Inconsistency of Carnot's theorem's proof by R. Clausius

TL;DR

This paper examines the inconsistency in Clausius's proof of Carnot's theorem by analyzing Gukhman's alternative derivation based on a different postulate, highlighting foundational issues in thermodynamics.

Contribution

It provides a detailed justification of Gukhman's proof, challenging the traditional understanding of Carnot's theorem's dependence on Clausius's postulate.

Findings

Gukhman's proof is valid under his postulate

Clausius's proof relies on a different postulate

The validity of Carnot's theorem may depend on the chosen postulate

Abstract

R. Clausius proved Carnot's theorem basing on postulate "Heat cannot, of itself, pass from a colder to a hotter body". Alexander Gukhman demonstrated that Carnot's theorem can be proved based on the postulate "Heat cannot, of itself, pass from a hotter to a colder body". He concluded that Carnot's theorem does not follow from Clausius' postulate. The following paper gives a detailed justification of Gukhman's derivation.