Entropy:A concept that is not a physical quantity PUBLISHED in SCI Journal

[avanta]

Physics paper: Entropy:A concept that is not a physical quantity Published in (SCI-E Journal) PHYSICS ESSAYS (Volume 25, Issue 2 (June 2012)) P172~175.

Download this paper here:

http://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=space&uid=543672&do=blog&id=592073

View attachment 5774


In the paper

III. ∮dQ/T=0 is a wrong equation based on a wrong calculus deducing

..................

" in thermodynamics, the P-V diagram should be P-V-T diagram, according which only ∫T ∫V ∫P 1/TdQ = ∫T ∫V ∫P dF(T,V,P) is clearly meaningful. Then, what does ∫T1/TdQ = ∫T dF(T, V, P) mean? Obviously, it is only meaningful to the calculus of three variables rather than one variable. The P-V-T diagram also shows that it is obviously untenable split or replace any reversible cycles using a series of element reversible Carnot cycles. To any reversible processes, dQ/T (i.e. df(T, V, P)/T) is meaningless in itself ."

.........................

 

[rpenner]

Crackpot physics in the sub-par outlet "Physics Essays"

http://physicsessays.org/doi/abs/10.4006/0836-1398-25.2.172

This study shows that entropy is not a physical quantity, that is, the physical quantity called “entropy” does not exist. If the efficiency of a heat engine is defined as $$\eta = W/W_1$$, and the reversible cycle is considered to be the Stirling cycle, then, given $$\oint dQ/T=0$$, we can prove $$\oint dW/T=0$$ and $$\oint dE/T=0$$. If $$\oint dQ/T=0$$, $$\oint dW/T=0$$, and $$\oint dE/T=0$$ are thought to define new system-state variables, such definitions would be absurd. The fundamental error of entropy is that in any reversible process, the polytropic process function $$Q$$ is not a single-valued function of $$T$$, and the key step of $$\sum [ ( \Delta Q )/T ]$$ to $$\int dQ/T$$ doesn't hold. Similarly,$$\oint dQ/T=0$$, $$\oint dW/T=0$$, and $$\oint dE/T=0$$ do not hold, either. Because the absolute entropy of Boltzmann is used to explain Clausius entropy, and the unit $$(J/K)$$ of the former is transformed from the latter, the nonexistence of Clausius entropy simultaneously denies Boltzmann entropy.

This is not the first time this author has self-promoted the same stupid paper here.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?100561 (promoting version of paper on a March 2010 blog post http://blog.51xuewen.com/zhangsf/article_27631.htm )
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?104654
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?114517 (same paper)

 

[AlphaNumeric]

To alternative theories with you!

 

[avanta]

Crackpot physics in the sub-par outlet "Physics Essays"

http://physicsessays.org/doi/abs/10.4006/0836-1398-25.2.172



This is not the first time this author has self-promoted the same stupid paper here.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?100561 (promoting version of paper on a March 2010 blog post http://blog.51xuewen.com/zhangsf/article_27631.htm )
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?104654
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?114517 (same paper)

Hi,rpenner,
I hope you can read this paper, please don't act on impulse without due consideration，I believe you could undersatand what this paper demonstrates is right.
In fact, at first, the reviewers of Physics Journal were the manner just as you to this paper, but, after reading carefully and thinking over, they change their tune.

sincerely yours