Re: Why does electrostatic attraction in water decrease?

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

Pentcho Valev wrote:
...
> Not if the water between the plates of the capacitor is lifted at the expense of
> heat absorbed from the surroundings.

That's quite an "if".

We have seen absolutely no theoretical or experimental evidence
to suggest that such a thermal process is happening.  I don't
even see why it should be considered an interesting hypothesis.

> For the moment I don't see why we should replace the liquid meant by Panofsky (he
> does not specify it) with liquid helium.

Because Panofsky's analysis applies to any liquid.
Liquid 4He is a liquid.  Therefore (modus ponens)
Panofsky's analysis applies to 4He.  I choose 4He
since it remains liquid over a wide range of temperatures,
allowing me to eliminate the hypothesis that thermal
effects are involved, without worrying about nuisance
effects like freezing and/or thermal expansion.

> I don't see in the site below the classical definition
> of the entropy, dS = dQrev/T.

There's a reason for that.  As I explain on that web page, I
define entropy in such a way that it is well defined even when
the temperature is unknown, undefinable, irrelevant, or zero.
Therefore it would be a step in the wrong direction for me to
redefine entropy in terms of Q and/or T.

And I have other reasons for distrusting any Q/T expression.

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

> You may not like it for some reason, but it is the working definition e.g. in
> traditional chemical thermodynamics.

My definition is more precise and more general.
Others may be less precise and less general;  that's not my
responsibility.

> So is the situation with the second law. What is, for instance, ESF: Entropy is a
> State Function?

As I explain on my web page, entropy is not exactly an
extensive variable.  It is usually a fairly decent approximation
to treat it as such, but you do so at your peril.

> A version of the second law? What is END: Entropy Never Decreases?
> Another version? You may accuse me

I believe the accusatory language is coming from you, not me.

> but what is much
> more important is to find the RELATION between ESF and END. Are they equivalent?

No, they are not equivalent.  I give a careful statement of the
non-decrease law on my web page.  The "ESF" concept is not exactly
true, so it is not subject to a precise statement, for reasons I
explain on that page.

> Some other subordination? Unrelated?

See above.

> Why does nobody offer a falsification test for the second law? Etc.

Huh?  If you are claiming the law is false, please describe
the experiment that falsifies it.  If you are claiming it is
so vague as to be unfalsifiable, that's an absurd claim.  The
law makes definite predictions about engines and refrigerators
and chemical reactions.  Deviations from these predications
would be extremely noticeable.