and the calculation lacks stability.

Entropy is only a process quantity: DS = n * Cv * In (T2/T1) + nR * In (V2/V1); it has physical significance.

Internal energy is a state quantity, and entropy is only a process quantity. There are physical differences between them.

Internal energy U is conserved and can have the meaning of total differential dU = Ut * dT + Uv * dV - correct.

Entropy is only a process quantity, not a state quantity. Total differential is meaningless: dS = St * dT + Sv * dV - - incorrect.

Entropy is not conservative, even in reversible cycles, it can increase or decrease.

Thermodynamics has some problems in describing ideal gases.

So if I have ions performing Brownian motion near an electrode the electrode gets warmer and the ions colder? I sincerely doubt that. (And certainly never measured something like it, it could have shown up in experiments I did. And I even looked for temperature effects in Raman experiments on electrodes.)

It does not matter what you cook up in thought. Building the device is the only way to show you are right. No amount of thinking about it will prove it. And the problem will turn out to be much more complicated once you start making the machine. Of course if you succeed the rewards are enormous. So by all means, give it a try.

Do the electrons in the conductor not also perform Brownian motion and give the energy right back? (If they get warmer, they will move more vigorously and start giving energy back isn't it?) You cannot ignore fluctuations in one system and take them into account in the other (again: check out the Brownian ratchet).

In order to make the discussion more specific you could start by writing down the equations of motion for the charge, the externally applied fields and the fields in the conductor, solve them and show this system creates its own temperature gradient. Then you could also estimate the magnitude of the supposed effect. How much warmer does the conductor get? Will the He eventually be at 0 K?

Here is a quote from a 2002 paper (D.P. Sheehan, A.R. Putnam, and J.H. Wright, A Solid–State Maxwell Demon, Found. Physics, 32, (2002), 1557–1595.): " Prospects are good for laboratory construction and testing of this solid state Maxwell demon in the near future." 17 years gone by and maybe the prospects are still good, who knows. Of course I also don't know what the near future is. Could be centuries from now, but I am sure that is not what the authors had in mind.

The second law is not some isolated feature of science, it is deeply ingrained in almost everything we know. If a simple device like yours would violate it, I'm pretty sure the effects would have shown up a long time ago. There are tons of papers on effects of boundaries on charges and vice versa, both experimental and theoretical. Wouldn't someone have noticed an important effect like this (in theory or experiment)? Not everybody is stupid all of the time. Btw, you would also have to put something in place which makes all the correct predictions made using the concept of entropy (for instance positions of chemical equilibria) and the second law still valid.

Good luck.

Thank you for your attention.

This physical model has only one technical difficulty to ensure that the charge is not adsorbed. From the point of view of thinking experiment, this is not a problem. The core of the problem is that the long-distance interaction of charges can transfer energy, and can realize the energy transmission from low temperature to high temperature.

The second law of thermodynamics: heat cannot spontaneously transfer from low temperature to high temperature. This is an empirical phenomenon, the result of molecular action, which is not valid under remote action.

Another conclusion of the second law of thermodynamics is that an isolated system has an equilibrium state. The electric field varies with the change of the position of the charge, and the conductor nearby does not have a stable state in the changed electric field.

The thermodynamic analysis of electrostatic equilibrium discussed below is the same problem as the above one: the thermodynamics of long-range interaction.

There are long-range electric field forces between charges, short-range interactions with the surrounding molecules, and thermal motions follow the laws of thermology.

* * * * *

In the figure below, a non-spherical conductor is charged. The charge is unevenly distributed on the surface. According to the diffusion law, there exists a diffusion current along the surface. If there is only a diffusion current, the charge will evenly distribute, and the fact will not appear. There must be a hedging motion behind it.

Charge diffusion affects charge distribution, and temperature affects diffusion. Thus, the charge distribution at 30 and 50 degrees is different. The charge distribution of isopotential is unique. In this way, we can only abandon the charge distribution (electrostatic equilibrium) of the equal potential. Conclusion 1: Considering the thermal diffusion of the charge, the charged conductor is not equipotential.

The existence of potential difference on a charged conductor will lead to the conduction and transport of charges. It balances the diffusion current in front. See pictures.

Charge diffusion along the surface, to overcome the potential difference, the temperature will be reduced, and the potential difference will stimulate the conduction current inside the conductor, causing the internal temperature rise.

There is diffusion inside the charge guide body, and the diffusion along the surface is more intuitive.

The second law of thermodynamics is not suitable for systems with long-range interactions.

Ok, there is no point in discussing this any further. I am not interested in your pictures. I can find hundreds of beautiful pictures of pmm's on the internet that all work according to their inventors, but sadly none of them do. Build the machine, that is the only thing that will convince me (or anyone else for that matter, although there are always naive people who want to give their money to inventors, basically the only option to generate pmm revenue for those who want to take advantage of this gullibility), or at least show in a calculation with carefully explained equations how the energy flows. It is very well possible to do this. I attached a paper in which I calculated the friction on a charge or rotating dipole near a boundary (just take one of the dielectric constants to infinity for a conducting wall). And yes: the friction is affected by the presence of the wall, but that does not in any way violate the second law. I am absolutely sure that I could also prove the fluctuation dissipation theorem in that case (I did for other systems, it is always rather boring; the only cases I know of where this does not hold is when there is a temperature gradient already, but then the fluctuations are not equilibrium fluctuations anymore).

A picture will (should) never convince anyone. Even an overbalanced wheel looks like it should work. Look at it, it is heavier on one side than on the other, obvious to anyone looking carefully. It should start rotating. Of course it will. If I only could reduce the friction sufficiently, or make it big enough. Thousands of people though so, and apparently still do. Regarding your belief that thermodynamics does not work for long range forces, I can redirect you to another RG member, who build a whole axiomatic system called cryodynamics on his belief that long range forces actually violate the laws of thermodynamics. He did not build his machine either, but he has a (deeply flawed, needless to say) computer program, which he apparently barely understands himself, to back up his claims. https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_you_know_how_it_feels_to_be_blessed

Although, come to think of it, he believes it is repulsive forces, or attractive, I forgot.

I don't know why I even engage in these discussions. It is usually quite pointless, like entering into a discussion with Jehova Witnesses about our savior. Here is someone else with pictures, also on RG https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_we_get_infinite_energy_using_gravity_power_and_balanced_mass_as_these_together_will_work_to_bypass_the_thermodynamics_laws

Haven't heard from him in a while either. Still working on his pictures I guess. Or busy creating a black hole (you have to be careful when constructing a pmm, make sure there is an off switch, infinite energy means infinite mass, and we could all sink into oblivion).

I guess I have this deeply felt need to educate people about thermodynamics and basic physics, which is more than interesting enough without perpetual motion. And to collect internet points of course. But it is about as pointless as trying to build a pmm.

You all should hold a convention. I am sure it would be great fun to watch you all discuss the relative merits of your designs. But I'm equally sure no one will turn up with a working model. Funny thing though: pmm inventors never enter into a discussion with a questioner, but only provide links to their own designs. Same is true for people who discovered the answer to life, the universe, and everything.

Build the machine and don't rely on what you think is a reasonable picture. The proof of the pudding is in the eating (not in how good the pudding looks, it could still taste like s**t).

I'll end my contribution to this thread with a nice quote by Lars Onsager: "There are more pitfalls in the theory of dielectrics than there are zeroes in the Riemann zeta function". Make sure you don't fall into one of them. (I in fact alluded to one in my design for a pmm, in one of my earlier answers, which may be relevant for your design as well, once you start building it.)

Good bye and once more, good luck. May the force be with you.