No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

we find that the views on heat and entropy here presented are essentially those of Brgnsted. This is, furthermore, also true of the treatment of the work concept, although the difference in formal language and terminology is apparent. As the author only gives reference to one of Brgnsted's papers (4), >lTe thought it perhaps might be of interest to the readers of the JOUR-NAL to have a complete list of Brgnsted's publications on "energetics," from 1937 and until his death.We disagree with Dr. Steinour when he says that Brgnsted's system necessitates a "new mat,hematical treatment." But a new formulation of fundamental principles, by means of the revised concepts, is naturally required.The conformity of Dr. Steinonr's views with those announced by Professor Brginsted is indeed remarkable when it is remembered that his ideas are conceived without knowledge of Brginsted's production. Dr. Steinour has not onlv found the same weak s~o t s in traditional thermodykmics as did Br@nsted, he also suggests a revision along the same lines as followed by Brgnsted. We find much sound criticism and many bright ideas in his paper, and the reading of it has certainly been very encouraging.It may suffice in this connection to mention that the theory for the reversible heat engine, as presented by 29, 449 (1940); (4) J. ., indicate.The Brgnsted article that I cited came to my attention ouly after my own ideas were well developed. While I recoenized a kindred nnirit, and fnnnd ron.;ideraprocess of heat conduction are precisely as explained on the basis of Brgnsted's system of "energetics." Even what Brgnsted classifies as "the reversible reproduction of an irreversible process," during which entropy (or heat) has to he supplied to the system from the outside, is given due consideration in Steinour's paper. As a consequence of this agreement it follows that Steinour subscribes to the statement made by Brgnsted t.hat heat cannot be converted into work under any conditions whatever.

No abstract