A History of Discovery: How Carnot found his cycle and its subsequent

abuses
Descoperirea de catre Sadi Carnot a ciclului ce-i poarta numele se considera drept una dintre putinele
cazuri in care contextul istoric si acumularile precedente ale stiintei nu sunt principala cauza a unei
descoperiri, ci mai degraba un efect al unui descoperitor, caci in absenta lui Carnot, termodinamica nar fi existat ca o ramura independenta a stiintei.
Teoria prevalenta a caldurii nu constituia in vremea lui Carnot un mediu deloc propice descoperirii sale.
Caci ar fi sunat o absurditate a transforma caldura in lucru mecanic, daca aceasta este conservata
global.
Desi Carnot adera la teoria calorica, curenta atunci cand a scris Rflexions sur la puissance motrice

du feu et sur les machines propres dvelopper cette puissance in 1824, conservarea caldurii nu a
intrat vreodata in descrierea ciclului. Carnot a cugetat ca, pentru a produce lucru mecanic, trebuie sa
existe o scadere in temperatura, analoaga caderii unei cantitati de apa necesara in invartirea unei
mori. De altfel, cantitatea de apa se conserva, insa starea finala contine mai putina energie.
Ciclul consta din patru pasi, doua transformari izoterme si doua procese adiabate. Totusi, Carnot nu
stia nimic despre adiabate si izoterme, astfel ca rationamentul sau era prin referire la un piston ce
poate efectua o operatiune ciclica. Carnot a realizat ca eficienta(randamentul) ciclului sau nu depinde
de natura fluidului de lucru. In primul timp izoterm, este absorbita caldura din primul rezervor, la
temperatura constanta, efectul fiind cresterea volumului. Apoi, sistemul este izolat de mediu,
pistonului permitandu-i-se sa mareasca volumul in continuare, ceea ce va rezulta intr-o scadere a
temperaturii. Aici se poate observa cum functioneaza principiul lui Carnot: este necesara o scadere a
temperaturii pentru a se produce lucru. Pentru a reveni la starea initiala, pistonul trebuie, evident,
impins inapoi, dar cat de mult? Carnot s-a gandit ca trebuie sa fie acelasi volum ca la inceputul
operatiunilor, dar cu o temperatura si o presiune scazuta. Dar odata efectuata compresia adiabatica,
presiunea si volumul nu vor lua valorile initiale, ci doar temperatura, presiunea fiind mai mare iar
volumul mai mic. Mai este, asadar, necesara, inca o expansiune izoterma.
mile Clapeyron, care urma pasii lui Carnot dupa un deceniu, a presupus ca starea finala se atinge
cand cantitatea de caldura cedata celui de-al doilea rezervor coincide cu cea absorbita din primul.
Clapeyron era un adept important al teoriei calorice, care modela caldura printr-o substanta
indestructibila.
In mod neasteptat, dupa inca un deceniu, cercetand lucrarile celor doi, William Thomson, viitorul Lord
Kelvin, a preferat metoda lui Clapeyron fata de cea intrebuintata de Carnot. Surprinzator, caci Kelvin
cunostea lacunele teoriei calorice. Kelvin a testat teoria, inventand un motor ipotetic ce ar produce
lucru, chiar fara nicio modificare brusca in temperatura. Apa creste in volum atunci cand ingheata,
astfel ca alternand intre inghetare si topire, este generat lucru mecanic in orice cantitate. Fratele sau,

James Thomson, a gasit un efect neobisnuit, anume ca, daca se aplica o presiune, punctul de
inghetare trebuie scazut. Deci este, totusi, o mica scadere a temperaturii, ce cauzeaza lucrul. Este
implicata caldura latenta, ce devine negativa atunci cand se atinge densitatea maxima a apei (ciclurile
Carnot operand la calduri latente negative se numesc, de altfel, cicluri Carnot atipice). Aceste
observatii au intarit increderea lui Kelvin in teoria calorica, vazand caldura drept o substanta, un
burete ce poate fi stors sau lasat sa se extinda, fiind cedata sau absorbita.
Dupa ce a completat Rflexions, Carnot a ajuns din ce in ce mai deziluzionat cu teoria calorica. Cu
toate ca el chiar platise pentru publicarea micului sau volum, a inceput sa le recomande prietenilor si
asociatilor sa nu-si cumpere cate o copie. In unele note postume, Carnot scrisese :Caldura nu este
nimic altceva in afara de putere motrice,[...],oricand se distruge o cantitate de caldura, se produce
putere motrice(puterea motrice este un concept folosit de Carnot, identic, probabil, cu notiunea de
lucru mecanic). El chiar a mers atat de departe, incat sa calculeze factorul de conversie al caldurii in
lucru, intrucat cele doua marimi aveau unitati diferite in vremea sa.
In vremea marilor controverse dintre Kelvin si Rudolf Clausius, in jurul anilor 1850, Carnot avea 54 de
ani, fiind plauzibila, de altfel, ipoteza ca nu ar fi existat o controversa reala si ca doar Carnot ar fi cu
adevarat parintele termodinamicii. In ecuatia caracteristica ciclului Carnot, numita dupa Clapeyron, se
afla o functie necunoscuta: functia Carnot. Intr-o scrisoare catre Kelvin in decembrie 1849, James
Prescott Joule ii sugera ca functia lui Carnot ar putea fi chiar temperatura. Acest fapt l-a deranjat pe
Clausius, care a afirmat ca o scrisoare nu poate fi considerata o publicatie stiintifica. Fiindca el nu a
vrut sa-si insuseasca gloria descoperirii, aceasta a fost in final atribuita doctorului german Holtzmann,
care a debutat cu descoperirea in 1845.
Clausius a realizat ca lucrul total intr-un ciclu Carnot este diferenta intre caldura absorbita si caldura
cedata, insa ca in orice punct din ciclu, nu exista neaparat o echivalenta intre caldura si lucru, ceea ce
permite introducerea unei noi marimi de stare: energia interna. Apoi, energia din univers este
intotdeauna conservata, iar o alta functie de stare, entropia, definita ca raportul dintre caldura
absorbita sau cedata si temperatura la care se face schimbul de caldura, tinde la maximum. Asa s-au
nascut primele doua legi ale termodinamicii. Pe de alta parte, Kelvin a preferat sa se raporteze la o
degradare a energiei, nu la cresterea entropiei.
Enrico Fermi cites an example whereby Kelvins statement of the second law, A transformation whose
only final result is to transform heat into work that has been extracted from a source at the same
temperature throughout is impossible, could be falsified. Fermi underlines the word only and gives
as an example the isothermal expansion of a gas. He says that what saves Kelvins statement is that
there is a volume change accompanying the working. But, this is the work that is done! We can speak
about work only after completing an entire cycle. Wouldnt it be nice if a shop keeper could claim
100% profits on the goods he sells?
What is so holy about Clausius formulation of the first two laws of thermodynamics? Nothing. I can
argue that Carnot knew the second law, but was ignorant of the first.---Just contrast this with the

