Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: Non-conservative forces in a liquid dielectric



At 10:22 AM 5/31/2003 +0200, Pentcho, you wrote:
/snip/Is the statement "perpetual
motion machine of the second kind is impossible" the result of a theory?
I am afraid it is not even an experimentally tested proposition.

There are many historical examples of experimentally testing
'perpetuum' propositions. It is found that they stop.
Without exception.

/snip/ In the present case, the easiest thing to
do is to partially immerse the capacitor in the pool, punch a hole in
one of the plates, near the pool's surface, and see if water would leak
through the hole. That is extremely easy but I am unable to do any
experiment - I hardly survive. I have been asking physicists to do this
experiment for several years - no effect. This shows how efficient the
curse "perpetuum mobile of the second kind" is.

Pentcho

There is a danger when cultivating a favored theory that one promotes
a proposition to an "idee fixe".

Let us suppose, one believes that a charged capacitor would leak water
from the dielectric space through an aperture.
If someone points out that water does not leak from the edge aperture,
then one can rationalize that an edge is not a hole.

If someone points out that a comparable gedanken would allow leakage
from an exit hole in a capillary, then one can rationalize that the physics
effects said to explain the absence of a perpetuum in a capacitor are in
just as much error as the physics effects said to explain the
absence of the first kind of perpetuum.

Next, let us suppose, that an experimenter punches a small hole below
the water dielectric surface of a charged capacitor without effect.
And he shows that an exit hole in a capillary does not leak water.

When he reports that water does not leak out, experimentally
one then has two choices:
1) Accept contingently that the favored theory may be in error.
2) Reject the finding, citing experimental error.

Which position do you feel you would adopt?

Brian Whatcott Altus OK