Abstract
At its origins, thermodynamics was the study of heat and engines. Carnot transformed it into a scientific discipline by explaining engine power in terms of transfer of “caloric”. That idea became the second law of thermodynamics when Thomson and Clausius reconciled Carnot’s theory with Joule’s conflicting thesis that power was derived from the consumption of heat, which was determined to be a form of energy. Eventually, Clausius formulated the 2nd-law as the universal entropy growth principle: the synthesis of transfer vs. consumption led to what became known as the mechanical theory of heat (MTH). However, by making universal-interconvertibility the cornerstone of MTH their synthesis-project was a defective one, which precluded MTH from developing the full expression of the second law. This paper reiterates that universal-interconvertibility is demonstrably false—as the case has been made by many others—by clarifying the true meaning of the mechanical equivalent of heat. And, presents a two-part formulation of the second law: universal entropy growth principle as well as a new principle that no change in Nature happens without entropy growth potential. With the new principle as its cornerstone replacing universal-interconvertibility, thermodynamics transcends the defective MTH and becomes a coherent conceptual system.
Highlights
The cornerstone of the mechanical theory of heat (MTH) is the equivalence principle (or, the mechanical equivalent of heat (MEH)): heat and mechanical work are equivalent
This paper argues that defining heat as a form of energy, significant though it was as a move in support of reductionist philosophical mechanism, is problematic: heat can only be comprehended in terms of both energy and entropy, or in terms of both the first law and the second law
This is a conclusion drawn here from a review of the evolution of the second law thought from its beginning by Carnot to its incorporation by Thomson and Clausius into MTH, which was based on the ontology doctrine of heat as a form of energy
Summary
The cornerstone of the mechanical theory of heat (MTH) is the equivalence principle (or, the mechanical equivalent of heat (MEH)): heat and mechanical work are equivalent. This paper argues that defining heat as a form of energy, significant though it was as a move in support of reductionist philosophical mechanism, is problematic: heat can only be comprehended in terms of both energy and entropy, or in terms of both the first law and the second law. This is a conclusion drawn here from a review of the evolution of the second law thought from its beginning by Carnot to its incorporation by Thomson and Clausius into MTH, which was based on the ontology doctrine of heat as a form of energy. This paper lays out the latter choice—thermodynamics as a predicative, entropic theory of heat
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