derivation of the efficiency of a Carnot cycle found in any text on thermodynamics.--- Carnot knew his
cycle could out beat any other cycle, for if it were otherwise, that cycle could be coupled to his cycle
and an unlimited amount of work could be done. That would be tantamount to a perpetual motion
machine, something he learned from his father, Lazare, that couldnt exist. That is, the work would not
be the difference between the heat absorbed and that rejected, but, in addition, there would be a
positive contribution in the change in the internal energy coming from the superior engine.
However, there cannot be any other restriction of the working of his engine other than the amount of
heat given up to the cold reservoir and the temperature it is given up at. Carnot had to use a special
axiom to determine the amount of work that could be done. In his words, The amount of work done
by an engine is a product of the heat and a function of the two temperatures only.
In contrast, I argue that Clausius knew the first law, primarily because he invented it, and allowed for
violations in the second law. Clausius wanted to keep the first law as mechanical as possible, but saw
no reason why not to attribute irreversibility to increases in the entropy.
No real engine ever achieves the Carnot efficiency, the difference of the reservoir temperatures to the
temperature of the hot reservoir. Other efficiencies were sought after that would describe real engines
with dissipation. Illusory theories like finite-time thermodynamics and endoreversible engines were
concocted to emphasize the optimization of thermodynamics that could be achieved in real time. Time
does not creep into thermodynamics: when two bodies at different temperature are allowed to come
into thermal contact, the entropy increases---but thermodynamics is mute when we ask in what
amount of time?
Endoreversible engines divide the exterior absorption and rejection of heat and the inner workings
consisting of the two adiabatic cycles. The former is assumed to be irreversible, while the latter
completely reversible. However, this is entirely deceptive since it will be the two isothermal steps in
which heat is absorbed and rejected that will determine the work that the cycle can perform. So if the
heat absorbed is at a slightly greater temperature than the fluid which is absorbing it, and the fluid is
at a slightly higher temperature than the temperature of the reservoir to which it is being rejected, it
would appear that we can use Fouriers law of heat transport to our advantage in facilitating the
extraction and rejection of heat.
Since dissipation is involved, the efficiency must necessarily be less than the Carnot efficiency. While
this is undeniable, you cant use the same reversibility condition that Kelvin did to determine the
entropy: the ratio of the heat absorbed from the hot reservoir to the temperature at which it is
absorbed must be equal to the ratio of the heat rejected from the cold reservoir to the temperature at
which it is rejected:

Qh/Th=Qc/Tc.

It is certainly will not do to replace these temperatures by the intermediate temperatures at which the
fluid supposedly is at.
In fact, Kelvin back in 1852 arrived at the same efficiency as that obtained by optimization in finitetime thermodynamics. No optimizing is required, but we cant say in how much time it will take to
achieve thermal equilibrium.
Kelvin considered an unevenly heat body as consisting of cells, each equipped with an ideal engine,
and separated by adiabatic walls. At the moment the walls are converted into diathermal ones, which
allow heat to pass, the question becomes what is the final common temperature that the system will
reach? If the ideal engines do their job properly, Kelvin found that the final temperature was the
geometric mean temperature of the individual cells, whereas if the engines were turned off, the
arithmetic mean temperature would be reached. Since the arithmetic mean is greater than the
geometric mean, more work can be done by having a lower common temperature. It is precisely this
temperature that finite-thermodynamics finds. But how can Kelvin require indeterminate amount of
time to secure thermal equilibrium while the finite-time practitioners claim it occurs in a finite time?
That the two efficiencies are the same can only mean that Kelvin has won out---the same efficiency
cannot be achieved in a finite amount of time as that obtained in an indefinitely long period of time!