The fraudulent definition of heat engine:
"In thermodynamics and engineering, a heat engine is a system that converts heat to usable energy, particularly mechanical energy, which can then be used to do mechanical work. While originally conceived in the context of mechanical energy, the concept
of the heat engine has been applied to various other kinds of energy, particularly electrical, since at least the late 19th century. THE HEAT ENGINE DOES THIS BY BRINGING A WORKING SUBSTANCE FROM A HIGHER STATE TEMPERATURE TO A LOWER STATE TEMPERATURE."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_engine
"A NECESSARY component of a heat engine, then, is that TWO TEMPERATURES ARE INVOLVED. At one stage the system is heated, at another it is cooled."
http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py105/Heatengines.html
Post-truth science par excellence, no?
The metastases of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light malignancy definitively killed physics, but this branch of science was already in agony in 1905, overwhelmed by the metastases of another malignancy - the second law of thermodynamics. In some
respects, the ideology of thermodynamics is stronger than the ideology of relativity. Relativity deniers are just crackpots, cranks, trolls while the second law deniers are insane perpetuum mobile constructors, which is worse. So one cannot say "The
second law of thermodynamics is false". It is much safer to use the euphemism "The second law of thermodynamics is obscure":
Jos Uffink: "I therefore argue for the view that THE SECOND LAW HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ARROW OF TIME...Before one can claim that acquaintance with the Second Law is as indispensable to a cultural education as Macbeth or Hamlet, it should obviously be
clear what this law states. This question is surprisingly difficult. The Second Law made its appearance in physics around 1850, but a half century later it was already surrounded by so much confusion that the British Association for the Advancement of
Science decided to appoint a special committee with the task of providing clarity about the meaning of this law. However, its final report (Bryan 1891) did not settle the issue. Half a century later, the physicist/philosopher Bridgman still complained
that there are almost as many formulations of the second law as there have been discussions of it. And EVEN TODAY, THE SECOND LAW REMAINS SO OBSCURE that it continues to attract new efforts at clarification."
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/313/1/engtot.
pdf
Clifford Truesdell, The Tragicomical History of Thermodynamics, 1822-1854, p. 6: "Finally, I confess to a heartfelt hope - very slender but tough - that even some thermodynamicists of the old tribe will study this book, master the contents, and so share
in my discovery: Thermodynamics need never have been the DISMAL SWAMP OF OBSCURITY that from the first it was and that today in common instruction it is; in consequence, it need not so remain."...p. 333: "Clausius' verbal statement of the "Second Law"
makes no sense, for "some other change connected therewith" introduces two new and unexplained concepts: "other change" and "connection" of changes. Neither of these finds any place in Clausius' formal structure. All that remains is a Mosaic prohibition.
A century of philosophers and journalists have acclaimed this commandment; a century of mathematicians have shuddered and averted their eyes from the unclean."
https://www.amazon.com/Tragicomical-Thermodynamics-1822-1854-Mathematics-Physical/dp/1461394465
Pentcho Valev
https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
