Preface Page 2
Thermodynamics concerns how systems that contain matter interact with thermal energy. Traditional thermodynamics has become a science based upon the statistical entropy change, which is actually a complication of the simple. Specifically, it is a mathematical construct to which we continully try and determine a logic that fits, rather than take the scientific approach of construct a logic and then determine a math that suits that logic. Interestingly, Planck points out, that we had two choices when conceiving thermodynamics, and in so far as this author is concerned the choice would have been different if our 19th century greats understood the ramification of lost work into our atmosphere, as defined by W=PdV. 
 Our new perspective focuses upon energy change, with the understanding that work generally involves an irreversible process, and that this has no real basis in entropy change! In other words, thermodynamics can be simplified by omitting entropy in all of it guises. This includes the entropy based second law but not the original premise of the second law that being there is no such thing asw perpetual motion at least here surrounded by Earth's atmosphere. 

  Part of the reason that relations tend to be directly proportional to temperature is because the Sunís rays renders the thermal energy density of our massive heat baths/sinks (oceans, atmosphere and/or our planet) into linear functions of temperature. Since Earthly systems try to attain thermal equilibrium with these massive heat baths/sinks, this explains Clausiusís realization that something times temperature equates to energy. There is certainly nothing wrong with calling that something entropy! However, unnecessary complications arose because as a mathematical contrivance, entropy is used too often to explain so many of the sciences ailments i.e. the scienceís cornerstone. Yet to this day it lacks the clarity of any precise meaning! Seemingly we are chasing our tails trying to give logic to its functionality, when there are other explanation for why logarithmic functions are often required.

The complication is partly because a systemís thermal energy density depends upon both the systemís temperature and its contents. Furthermore, work is a form of energy but a gaseous systemís ability to perform work generally does not equal its energy change. Rather than reconciling these issues in the simplest of terms our predecessors envisioned entropy in terms of a natural logarithmic function, which was a misleading yet beautiful mathematical exercise.This then imposed the unnecessay 20th century consideration of associating a systemís energy change with changes to the randomness of its molecules in incessant motion.

This is not to say that statistical thermodynamics does not have its place, but the way it was constructed is circular logic e.g. it was brilliantly designed and then equated to what was empirically known. And since it now equates to experimental findings it  then became the all encompassing proof for those beliefs, which is NOT constructive logic.    

In simplest terms the problem actually started with the misunderstandings concerning lost work (PdV) by expanding systems. If lost work originally had the clarity of it being due to the displacement of our atmosphereís [P(atm)dV] mass, which ultimately lends itself to the heating of the atmosphere. Then we may have never wrongly perceived that the energy was lost inside the expanding system that led to that bizarre association of energy with randomness.(reference my 2015 paper "Second law and Lost Work" in Peer reviewed Journal Physics Essays) 

Note: Heating of atmosphere is often due to intermolecular collisions being inelastic: (Reference my 2017 and 2018 papers in peer reviewed on-line journal Progress in physics: Papers concerning rewriting kinetic theory: see my papers

It is interesting that today some now understand that work is done onto the surround atmosphere (W=PdV) but seemingly few are willing to make the next necessary mental leap that being the work is irreversible AKA lost work. So today some stand transfixed in macabre thought, i.e. that there is still an energy associated with an expanding systemís randomness, and yet the work done is onto the surroundings. In part this is do the hideous refusal to state the obvious that the surrounding tends to be our atmosphere! And the refusal to let go of entropy based thermodynamics and its associated second law. Sorry for repitition but sometime it is necessary.

 Traditional thermodynamics really  put the cart ahead of the horse. The reality remains that an isobaric gaseous system tends to become more random when thermal energy is added, and by more random it is meant that the isobaric systemís volume has increased, hence work [P(atm)dV] is done. Of course that same gaseous system maybe both closed and constrained i.e. isometric thus the additional thermal energy results in an isochloric/isometric pressure increase, hence no work is actually done but the potential to do work increases.

 Arnold Sommerfield was right (see quote to RHS). However, this author has come to realize that traditional thermodynamics is truly a complication of the simple. The science of how matter and energy interact should be a relatively simple science unfortunately it is an example of: "What a tangled web we weave, when at first we fail to perceive". I often compare thermodynamics to a computer  that being something that starts with simple bits and bytes but has seemingly manifested itself into an unnecessarily excessively complex machine. 


 Go to next page




A New Thermodynamics

By Kent W. Mayhew
In order to appreciate why I say that traditional thermodynamics is a complication of the simple please visit blogs/discussions page, where I discuss diverse topics all concerning thermodyanmics demonstrating that the science clearly requires a rethink
thermowebsite2003019.jpg thermowebsite2003016.jpg thermowebsite2003013.jpg thermowebsite2003012.jpg thermowebsite2003011.jpg thermowebsite2003010.jpg thermowebsite2003007.jpg thermowebsite2003006.jpg
Help support this site
Sommerfield quote:"Thermodynamics is a funny subject. The first time you go through it, you don't understand it at all. The second time you go through it, you think you understand it, except for one or two small points. The third time you go through it, you know you don't understand it, but by that time you are so used to it, so it doesn't bother you any more."
Referenced quotes:
Go to Next page
More thermodynamic myths
Go to Next page
My Thermodynamic Blogs
Go to Blogs
Go to Next page
Go to Previous page
Go to Blogs
Help support this site
This website is copyright of Kent W. Mayhew who in 2018 resides in Ottawa Ontario Canada
   This website is full of new ideas, which are the property of Kent W. Mayhew.  
    Furthermore you are free to share, copy or distribute in any manner that you feel is warranted, so long as you fully respectfully reference the author (Kent W. Mayhew) in a manner that you deem fit.