For the last 170 years, theoretical physicists have been paralyzing energetics by worshiping the false second law of thermodynamics. An obviously absurd corollary that should have invalidated this law is:

"Catalysts don't shift the position of chemical equilibrium" https://youtu.be/usAPBgT3aDc?t=1101

That catalysts can shift chemical equilibrium (and thereby violate the second law of thermodynamics) was my first heretical idea, about 30 years ago. I believed my argument was convincing and enthusiastically submitted a short paper to Nature - they rejected it, as it were, before receiving it. My efforts to publish continued, mainly in The Journal of Physical Chemistry, and I was also active on Internet forums. The only result was this (recently the site disappeared from Internet; problems with conscience, Athel?):

Athel Cornish-Bowden 1998: "Reading Mr Valev's postings to the BTK-MCA and other news groups and trying to answer all the nonsense contained in them incurs the risk of being so time-consuming that it takes over one's professional time completely, leaving none for more profitable activities. On the other hand, not answering them incurs the even greater risk that some readers of the news group may think that his points are unanswerable and that thermodynamics, kinetics, catalysis etc. rest on as fragile a foundation as he pretends. [...] Can a catalyst shift the position of an equilibrium? No. Absolutely not if it is a true catalyst present at very low concentrations. If it is present at a concentration comparable with that of one or more of the reactants then it may appear to shift the position of equilibrium by mass action effects. However, when it does this it is acting as a reactant, not as a catalyst. Mr Valev's claims to have shown otherwise... [...] Suffice it to say that if Mr Valev really believed what he was saying he would not be writing nonsense on this news group, he would be building the machine that would make him the richest man in Bulgaria (or even the world)." http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/valevfaq.htm

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:

> For the last 170 years, theoretical physicists have been paralyzing
> energetics by worshiping the false second law of thermodynamics. An
> obviously absurd corollary that should have invalidated this law is:
>
> "Catalysts don't shift the position of chemical equilibrium"

you have a valid point. But it's not that. The point is the granulation
of the spacetime. If such granulation exists, the you can cheat gravity
acting between those spacetime points.

I'm not sure everybody understand the procedure.

On 2022-01-30 15:31:10 +0000, Pentcho Valev said:

> For the last 170 years, theoretical physicists have been paralyzing
> energetics by worshiping the false second law of thermodynamics. An
> obviously absurd corollary that should have invalidated this law is:

I don't have anything to add to what you kindly quoted below -- just as
true today as it was in 1998.

It is true that my web site has disappeared -- not just the bit about
you, but all of it. Not my doing, however. As I have been having heart
problems, with three periods in hospital, since it happened, probably
around the end of November, I haven't yet discovered who made the
decision, or why, but it wasn't me. I'm pretty sure it wasn't the ony
person with the authority to do it, namely the Director of the
Institute, first, because I doubt whether she would have made such a
decision, and if she did I think she would have told me beforehand.
Most likely it was decided by some administrator exceeding his
authority. Anyway, I hope I can get it up again.

Meanwhile, thanks for letting me know that you still try to access my
site -- I had wondered if I was the only visitor it still got, now that
I am 78 and long retired.

You love to say that your ideas, both about thermodynamics and about
relativity, are obviously right. But, obvious or not, have you ever
convinced anyone else -- not just the real scientists, as it's in no
way surprising that they don't agree with you, but have you ever
convinced another crackpot? More generally, do any of the crackpots
here ever quote with approval anything that other crackpots have posted?
>
> "Catalysts don't shift the position of chemical equilibrium"
> https://youtu.be/usAPBgT3aDc?t=1101
>
> That catalysts can shift chemical equilibrium (and thereby violate the
> second law of thermodynamics) was my first heretical idea, about 30
> years ago. I believed my argument was convincing and enthusiastically
> submitted a short paper to Nature - they rejected it, as it were,
> before receiving it. My efforts to publish continued, mainly in The
> Journal of Physical Chemistry, and I was also active on Internet
> forums. The only result was this (recently the site disappeared from
> Internet; problems with conscience, Athel?):
>
> Athel Cornish-Bowden 1998: "Reading Mr Valev's postings to the BTK-MCA
> and other news groups and trying to answer all the nonsense contained
> in them incurs the risk of being so time-consuming that it takes over
> one's professional time completely, leaving none for more profitable
> activities. On the other hand, not answering them incurs the even
> greater risk that some readers of the news group may think that his
> points are unanswerable and that thermodynamics, kinetics, catalysis
> etc. rest on as fragile a foundation as he pretends. [...] Can a
> catalyst shift the position of an equilibrium? No. Absolutely not if it
> is a true catalyst present at very low concentrations. If it is present
> at a concentration comparable with that of one or more of the reactants
> then it may appear to shift the position of equilibrium by mass action
> effects. However, when it does this it is acting as a reactant, not as
> a catalyst. Mr Valev's claims to have shown otherwise... [...] Suffice
> it to say that if Mr Valev really believed what he was saying he would
> not be writing nonsense on this news group, he would be building the
> machine that would make him the richest man in Bulgaria (or even the
> world)." http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/valevfaq.htm
>
> See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
>
> Pentcho Valev

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 5:31:26 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> have you ever
> convinced anyone else -- not just the real scientists, as it's in no
> way surprising that they don't agree with you

Daniel Sheehan, a "real scientist", claims that catalysts do shift the position of equilibrium. I have already shown the video: https://youtu.be/usAPBgT3aDc?t=1101

You haven't understood anything of what Sheehan says, have you, Cornish?

