Talk:Carnot cycle: Difference between revisions
imported>Paul Wormer (→Efficiency: new section) |
imported>Paul Wormer |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
I am very unhappy about the literature on the efficiency of arbitrary cycles. As a warning for future readers I put here the following note. | I am very unhappy about the literature on the efficiency of arbitrary cycles. As a warning for future readers I put here the following note. | ||
I learned in ''Kindergarten'' that the Carnot cycle is the most efficient reversible cycle, but I | I learned in "''Kindergarten''" (Delft University of Technology) that the Carnot cycle is the most efficient reversible cycle, but I find in the majority of texts that all reversible cycles are equally efficient. Even the great Fermi says so. I gave it quite some thought and came up with the argument in the section "Remark ...". This section does not come from any other source than my brain, therefore, in a certain sense it could be called research. However, I did not want to follow Fermi, because I think he is careless and did not give it enough thought, and I also didn't want to skip the point altogether. However, it is not out of the question that my former teachers and I are mistaken and that the majority of writers on the subject are correct, therefore I put here this warning. | ||
--[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 17:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC) | --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 17:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 04:24, 20 November 2009
Efficiency
I am very unhappy about the literature on the efficiency of arbitrary cycles. As a warning for future readers I put here the following note.
I learned in "Kindergarten" (Delft University of Technology) that the Carnot cycle is the most efficient reversible cycle, but I find in the majority of texts that all reversible cycles are equally efficient. Even the great Fermi says so. I gave it quite some thought and came up with the argument in the section "Remark ...". This section does not come from any other source than my brain, therefore, in a certain sense it could be called research. However, I did not want to follow Fermi, because I think he is careless and did not give it enough thought, and I also didn't want to skip the point altogether. However, it is not out of the question that my former teachers and I are mistaken and that the majority of writers on the subject are correct, therefore I put here this warning. --Paul Wormer 17:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)