MTH was the outcome of the Kelvin–Clausius synthesis project with strong
energy bias in its effort in incorporating Carnot’s theory. This energy bias served
well the expediency that has powered industrialization of the past 150 years. Also,
it is remarkable that this energy bias does not negatively impact the theory of
equilibrium thermodynamics, which is a perfectly coherent system. The reason for
that is that energy bias is never explicit in equilibrium thermodynamics. In contrast,
energy bias is explicit and front-and-center in engineering thermodynamics.
That is because the key question in engineering thermodynamics is what drives
the universe. Interconvertibility, or GS-2.a, and energy conversion doctrine, GS-4,
appear to provide answer to that question: there is an apparent utility in high
temperature heat; or better yet, the idea that energy (see discussion in Chap. 7, as
well as discussion on energetics below) is the driver of the universe. In this simplistic view of energy-the-driver (or apparent utility of heat), there is an elephant in
the room clothed in entropy growth. Without a clear conception of the elephant, the
“standard approach” (see also paragraph below) often views that entropy growth
only hinders that drive by degrading energy: “Entropy and dissipation of energy are
as inseparable as Siamese twins in the thought of every student of thermodynamics…” [13].
It was not too long ago that Ilya Prigogine recounted the experience of having to
overcome this mindset of the standard approach before he came up with the concept
of dissipative structures [14] as an alternative to the standard approach,
Among all those perspectives opened by thermodynamics, the one which was to keep my
interest was the study of irreversible phenomena, which made so manifest the “arrow of
time”. From the very start, I always attributed to these processes a constructive role, in
opposition to the standard approach, which only saw in these phenomena degradation and
loss of useful work…The fact is that it appeared to me that living things provided us with
striking examples of systems which were highly organized and where irreversible phenomena played an essential role. Such intellectual connections, although rather vague at the
beginning, contributed to the elaboration, in 1945, of the theorem of minimum entropy
production, applicable to non-equilibrium stationary states…From the very beginning, I
knew that the minimum entropy production was valid only for the linear branch of irreversible phenomena…thus, the question was: What about the stationary states far from
equilibrium…Those problems had confronted us for more than twenty years, between 1947
and 1967, until we finally reached the notion of “dissipative structure”. [15]
As shown in Chap. 7 and will be in Chap. 9, the entropy principle was successfully incorporated as the centerpiece in equilibrium thermodynamics, which, as
its postulational treatments including Callen’s treatment [16] made it clear, is a
theory that is free of its inductive development of the pre-1865 MTH thermodynamics. But, the assimilation of the entropy principle in engineering thermodynamics in the form of the theory of exergy (Chap. 7) is not satisfactory—which, the
exergy theory, remains completely within the pre-1865 framework of MTH and
fails to challenge the MTH premises of GS-2.a and GS-4. A suggestion has been
192
8 The Second Law: The Entropy Growth Potential Principle …
energy bias in its effort in incorporating Carnot’s theory. This energy bias served
well the expediency that has powered industrialization of the past 150 years. Also,
it is remarkable that this energy bias does not negatively impact the theory of
equilibrium thermodynamics, which is a perfectly coherent system. The reason for
that is that energy bias is never explicit in equilibrium thermodynamics. In contrast,
energy bias is explicit and front-and-center in engineering thermodynamics.
That is because the key question in engineering thermodynamics is what drives
the universe. Interconvertibility, or GS-2.a, and energy conversion doctrine, GS-4,
appear to provide answer to that question: there is an apparent utility in high
temperature heat; or better yet, the idea that energy (see discussion in Chap. 7, as
well as discussion on energetics below) is the driver of the universe. In this simplistic view of energy-the-driver (or apparent utility of heat), there is an elephant in
the room clothed in entropy growth. Without a clear conception of the elephant, the
“standard approach” (see also paragraph below) often views that entropy growth
only hinders that drive by degrading energy: “Entropy and dissipation of energy are
as inseparable as Siamese twins in the thought of every student of thermodynamics…” [13].
It was not too long ago that Ilya Prigogine recounted the experience of having to
overcome this mindset of the standard approach before he came up with the concept
of dissipative structures [14] as an alternative to the standard approach,
Among all those perspectives opened by thermodynamics, the one which was to keep my
interest was the study of irreversible phenomena, which made so manifest the “arrow of
time”. From the very start, I always attributed to these processes a constructive role, in
opposition to the standard approach, which only saw in these phenomena degradation and
loss of useful work…The fact is that it appeared to me that living things provided us with
striking examples of systems which were highly organized and where irreversible phenomena played an essential role. Such intellectual connections, although rather vague at the
beginning, contributed to the elaboration, in 1945, of the theorem of minimum entropy
production, applicable to non-equilibrium stationary states…From the very beginning, I
knew that the minimum entropy production was valid only for the linear branch of irreversible phenomena…thus, the question was: What about the stationary states far from
equilibrium…Those problems had confronted us for more than twenty years, between 1947
and 1967, until we finally reached the notion of “dissipative structure”. [15]
As shown in Chap. 7 and will be in Chap. 9, the entropy principle was successfully incorporated as the centerpiece in equilibrium thermodynamics, which, as
its postulational treatments including Callen’s treatment [16] made it clear, is a
theory that is free of its inductive development of the pre-1865 MTH thermodynamics. But, the assimilation of the entropy principle in engineering thermodynamics in the form of the theory of exergy (Chap. 7) is not satisfactory—which, the
exergy theory, remains completely within the pre-1865 framework of MTH and
fails to challenge the MTH premises of GS-2.a and GS-4. A suggestion has been
192
8 The Second Law: The Entropy Growth Potential Principle …