Scientists have abandoned experimental proof of η=1-T1/T2 and instead used experimental data to piece together η=1-T1/T2. Shameful! Please refer to the attached diagram for details:
1) Method A in the figure is a method for verifying Carnot efficiency, which scientists rarely use because the experiment deviates significantly from theoretical predictions.
2) Scientists extensively use method B in the figure, which does not involve theoretical predictions, but instead uses experiments to gather theory. This is shameful, it's data fraud. The enthalpy entropy charts we use are all pieced together using method B.
3) Scientists explain why method A is not necessary. It's because the experiment is not good, which is deceiving. Science has developed for hundreds of years, and even more rare experiments can be conducted.
4) The core is that scientists are unwilling to admit that the second law of thermodynamics is inconsistent with experiments, but this violates scientific discipline and morality.
It sounds like you're referring to the efficiency (η) of a process, which is often calculated using the formula η = 1 - (T1 / T2), where T1 is the temperature of the system where work is being done and T2 is the temperature of the surroundings. This formula comes from thermodynamics, specifically the Carnot efficiency formula for heat engines.
In the traditional approach, scientists would conduct experiments to directly measure T1 and T2 and then use those values to calculate the efficiency. However, it seems you're suggesting that scientists have shifted away from relying solely on experimental proof of this formula and instead are using experimental data to infer or estimate the efficiency indirectly.
This could mean that rather than directly measuring temperatures and plugging them into the formula, scientists are using experimental data from other related measurements or observations to estimate the efficiency of a process. This might involve techniques like computational simulations, statistical analysis of data, or theoretical modeling to understand the efficiency of a system without directly measuring temperatures.
This shift could be due to various reasons such as limitations in experimental techniques, the complexity of the system being studied, or the desire for more efficient and cost-effective ways to analyze and understand processes. However, it's important to note that experimental validation and direct measurements still play a crucial role in scientific inquiry, especially when it comes to verifying theoretical predictions and models.
Again, a completely misplaced claim showing no real understanding of the physical background. The Carnot efficiency is a maximum achievable for a reversible heat engine. No truly reversible macroscopic processes exist. So the Carnot efficiency is a theoretical limit. You can approach it by experiments, but you cannot reach it, because true efficiencies are bound to be below. Moreover, a true Carnot machine must run infinitely slowly, so it is not interesting in practice. Rather, real heat engines should try to achieve the operating point of an endoreversible engine (another theoretical concept, look it up), which has a lower efficiency than a Carnot machine but a finite power output. And you know what? There are power plants that operate close to the efficiency of an endoreversible machine. An experiment in favor of the theory based on the second law of thermodynamics...
On the other hand, heat pumps nowadays in frequent use in everyday life regularly display efficiencies close to that of a backwards running Carnot machine. Which is additional experimental evidence in favor of the theoretical law.
The second law of thermodynamics is healthy and well, in contrast to your claims.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Ecology