🚀 go-pugleaf

> In 1824 Sadi Carnot deduced the prototype of the second law of
> thermodynamics:
>
> All reversible heat engines working between two fixed temperatures
> have the same efficiency.
>
> from two premises:
>
> 1. Perpetuum mobile of the first kind is impossible.
>
> 2. Heat is conserved (cannot be converted into work by the heat
> engine).
>
> Then the second premise was officially declared false but the
> conclusion, the prototype of the second law of thermodynamics,
> remained gloriously true. More precisely, the glory was introduced by
> Clausius who, in 1850, managed to convince the world that the false
> premise should be forgotten and replaced by a true one:
>
> 2'. Heat flows spontaneously from hot to cold.
>
> Theoreticians and philosophers of science have never seen any problem
> in the fact that, originally, a false premise was ESSENTIAL in the
> deduction of a true conclusion. At least they should have considered
> the following hypothesis:
>
> The conclusion, the prototype of the second law of thermodynamics, is
> false as well; Clausius' 1850 ad hoc deduction was invalid.

Carnot's conclusion was a law, and the prior probability of any law is
zero. That is, if the efficiency of the heat engine A (working
reversibly between the temperatures T1 and T2) is a, and if the
efficiency of the heat engine B is b, the probability one should
assign to a=b BEFORE THERE IS ANY EVIDENCE is zero. Since Carnot's
first premise ALONE is obviously no evidence, one is forced to accept
that in 1824 the false second premise was crucial for establishing a
law whose prior probability was zero. If one refuses to accept such an
absurdity, one should move to the only reasonable alternative: THE LAW
IS FALSE as well. Violations of the second law of thermodynamics are
discussed in this (not very well written) paper of mine:

http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev2.htm
BIASED THERMAL MOTION AND THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com