Preprint Article Version 1 Preserved in Portico This version is not peer-reviewed

Proof of Equivalence of Carnot Principle to II Law of Thermodynamics and Non-equivalence to Clausius I and Kelvin Principles

Version 1 : Received: 13 February 2022 / Approved: 17 February 2022 / Online: 17 February 2022 (13:24:10 CET)

A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.

Koczan, G.M. Proof of Equivalence of Carnot Principle to II Law of Thermodynamics and Non-Equivalence to Clausius I and Kelvin Principles. Entropy 2022, 24, 392. Koczan, G.M. Proof of Equivalence of Carnot Principle to II Law of Thermodynamics and Non-Equivalence to Clausius I and Kelvin Principles. Entropy 2022, 24, 392.

Abstract

The II law of thermodynamics is most often given in three supposedly equivalent formulations: two Clausius (I and II) and one Kelvin. The most general and indisputable entropy formulation belong to Clausius (II). The earlier Clausius I principle determines the natural direction heat flow between bodies at different temperatures. On the other hand, the Kelvin principle states that it is impossible to completely convert heat into work. The author argues that the Kelvin principle is a weaker statement (or more strictly non-equivalent) than Clausius I principle, and the latter is a weaker statement than Carnot principle, which is equivalent to Clausius II principle. As a result, the Kelvin principle and the Clausius I principle are not exhaustive formulations of the II law of thermodynamics. At the same time, it turns out that the Carnot principle becomes such a formulation. Apart from providing a complete set of proof and disproof, the author, indicates where the methodological errors were made in the alleged proof of the equivalence of the Kelvin principle and both Clausius principles.

Keywords

II law of thermodynamics; Carnot principle; Kelvin principle; Ostwald principle; perpetuum mobile type III; Clausius I and II principles; formal implication; model theory

Subject

Physical Sciences, Thermodynamics

Comments (0)

We encourage comments and feedback from a broad range of readers. See criteria for comments and our Diversity statement.

Leave a public comment
Send a private comment to the author(s)
* All users must log in before leaving a comment
Views 0
Downloads 0
Comments 0
Metrics 0


×
Alerts
Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.
We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here.