Assume in

http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/Clausius.html
http://www.mdpi.org/lin/clausius/clausius.htm
Rudolf Clausius, Ueber die bewegende Kraft der Wärme, Annalen der
Physik und Chemie, 79, 368-97, 500-24 (1850):
"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."

the WORDS IN CAPITALS are wrong: the reversible cycle described by
Clausius is unimaginable in the absence of irreversible changes in the
surroundings. What will remain of the thermodynamic theory if Clausius
has really used a false premise in his desperate attempt to save
Carnot's conclusion? Suggestion: NOTHING.

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote:

http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/Clausius.html
http://www.mdpi.org/lin/clausius/clausius.htm
Rudolf Clausius, Ueber die bewegende Kraft der Wärme, Annalen der
Physik und Chemie, 79, 368-97, 500-24 (1850):
"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."

the WORDS IN CAPITALS are wrong: the reversible cycle described by
Clausius is unimaginable in the absence of irreversible changes in the
surroundings. What will remain of the thermodynamic theory if Clausius
has really used a false premise in his desperate attempt to save
Carnot's conclusion? Suggestion: NOTHING.

Pentcho Valev

There is one thing about absolute zero, it has field, it radiates and this
radiation too is a form of work. Absolute zero should be considered a
constant. Thus the hotter anything would get, the colder absolute zero would
get. Achievement of infinite heat at one end of the scale would be
meaningless since it would mean achievement of infinite cold in the constant
of absolute zero at the other end of the scale.

At the same time because absolute zero has field, Because it radiates,
because it WORKS, there WILL BE a temperature one-billionth of a billionth,
of a billionth, of a billionth.... of a degree above absolute zero.
Consequently there will be a temperature one degree above absolute zero.
Consequently.....

GLB

"G. L. Bradford" wrote in message
...
|
| "Pentcho Valev" wrote:
|
| http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/Clausius.html
| http://www.mdpi.org/lin/clausius/clausius.htm
| Rudolf Clausius, Ueber die bewegende Kraft der Wärme, Annalen der
| Physik und Chemie, 79, 368-97, 500-24 (1850):
| "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."
|
| the WORDS IN CAPITALS are wrong: the reversible cycle described by
| Clausius is unimaginable in the absence of irreversible changes in the
| surroundings. What will remain of the thermodynamic theory if Clausius
| has really used a false premise in his desperate attempt to save
| Carnot's conclusion? Suggestion: NOTHING.
|
| Pentcho Valev
|
| There is one thing about absolute zero, it has field, it radiates and
this
| radiation too is a form of work.

Wrong, by definition of zero.
Androcles