- But the system is not in equilibrium, so do the stated laws apply?
At equilibrium, either the air would be saturated with water or
alternatively no liquid water would remain to wet the bird's beak.
Either way therefore there would be no temperarture gradient to power
--- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., Charles Ford <cjford1@y...> wrote:
> In the broad sense it is a single heat reservoir (the
> environment that the bird works in) I think this is where the
> misunderstanding comes from.
> With the bird we use a temperature gradient that is coexisting.
> The wet bulb seeks the dew point and the dry bulb seeks
> ambient temperature. But all in the same air.
> --- chudslayer <BordersChess@h...> wrote:
> > Mr. Cantrell,
> > You seem to be saying that the drinking bird toy operates off
> > of a
> > single heat reservoir (temperature). But it actually relies
> > on a
> > temperature difference between its beak and bottom end. The
> > bottom
> > end is at ambient temperature, and the wet beak is a few
> > degrees
> > cooler due to water evaporation.
> > So does the Kelvin_Planck statement really apply to the
> > "bird"?
> > Leo C.
> Charles Ford
> Do You Yahoo!?
> LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
- --- chudslayer <BordersChess@...> wrote:
>But that is not how the air realy is...
> But the system is not in equilibrium, so do the stated laws
> apply? At equilibrium, either the air would be saturated
> with water or alternatively no liquid water would remain to
> wet the bird's beak. Either way therefore there would be no
> temperarture gradient to power the bird.
> Leo C.
Anyway. Here is an interesting expariment. A ten gallon fish
tank, a dipping bird and the approprate cup of water will be
Set the bird up on a clean surface with the cup and start the
process. Once the bird becomes stable place the fish tank up
side down over the bird. Wait and see how long it takes for
the bird to grind to a hault.
Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
- I have uploaded scanned pages from a book giving the argument for why
they are equivalent to this groups files section. The book is "The
Second Law" by P. W. Atkins (1984)
--- In AMBIENTENERGY@y..., "Boyd & Margie Cantrell" <bmc@p...> wrote:
> The textbook teaches that the Kelvin-Planck statement and the
Clausius statement are equivalent, but this is not true. Think about
this! The little drinking bird works, right? Now try to imagine one
of these little birds working backwards all by itself. The two
statements are not equivalent!
> It is true that heat will not flow up a temperature all by itself
(Clausius), but the bird (being a heat engine) takes heat from one
reservoir and (through evaporation) creates its own second reservoir
so that it can convert heat into work.
> I'm saying the the Bird works all by itself, but there is no
refrigerator that works all by itself!
> Does anyone truely believe that the two statements are equivelent?