🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jun 19, 9:32 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.

The false second premise used by Carnot could have been:

(1) MISLEADING. Then the conclusion, the prototype of the second law
of thermodynamics, is FALSE.

(2) REDUNDANT. Carnot would have realized that and would not have used
it.

(3) INDISPENSABLE for the deduction of the TRUE conclusion.

How can a FALSE premise be INDISPENSABLE? (1) seems to be the only
reasonable solution.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com