Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: Heat as an indestructible substance



Jim Green wrote:

This did not happen in thermodynamics. Carnot's conclusion,
which can be generalized as

"An engine cannot absorb heat from a reservoir, completely convert it into
work and
return to its initial state"

has in fact never been tested experimentally. Rather, Clausius and Kelvin
INVALIDLY
deduced it from

"Heat cannot move from a cold to a hot body in the absence of other associated
changes"

The worst teaching that has been retained from these brethren is that "heat
can be absorbed" and that "heat can move."

If you want to criticize them for anything, criticize them for this. These
thoughts have polluted our thinking even since Aristotle's time.

Correct these teachings, and _then_ pose your problem. Then it will make
sense. Keep them and the problem will never make sense.

Heat is not a substance -- neither indestructible or otherwise. "Heat" (a
vile four-letter word) is _work,_ ie an action!!!

At least in my part of the galaxy. <g>

I disagree and agree at the same time. So far as heat "diffusion" and e.g. solute
diffusion obey the same equations, speaking of a "moving" heat gives some
advantages. However the damage is perhaps greater. In fact, what you say above is
close to Robert Mayer's ideas expressed as he established the first law. But they
sent him to a mental institution (others were to become the discoverers) so the
idea that heat is ESSENTIALLY different from work remained. If Robert Mayer's ideas
had prevailed, the second law would not have been established (at least so I
think).

Pentcho