(07-28-2024, 08:57 AM)chief colbacict Wrote: Do you think breaking the Carnot Limit is also a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

(07-27-2024, 10:56 AM)This is a special case of the Clausius inequality (equivalent to the second law of thermodynamics): the sum of the heat received by the system from different reservoirs during the cycle, divided in each case by the temperature of the reservoir, gives a maximum of zero. Wrote: In the special case of two reservoirs, Tн and Tх, we take heat Q from the heater, do work A and transfer (Q-A) to the refrigerator. Clausius inequality:

Q/Tн - (Q-A)/Tх ≤ 0 , we transfer, rewrite: A/Q ≤ 1 - Tх/Tн = (Tн - Tх)/Tн

The problem with all that is it's based on Caloric (heat engine as a water wheel) theory where temperature is viewed as a measure of a fluid.

Let's say Th = 600 and Tc = 300 (you have TX but Tc seems more logical to me c=cold)

Relate that to a bottle of liquid.

300 is 1/2 a bottle

600 is a full bottle

Let's say you start with 300 (bottle half full) we add 300 joules of heat.

The bottle is now full. 600

To use "all the heat" and empty the bottle we will need to remove 600 joules.

This is, among other things inconsistent in terms of how heat is defined.

Today, in modern science heat is defined as a transfer of energy.

So, we start out with 300. The bottle half full. We TRANSFER 300 joules to fill the bottle.

We start at equilibrium.

It is 300 degrees K both inside and outside the bottle (i.e. engine).

We supply 300 joules.

That raises the temperature to 600, which is 300 above ambient (equilibrium)

So now the lame brained thermodynamicists tell me In order to use "all the heat" I need to use and/or "reject" all 600 joules, (empty the bottle).

We did not TRANSFER 600 joules of "heat" into the bottle. 300 were already there, we only transfered 300 which added up to 600 total, but the 300 that was already present is not "heat" by definition. It was never transfered.

What kind of lunacy is it to say that if we supply(transfer) 300 joules into an engine we have to convert 600 of those added joules into work for 100% efficiency.

Or if we use all of the 300 joules supplied by converting those 300 joules into work output that is only 50% efficiency because we are "rejecting" the remaining 300 joules. (That are just sitting at equilibrium with the surroundings).

It's difficult for me to fathom how such utter irrational nonsense manages to perpetuate itself down through history in the form of a mathematical equation without anyone noticing its based on a complete fallacy.

Heat is not a fluid. A heat engine is not a water wheel. Temperature is not a measure of a volume of a fluid.