🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jun 19, 10:32 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.

Why Clausius' 1850 ad hoc deduction is invalid: Clausius' claims given
below in capitals: "THE ONLY CHANGE" and "WITHOUT ANY EXPENDITURE OF
FORCE OR ANY OTHER CHANGE" - are false:

http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/Clausius.html
"Ueber die bewegende Kraft der Warme" 1850 Rudolf Clausius: "Carnot
assumed, as has already been mentioned, that the equivalent of the
work done by heat is found in the mere transfer of heat from a hotter
to a colder body, while the quantity of heat remains undiminished. The
latter part of this assumption--namely, that the quantity of heat
remains undiminished--contradicts our former principle, and must
therefore be rejected... (...) It is this maximum of work which must
be compared with the heat transferred. When this is done it appears
that there is in fact ground for asserting, with Carnot, that it
depends only on the quantity of the heat transferred and on the
temperatures t and tau of the two bodies A and B, but not on the
nature of the substance by means of which the work is done. (...) If
we now suppose that there are two substances of which the one can
produce more work than the other by the transfer of a given amount of
heat, or, what comes to the same thing, needs to transfer less heat
from A to B to produce a given quantity of work, we may use these two
substances alternately by producing work with one of them in the above
process. At the end of the operations both bodies are in their
original condition; further, the work produced will have exactly
counterbalanced the work done, and therefore, by our former principle,
the quantity of heat can have neither increased nor diminished. THE
ONLY CHANGE will occur in the distribution of the heat, since more
heat will be transferred from B to A than from A to B, and so on the
whole heat will be transferred from B to A. By repeating these two
processes alternately it would be possible, WITHOUT ANY EXPENDITURE OF
FORCE OR ANY OTHER CHANGE, to transfer as much heat as we please from
a cold to a hot body, and this is not in accord with the other
relations of heat, since it always shows a tendency to equalize
temperature differences and therefore to pass from hotter to colder
bodies."

In fact, the process considered by Clausius and essential for his
deduction presupposes the constant action of an OPERATOR; this
operator constantly and unavoidably undergoes CHANGES, changes that
are absent when heat spontaneously "shows a tendency to equalize
temperature differences and therefore to pass from hotter to colder
bodies".

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com