Yes, indeed. There is for example a speech by Walter Nernst in honor of Clausius in 1922. And Max von Laue wrote a short biographical text in Neue Deutsche Biography

https://www.deutsche-biographie.de/gnd116540486.html

But unfortunately, I don't know about an English translation.

Apparently, no recent biography is available in German. You may find this book chapter from 2017 interesting

Chapter Kirchhoff, Clausius, Weber, and Connectedness

Also, Physics Today had a short CV about Clausius, although with little or no new insights

http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/PT.5.031388

Regards,

Thomas

Dr. Neusius,

Thank you for the references.

On searching the link in Google Chrome, https://www.deutsche-biographie.de/gnd116540486.html , Google offered to translate the article into English; the translation is quite readable. I have spent a few minutes looking for the Nernst speech honoring Clausius, but no luck so far.

Thank you again for your helpful post.

Bob Shour

You find some (limited) discussion in Ingo Muller's book on the history of thermodynamics: https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783540462262

and there could be more in Truesdell's Tragicomic History... (I don't have it): https://books.google.ca/books/about/The_Tragicomic_History_of_Thermodynamics.html?id=khbvnwEACAAJ&redir_esc=y

For Nernst: try this (in German) : http://digitale-sammlungen.ulb.uni-bonn.de/download/pdf/972670?name=Rudolf%20Clausius%20geb%202%20Januar%201822%20gest%2024%20August%201888%201869%20-%201888%20Professor%20der

Dr Struchtrup,

Thank you for the three links, appreciated.

I had given up googling to find the Nernst tribute to Clausius, so was delighted to download the Nernst biographical comments (even tho I am unable to speak or read German).

Dr. Struchtrup, Truesdell seems to have been an accomplished mathematician and recognized in his lifetime with various awards. A book review of the Tragicomic History you refer to by David Channell is on Jstor. The Tragicomic History was written as a play in five acts, detailing developments in thermodynamics, roughly 1822 to 1854. The other interesting thing about the Channel book review is his mention of Ferdinand Reech (who is not well known). There is an article about him on encyclopedia.com.

A compilation of papers on Kinetic Theory by Stephen Brush includes some papers of Clausius, and so gives a sense of Clausius academically. Incidentally, I wrote Working Paper Clausius’s 1860 article on mean path lengths

a few months ago, I realized there is a (minor) logical error in the Clausius paper which I had failed to notice the past several years since I first read the 1860 paper, but fixing the minor logical error gives Clausius credit for an early version of 4/3 scaling.

Well, that is the long way round to say thank you, again.

Best wishes.

Bob Shour

Cropper's excellent book

"Great Physicists: The Life and Times of Leading Physicists from Galileo to Hawking" devotes a chapter to Clausius and also explains why there is little in the way of literature about him. Worth the read.

In her book Energy the Subtle Concept, at page 288, Coopersmith includes some brief biographical remarks about Clausius.

The so-called "entropy " doesn't exist at all.

During the process of deriving the so-called entropy, in fact, ΔQ/T can not be turned into dQ/T. That is, the so-called "entropy " doesn't exist at all.

The so-called entropy was such a concept that was derived by mistake in history.

It is well known that calculus has a definition,

any theory should follow the same principle of calculus; thermodynamics, of course, is no exception, for there's no other calculus at all, this is common sense.

Based on the definition of calculus, we know:

to the definite integral ∫T f(T)dQ, only when Q=F(T), ∫T f(T)dQ=∫T f(T)dF(T) is meaningful.

As long as Q is not a single-valued function of T, namely, Q=F( T, X, …), then,

∫T f(T)dQ=∫T f(T)dF(T, X, …) is meaningless.

1) Now, on the one hand, we all know that Q is not a single-valued function of T, this alone is enough to determine that the definite integral ∫T f(T)dQ=∫T 1/TdQ is meaningless.

2) On the other hand, In fact, Q=f(P, V, T), then

∫T 1/TdQ = ∫T 1/Tdf(T, V, P)= ∫T dF(T, V, P) is certainly meaningless. ( in ∫T , T is subscript ).

We know that dQ/T is used for the definite integral ∫T 1/TdQ, while ∫T 1/TdQ is meaningless, so, ΔQ/T can not be turned into dQ/T at all.

that is, the so-called "entropy " doesn't exist at all.

1. Logic of the Second Law of Thermodynamics: Subjectivism, Logical Jump, Interdisciplinary Argumentation.

2. New thermodynamics pursues universality, two theoretical cornerstones:

2.1 Boltzmann formula: ro=A*exp(-Mgh/RT) - Isotope centrifugal separation experiments show that it is suitable for gases and liquids.

2.2. Hydrostatic equilibrium: applicable to gases and liquids.

3. The second and third sonic virial coefficients of R143a derived from the new thermodynamics are in agreement with the experimental results.

3.1. The third velocity Virial coefficient derived is in agreement with the experimental data, which shows that the theory is still correct when the critical density is reached.

4. See Appendix Pictures and Documents for details.

1，The second law of thermodynamics is incorrect. See figure below for details.

2，The system is isothermal and exchanges heat with a large heat source to keep the temperature constant. Only volume changes are discussed.

3，The problem here is that the actual system is balanced and the second law of thermodynamics judges it to be unbalanced.