Talk:Carnot cycle: Difference between revisions
imported>Paul Wormer (New page: {{subpages}}) |
imported>Paul Wormer (→Efficiency: new section) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
== 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'' that the Carnot cycle is the most efficient reversible cycle, but I see written in many places 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 source (other than my brains), 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 borders on being wrong, and I also didn't want to skip the point altogether. It is not out of the question that my former teachers and I are mistaken and therefore this warning. | |||
--[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 17:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:13, 18 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 that the Carnot cycle is the most efficient reversible cycle, but I see written in many places 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 source (other than my brains), 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 borders on being wrong, and I also didn't want to skip the point altogether. It is not out of the question that my former teachers and I are mistaken and therefore this warning. --Paul Wormer 17:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)