From: mongo@techbook.com (Max Webb)
Subject: Re: Was: Thermodynamics FAQ, Now: Pardon me while I rant.
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 06:14:55 GMT

schinder@leprss.gsfc.nasa.gov (Paul J. Schinder) writes:

>In <1992Jul28.200827.7159@techbook.com> mongo@techbook.com (Max Webb) writes:

>Whoa.  I don't remember Henley ever claiming this.  In fact, I asked
>him specifically in e-mail if he agreed that a closed (his definition)
>system could decrease in entropy, and he agreed.

Interestingly, here is one thermodynamics text that DOES use closed
the way we do in t.o:
 
"A system enclosed by a wall that is restrictive to the energy,
volume, and all of the mole numbers is said to be _closed_ [note]"
 
This remark is footnoted to say "This definition of closure differs
from a usage common in chemistry, in which closure implies only
a wall restrictive with respect to the transfer of matter".
 
My reference: [1] Herbert B. Callen,
_thermodynamics and an introduction to thermostatistics_,
2nd Ed. @1985 John Wiley and Sons. pg 17
 
There is a variety of usages out there. Henley should learn to deal with it. 
 
>This definition does not include energy that exists apart from matter.  For
>example, radiation in space.  
 
This sir, is a bunch of crap.
 
Radiation in an empty cavity is a thermodynamic system:
The equations of state are:
 
        U = bVT**4
and
        P = U/3V.
 
My reference: [1], page 78.
 
So what you would have me believe is that energy leaves
the vacuum between the earth and the sun (1 thermo-system) enters
the system that is the earth, does work such as hurricanes and
erosion, and ultimately is radiated away into back into the
system in space ... and all without violating the isolation of
the earth. Incredible.
 
My reference: [2] You:
 
>Q : Heat Transfer - one of three different types of energy transfer:
>   1) Conduction
>   2) Convection
>   3) Radiation
 
Further, you still have not addressed Prigogine's work: he won
a Nobel prize for demonstrating that in a system far from equilibrium
all that was needed for order was an influx of energy:
 
My references:
 
[5] Prigogine, Ilye, and Stengers, Isabelle. _Order out of Chaos: Man's
New Dialogue with Nature_, @1984 Bantam Books.
 
[6] Prigogine, Ilye, _Structure, Dissipation, and Life_, 1969, Theoretical
Physics and Biology, ed. M. Marois, pp 23-52. American Elsevier.
 
For a succinct technical description of why energy transfer across
a boundary (including radiative) is sufficient:
 
"The second law of thermodynamics governs
the equilibrium state of matter. For an _isolated_
system, this law says that the equilibrium state is the
one with the maximum total entropy for a fixed total
entropy. For a system in contact with a thermal reservoir,
the second law says that the equilibrium state is the one
with minimum free energy. These two statements are not in
conflict, they are manifestations of the same law in two
different situations... Nevertheless, observers often
feel that self assembly is paradoxical ... but this is not
necessarily in conflict with the second law because
biological systems are not isolated. Having a negative
change in the Gibbs free energy and a negative change
in the entropy are compatible provided that the absolute
value of the internal energy is more than the product
of the temperature and the change in entropy." 
 
My reference:
[6] Ronald F. Fox, School of Physics, Georgia Institute of
Technology, _Energy and the Evolution of Life_.
 
 
        Max G. Webb.
-- 
mongo@techbook.COM          ATT: 1-503-227-1284
SNAIL: 1983 nw Flanders #205, Portland OR 97209
Newsgroups: talk.origins