Pentcho Valev

On 2022-01-30 18:03:35 +0000, Pentcho Valev said:

> On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 5:31:26 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
>> have you ever
>> convinced anyone else -- not just the real scientists, as it's in no
>> way surprising that they don't agree with you
>
> Daniel Sheehan, a "real scientist",

I was referring to real scientists who post here, which he doesn't, as
far as I have seen.

> claims that catalysts do shift the position of equilibrium. I have
> already shown the video: https://youtu.be/usAPBgT3aDc?t=1101
>
> You haven't understood anything of what Sheehan says, have you, Cornish?
>
> Pentcho Valev

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

Pentcho Valev wrote:
> ... Suffice it to say that if Mr Valev really believed what he was saying he
would not be writing nonsense on this news group, he would be building
the machine that would make him the richest man in Bulgaria (or even the
world)." http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/valevfaq.htm

You did well by posting the question asked to you, Pentchiotte. But why
didn't you answer?

On 2022-01-30 18:20:39 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:

> On 2022-01-30 18:03:35 +0000, Pentcho Valev said:
>
>> On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 5:31:26 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>
>>> have you ever
>>> convinced anyone else -- not just the real scientists, as it's in no
>>> way surprising that they don't agree with you
>>
>> Daniel Sheehan, a "real scientist",
>
> I was referring to real scientists who post here, which he doesn't, as
> far as I have seen.
>
>
>> claims that catalysts do shift the position of equilibrium. I have
>> already shown the video: https://youtu.be/usAPBgT3aDc?t=1101

Something I missed in this video is the moment when Sheehan said that
he had been steered in the right direction by the important insights of
P. Valev. If he didn't say that then maybe it's because it isn't true,
so he's not an example of a real scientist that has been influenced by
you. Do you have any?

Something you perhaps didn't notice is that he spoke favourably of
Einstein and relativity, so he apparently hasn't been convinced by the
nonsense you spew on that subject.

As for the lecture itself, it contains a lot of handwaving. Let him
build his perpetual motion machine; then we can worry about the theory
behind it.

>>
>> You haven't understood anything of what Sheehan says, have you, Cornish?
>>
>> Pentcho Valev

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

An obviously absurd (even idiotic) consequence of the second law of thermodynamics is that any catalyst speeds up the forward and reverse reaction rates equally (by exactly the same factor). In other words, the catalyst does not shift the position of equilibrium:

"In the presence of a catalyst, BOTH THE FORWARD AND REVERSE REACTION RATES WILL SPEED UP EQUALLY, thereby allowing the system to reach equilibrium faster. However, it is very important to keep in mind that the addition of a catalyst has no effect whatsoever on the final equilibrium position of the reaction. It simply gets it there faster. [...] If the addition of catalysts could possibly alter the equilibrium state of the reaction, this would violate the second rule of thermodynamics..." https://courses.lumenlearning.com/introchem/chapter/the-effect-of-a-catalyst/

Scientists should have noticed the obvious absurdity of this particular consequence of the second law long ago, and applied reductio ad absurdum: Since the consequence is absurd, the underlying premise, the second law of thermodynamics, is false.

Consider the dissociation-association reaction

A ⇌ B + C

which is in equilibrium. We add a catalyst and it starts splitting A - the rate constant of the forward (dissociation) reaction increases by a factor of, say, 745492. If the second law of thermodynamics is obeyed, the catalyst must increase the rate constant of the reverse (association) reaction by exactly the same factor, 745492. But this is insane! The reverse reaction is entirely different from the forward one - B and C must first get together, via diffusion, and only then can the catalyst join them to form A. Catalysts don't speed up diffusion!

Far from speeding up the forward and reverse reactions "equally", here a catalyst speeds up only the forward, 2H+ → H_2, and SUPPRESSES the reverse reaction, H_2 → 2H+ (violation of the second law of thermodynamics par excellence):

Yu Hang Li et al. Unidirectional suppression of hydrogen oxidation on oxidized platinum clusters https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms3500

More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 10:31:26 AM UTC-6, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> Meanwhile, thanks for letting me know that you still try to access my
> site -- I had wondered if I was the only visitor it still got, now that
> I am 78 and long retired.

I've occasionally visited.

Take care of your health!