of thermodynamic equilibrium states, which is called Gibbsian Thermodynamics
(briefly summarized in Chap. 9). This development corresponded to a shift from the
British engineering tradition (Joule and Thomson)
3 to the German science tradition
(Clausius, Boltzmann, and Gibbs). Unlike the messy, incoherent engineering thermodynamics, Gibbsian Thermodynamics, i.e., equilibrium thermodynamics, is a
coherent system and, as a branch of theoretical physics, is, furthermore, amenable to
reformulation into elegant systems with postulational formulations of the entropy
growth principle (of various versions) instead of the empirical treatment as shown in
Fig. 5.11 [7, 15–18].
In the meantime, atomism (and mechanism and reductionism) came to dominate
science at the end of the nineteenth century with the presupposition that, in the
naturalistic study of a system, laws should be centered on a natural system in itself
without having to involve a man-made machine. Such formulations do not address
engineering applications by leaving out operational details, and as a result, the
definitions of work and heat, which are “central to the formulation of the first law of
thermodynamics,” remain unsettled and contentious topics, as Gislason and Craig
noted (to their surprise and disappointment) in 2005 [19]. Chapter 6 presents an
assessment of this naturalistic project of classical formalism. Which is then followed with an introduction of the modern formalism. The modern formalism with
its second entropy principle provides a formalism that can incorporate operational
consideration of the system in interaction with its surroundings and opens the door
for restoring once again, in Chaps. 7 and 8, thermodynamics as the synthesis of
Carnot’s theory and MEH.
A note on “restoring…the synthesis”: the MTH resulted from the Kelvin–
Clausius “synthesis” of Carnot’s theory and the MEH. But, a case can be made that
the impression of the Kelvin–Clausius synthesis’ success is formed from its success
in producing a coherent system of equilibrium thermodynamics, not in resulting in a
coherent system of engineering stream of thermodynamics, the failure of
which is reflected in the fact that engineering thermodynamics cannot even formulate meaningful definitions of heat and energy as noted by Gislason and Craig.
Chaps. 7 and 8 aim for restoring engineering thermodynamics as the true synthesis
of Carnot’s theory and the MEH by according equal status to the first law and the
second law in its complete form.
3
The engineering connection is particularly strong in North British: “North British group of
scientists and engineers, including James Joule, James Clerk Maxwell, William and James
Thomson, Fleeming Jenkin, and P. G. Tait, developed energy physics to solve practical problems
encountered by Scottish shipbuilders and marine engineers” noted Smith [14].
5.11 Concluding Remarks: Applications to Special States …
131
(briefly summarized in Chap. 9). This development corresponded to a shift from the
British engineering tradition (Joule and Thomson)
3 to the German science tradition
(Clausius, Boltzmann, and Gibbs). Unlike the messy, incoherent engineering thermodynamics, Gibbsian Thermodynamics, i.e., equilibrium thermodynamics, is a
coherent system and, as a branch of theoretical physics, is, furthermore, amenable to
reformulation into elegant systems with postulational formulations of the entropy
growth principle (of various versions) instead of the empirical treatment as shown in
Fig. 5.11 [7, 15–18].
In the meantime, atomism (and mechanism and reductionism) came to dominate
science at the end of the nineteenth century with the presupposition that, in the
naturalistic study of a system, laws should be centered on a natural system in itself
without having to involve a man-made machine. Such formulations do not address
engineering applications by leaving out operational details, and as a result, the
definitions of work and heat, which are “central to the formulation of the first law of
thermodynamics,” remain unsettled and contentious topics, as Gislason and Craig
noted (to their surprise and disappointment) in 2005 [19]. Chapter 6 presents an
assessment of this naturalistic project of classical formalism. Which is then followed with an introduction of the modern formalism. The modern formalism with
its second entropy principle provides a formalism that can incorporate operational
consideration of the system in interaction with its surroundings and opens the door
for restoring once again, in Chaps. 7 and 8, thermodynamics as the synthesis of
Carnot’s theory and MEH.
A note on “restoring…the synthesis”: the MTH resulted from the Kelvin–
Clausius “synthesis” of Carnot’s theory and the MEH. But, a case can be made that
the impression of the Kelvin–Clausius synthesis’ success is formed from its success
in producing a coherent system of equilibrium thermodynamics, not in resulting in a
coherent system of engineering stream of thermodynamics, the failure of
which is reflected in the fact that engineering thermodynamics cannot even formulate meaningful definitions of heat and energy as noted by Gislason and Craig.
Chaps. 7 and 8 aim for restoring engineering thermodynamics as the true synthesis
of Carnot’s theory and the MEH by according equal status to the first law and the
second law in its complete form.
3
The engineering connection is particularly strong in North British: “North British group of
scientists and engineers, including James Joule, James Clerk Maxwell, William and James
Thomson, Fleeming Jenkin, and P. G. Tait, developed energy physics to solve practical problems
encountered by Scottish shipbuilders and marine engineers” noted Smith [14].
5.11 Concluding Remarks: Applications to Special States …
131