www.newthermodynamics.com

Intro: Thermodynamics concerns how systems that contain matter interact with thermal energy. Traditional thermodynamics has become a science based upon entropy change, which is actually a complication of the simple. Our new perspective focuses upon energy change, with the understanding that work is 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.

  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 often explain so many of the sciences ailments i.e. the scienceís cornerstone. Yet to this day it lacks the clarity of any precise meaning!

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 systemís ability to perform work rarely equals 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 beautiful mathematical enterprise. This then imposed our poor 20th century consideration of associating a systemís energy change with changes to the randomness of its molecules in incessant motion.

The above 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 believed, which then became the all encompassing proof for those beliefs.    

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.

It is interesting that today you some now understand that work is done onto the surrounding but seemingly nobody (this author excluded) is willing to make the next necessary mental leap. So today the science stands transfixed in macabre thought, 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!

  The above is really a case of putting 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. 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.

 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 iteslf into an unnecessarily excessively complex machine. 

 

   Intro continued

Referenced quotes:

 Introduction

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."

   Tolstoy Quote: ďI know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth, if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives

A New Thermodynamics

By Kent W. Mayhew
In order to appreciate why I say current 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
thermowebsite2001015.jpg thermowebsite2001012.jpg thermowebsite2001009.jpg thermowebsite2001008.jpg thermowebsite2001007.jpg thermowebsite2001006.jpg thermowebsite2001003.jpg thermowebsite2001002.jpg
This website is copyright of Kent W. Mayhew who in 2017 resides in Ottawa Ontario Canada
 
   This website is full of new ideas, which are the property of Kent.  
 
    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. 
Help support this site