Thermodynamics
concerns how systems that contain matter interact with thermal energy (AKA heat). Traditional thermodynamics has become a science
based upon the statistical entropy change, which is actually a complication of the simple. It actually limits real science to processes
in thermal equilibrium, which are nothing less than processes where traditional statistical thermodynamics supposedly can explain
what is witnessed. Rather than realize that this thermal equilibrium restraint is part of the science Achilles
heel, it is emboldened by concepts like the science is based upon infinitesimal rather than real processes combined with a complete
lack of clarity (E+PV: Means?), not to forget entropy, the parameter that nobody knows what it means.

So
statistical thermodynamics is based upon a mathematical construct to which we continually try and determine a logic that fits,
rather than allow the proper scientific approach of constructing logic and then determining 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! Note: The original premise
of the second law that being there is no such thing as perpetual motion at least here surrounded by Earth's atmosphere,
remains valid.

Part of the reason that relations tend to be directly proportional to temperature is because
the Sun’s rays renders the thermal energy density of our massive heat baths/sinks (oceans, atmosphere and/or our planet) into linear
functions of temperature. There is more to this but realizing this functionality allows us to vacate many thermal equilibrium
based statistical arguments. Moreover, since Earthly systems try to attain thermal equilibrium with these massive heat baths/sinks,
this explains Clausius’s realization that something times temperature equates to energy. There is certainly nothing wrong with calling
that something entropy!

However, unnecessary complications arise because as a mathematical contrivance, entropy is used too
often to explain so many of the science's ailments i.e. the science’s cornerstone. Yet to this day it lacks the clarity of a precise
definition! Are we chasing our tails trying to give logic to its functionality, when there are other explanations for whylogarithmic functions in thermodynamics are often required?

Part of the complication is because a system’s
thermal energy density depends upon both the system’s temperature and its contents. Furthermore, work is a form of energy but a gaseous
system’s 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 unnecessary 20^{th} century consideration of associating a system’s 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 concerning thermodynamics is an exercise in circular logic e.g. it was brilliantly
designed and then equated to what was empirically known. Therefore, although it equates to experimental findings, it lacks a
logical construct. Even so, to the indoctrinated it has become the all-encompassing proof for their beliefs. Logic be dammed!

In simplest terms the problem actually started with the misunderstandings concerning lost work (PdV) by expanding systems. Iflost work originally had the clarity of it being due to the displacement of our atmosphere’s mass [exact differential: W_{lost}=(PdV)_{atm}].
And that this 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 of interest that Nikolov and Zeller (2018) realize that part of our atmosphere's heat
is due to pressure, which I call natural *P*-*T* relationships. Such relations are not readily explainable in terms of traditional
thermodynamics which is based upon elastic collisions. See my blog on Global Warming. (To preface page 3) (back to preface
page 1)

It is interesting that today some now understand that work is done onto the surrounding atmosphere [W_{lost}=(PdV)_{atm}] 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 system’s randomness, and yet
the work done is onto the surroundings. In part this is doing the hideous refusal to state the obvious that the surrounding tends
to be our atmosphere! Others seemingly hide this by the ridiculous notion that when a system is compressed then work is actually done
onto this system i.e. the ridiculous notion that compression is simply the reverse of expansion i.e. that they are mutually reversible
processes when they are NOT!

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

Go to Next page

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.