🚀 go-pugleaf

On Dec 10, 6:12 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In 1850 Clausius deduced (the prototype of) the second law of
> thermodynamics in this way:
>
> 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."
>
> I have always been claiming that Clausius' premises are true but the
> argument is INVALID. Here are the premises:
>
> 1. (TRUE) In the absence of irreversible changes in the surroundings
> influencing the process, heat always flows from hot to cold.
>
> 2. (TRUE) Perpetuum mobile of the first kind is impossible.
>
> In fact, there is a third FALSE premise which, if explicitly added to
> the set of premises, makes the argument VALID:
>
> 3. (FALSE) The process Clausius considers occurs in the absence of
> irreversible changes in the surroundings influencing it.
>
> In physical sciences, invalidity of arguments can be interpreted in
> terms of falsehood of premises.
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com

xxein:  You don't know the physic to make a valid statement.