JC Maxwell attributed heat to a footnote of Clausius where James C was seemingly in a process of seperating "molecular potential" from the "vis viva" he quoted from Clausius. He wrote that in an essay on TAiTES Thermodyanmics textbook. Is it correct that(then?) we have the notion of heat in the kinetic theory of gas DIFFERENT from Clausius' prior VISVIVA? I found this in A SOURCE BOOK IN PHYSICS by Magie of Princeton published by Harvard in 65 under "The Second Law of Thermodynamics"
quote:
To this(the careful investigations of Joule) must be added that other facts have lately become known which support the view, that heat is not a substance, but consists in a motion of the least parts of bodies. If this view is correct, it is admissible to apply to heat the general mechanical principle that a motion may be transformed into work, and in such a manner that the loss of vis viva is proportional to the work accomplished."
I can think about this LOSS in terms of melanin and behavior in organisms but other (in)solids without life (earth, sun, etc) it seems that the quantum replacement notion(from kinetic theory of heat etc) for the clearer meaning of "least parts" of Clausius might actually be an error which physics CAN NEVER OVERCOME (as long as it is inadequately integrated with(in) biology? It seems the popular tendency has been to equate the loss of this isveevaaa with disorderand entropy increase???
where the inside of Maxwell's quote might be
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 03-14-2005 09:13 PM
™ Version 4.2
