🚀 go-pugleaf

On Aug 1, 1:53 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In 1824 Sadi Carnot advanced a false premise and deduced a conclusion
> later called "the second law of thermodynamics":
>
> Kelvin's version: It is impossible to perform a cyclic process with no
> other result than that heat is absorbed from a reservoir, and work is
> performed.
>
> This implies that, when two INTERACTING heat engines absorb heat from
> a reservoir (the surroundings) and perform reversible work, the
> following equality of partial derivatives holds:
>
> dF1 / dX2 = dF2 / dX1
>
> where F1 and F2 are work-producing forces and X1 and X2 are the
> respective displacements.
>
> The above implication is more or less an oxymoron since the equality
> clearly characterizes NON-INTERACTING heat engines. At least in two
> cases (seehttp://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev2.htm) the partial
> derivatives are not equal and therefore the second law of
> thermodynamics is false.
>
> The next development of thermodynamics can be characterized in the
> following way:
>
> Camouflaging the falsehood of the second law of thermodynamics by
> introducing a red herring called "the law of entropy increase":
>
> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
> Jos Uffink: "This summary leads to the question whether it is fruitful
> to see irreversibility or time-asymmetry as the essence of the second
> law. Is it not more straightforward, in view of the unargued
> statements of Kelvin, the bold claims of Clausius and the strained
> attempts of Planck, to give up this idea? I believe that Ehrenfest-
> Afanassjewa was right in her verdict that the discussion about the
> arrow of time as expressed in the second law of the thermodynamics is
> actually a RED HERRING."
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com

Sir, i have difficulties understanding you this time

2nd law cant possibly be wrong, there is an arrow
in any case, you can feel it