Re: Why does electrostatic attraction in water decrease?

["John S. Denker" <jsd@MONMOUTH.COM>]

I wrote:
> >  -- We could run a water-wheel using the water that leaks out of
> > the hole, and have a nice perpetual-motion machine.
...
> > In particular, repeat the experiment with liquid helium
> > instead of water.  Cool it to a few millikelvin.  Dielectric
> > effects will be essentially independent of temperature over
> > a wide range.

Pentcho Valev responded:
> Intuition confronts the second law. One punches a hole in the wall of an open
> vessel filled with water and expects the water to come out, but the water does
> not come out because the the second law says no.

There is no reason to believe the 2nd law is involved.
The perpetual motion machine in question violates conservation
of energy, which is the first law.

To repeat:  The effect should be observable in 4He and should
be essentially independent of temperature over a wide range.

> > I see no reason to think the 2nd law is involved.
>
> Didn't you say "perpetual motion machine" above?

I did.  That does not imply that the 2nd law is involved.


> Mythology people are afraid of. "Perpetuum mobile of the second kind"

My example is a p.m. of the first kind, not second kind.

> ... the second law is not even defined properly.

I'm sure you can find innumerable instances where the law is
misstated.  That does not however preclude me and my friends
from understanding the intended meaning and from restating it
in more-precise terms.

http://www.monmouth.com/~jsd/physics/thermo-laws.htm#sec-second-law