made in a recent paper [17] that it is necessary to refute universal interconvertibility,
GS-2.a, by assimilating the entropy principle as the centerpiece of engineering
thermodynamics, with a clean slate.
8.1.1 Energy Conversion Doctrine and Energetics
This chapter, correspondingly this essay, aims for claiming for the entropy principle
its centerpiece placement in engineering thermodynamics pushing aside energy
conversion doctrine. Energy conversion doctrine originated in Kelvin’s treatment of
the second law in terms of available energy and the doctrine survived the later
introduced entropy principle because that principle has not been assimilated into
engineering thermodynamics to updating Kelvin’s handling of the second law. That
said, the universal popularity enjoyed by energy conversion doctrine may not be
possible without one late nineteenth-century development, the short-lived challenge
to mechanism and atomism, energetics or energeticism, a metaphysical-scientific
doctrine that regards energy as the only reality and to view all changes in the world
as movements or transformations of energy.
Energetics, the science of energetics, was mainly promoted by Wilhelm Ostwald
and Georg Helm and energeticism, the ontology of reality, was promoted by Ostwald and Ernst Mach. The movement can be dated from the first publication of
Helm [18] in 1887 to the year of Ostwald’s concessional acceptance of micro
(atomic) structure of matter in 1908 (thus, the ontology of the mechanical theory
triumphed over Ostwald’s assertion of energy to be the only reality), a duration
barely of two decades. Yet, a movement of such short duration and involving a
small number of, though colorful and prominent, participants had significant
impacts.
The impact on thermodynamics was a short-lived one. Energeticists maintained
that the entropy was not needed in the formulation of the second law and, furthermore, “for Ostwald, thermodynamics is confined to the reciprocal transformations of heat and mechanical energy; it is just one ‘chapter’ of the more
comprehensive science of energetics…the second law of energetics, which is based
on the intensity law, is more general than the second law of thermodynamics since
it governs all natural ‘happening’…” [19]. There was a noisy controversy between
energetics, represented by Ostwald and Helm, and thermodynamics, favored by
Boltzmann [20]. As well as, a rich correspondence between Ostwald and Planck
between October 1891 and July 24, 1898 [19]. In those exchanges, Boltzmann and
Planck’s view prevailed over energeticists’ and, today, entropy and the
statistical-molecular approach are universally accepted with energeticism mere a
footnote in the history of the science of energy.
But, this small footnote turns out to have a long life. Any consideration of
energeticism and its total impacts must be viewed in terms of three elements: its
technical-scientific ambition of absorbing thermodynamics as its subdiscipline, its
metaphysical ambition, and its narrative ambition of capturing public discourse.
The technical-scientific ambition of energetics was indeed demolished by
Boltzmann and Planck in their interaction with energeticists. Thermodynamics and,
8.1 Introduction: The Energy Conversion Doctrine Truism
193
GS-2.a, by assimilating the entropy principle as the centerpiece of engineering
thermodynamics, with a clean slate.
8.1.1 Energy Conversion Doctrine and Energetics
This chapter, correspondingly this essay, aims for claiming for the entropy principle
its centerpiece placement in engineering thermodynamics pushing aside energy
conversion doctrine. Energy conversion doctrine originated in Kelvin’s treatment of
the second law in terms of available energy and the doctrine survived the later
introduced entropy principle because that principle has not been assimilated into
engineering thermodynamics to updating Kelvin’s handling of the second law. That
said, the universal popularity enjoyed by energy conversion doctrine may not be
possible without one late nineteenth-century development, the short-lived challenge
to mechanism and atomism, energetics or energeticism, a metaphysical-scientific
doctrine that regards energy as the only reality and to view all changes in the world
as movements or transformations of energy.
Energetics, the science of energetics, was mainly promoted by Wilhelm Ostwald
and Georg Helm and energeticism, the ontology of reality, was promoted by Ostwald and Ernst Mach. The movement can be dated from the first publication of
Helm [18] in 1887 to the year of Ostwald’s concessional acceptance of micro
(atomic) structure of matter in 1908 (thus, the ontology of the mechanical theory
triumphed over Ostwald’s assertion of energy to be the only reality), a duration
barely of two decades. Yet, a movement of such short duration and involving a
small number of, though colorful and prominent, participants had significant
impacts.
The impact on thermodynamics was a short-lived one. Energeticists maintained
that the entropy was not needed in the formulation of the second law and, furthermore, “for Ostwald, thermodynamics is confined to the reciprocal transformations of heat and mechanical energy; it is just one ‘chapter’ of the more
comprehensive science of energetics…the second law of energetics, which is based
on the intensity law, is more general than the second law of thermodynamics since
it governs all natural ‘happening’…” [19]. There was a noisy controversy between
energetics, represented by Ostwald and Helm, and thermodynamics, favored by
Boltzmann [20]. As well as, a rich correspondence between Ostwald and Planck
between October 1891 and July 24, 1898 [19]. In those exchanges, Boltzmann and
Planck’s view prevailed over energeticists’ and, today, entropy and the
statistical-molecular approach are universally accepted with energeticism mere a
footnote in the history of the science of energy.
But, this small footnote turns out to have a long life. Any consideration of
energeticism and its total impacts must be viewed in terms of three elements: its
technical-scientific ambition of absorbing thermodynamics as its subdiscipline, its
metaphysical ambition, and its narrative ambition of capturing public discourse.
The technical-scientific ambition of energetics was indeed demolished by
Boltzmann and Planck in their interaction with energeticists. Thermodynamics and,
8.1 Introduction: The Energy Conversion Doctrine Truism
193