On Aug 2, 4:56*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
In 1824 Sadi Carnot deduced the (prototype of the) second law of
thermodynamics from two axioms; one of them turned out to be false in
the end:

The false axiom: "Heat is an indestructible substance that cannot be
converted into work in the heat engine."


It is not a false axiom. Entropy can be considered a substance in
the most general sense. Temperature is the pressure exerted by this
substance. Entropy is also indestructible, as described by the second
law of thermodynamics.
Entropy is an extensive property. Therefore, it has a density
associated with it. The amount of entropy in a volume is proportional
to a spatial integral of the entropy density in that volume. Just like
a fluid. The equations of entropy are analogous to those of an ideal
gas.
Carnot often used the French word "caloric" for what we would
call today "entropy". His work was an extension of the caloric theory.
Your misunderstanding is not completely your fault, for once.
Science teachers since 1910 have been teaching that the caloric theory
had been disproved. This is not true. The caloric theory as developed
by Sadi Carnot is healthy. Rumors of the death of caloric theory have
been highly exaggerated.
You like to quote references that are ancient. I sometimes do
the same thing. Some of the older books have addressed some of your
concerns. I suggest you obtain, any way possible, the following
article:
"Entropy in the Teaching of Introductory Thermodynamics," by Hans U.
Fuchs in American Journal of Physics Volume 55 Issue 3 on March 1987.
This article describes in great deal how the teaching of
thermodynamics has been messed up. Fuchs places the blame on a H. L.
Callendar, a professor of physics who in 1911 wrote an essay that has
been mindlessly copied into many textbooks. Reference:
"The Caloric Theory of Heat and Carnot's Principle," by H. L.
Callender in Proceedings of the Physical Society of London Volume 23
from December 1910 to August 1911.
If you direct your rants and raves to Callendar instead of
Einstein, I would be forced to agree with you. Oddly, there is no
crank who rants and raves against Callendar. You will break new
ground, and may actually do some good.
For another look at how teachers have messed up introductory
courses in physics, I suggest you get a copy of:
"The Teaching of Physics," by J. W. Warren (London Butterworths
1965).
The reference above pretty much started the twisted way teachers
introduce thermodynamics. Physics students and physicists who work in
the field, constantly, learn the real stuff by working out example
after example. However, laymen generally never get past the Callendar
model of thermodynamics. The common use of the language really
originated with Callendars articles and books. I don't know how one
science writer could mess up science education so bad.
Another book that describes how introductory physics was messed
up is:
"The Teaching of Physics" by J. W. Warren (London Butterworth 1965).
Chapter 6 of this book (pages 42-58) describes how thermodynamics
is not taught well.
These are old references, but I think they are still valid today.
You may try to invest a little money buying these articles and
books. Then read them. You will find plenty of real stupidity to rant
against. However, there is something you have to keep in mind. The
problem is not with the theory of thermodynamics the way experience
physicists use it. Thermodynamics has been tested again and again.
Thermodynamics is one of the main pillars of physics.