Talk:History of thermodynamics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aristotle spoke Greek[edit]

In c.350 BC, Aristotle proclaims, in opposition to Leucippus, the dictum horror vacui or “nature abhors a vacuum”. "dictum horror vacui" is Latin, not Greek. I doubt that Aristotle ever proclaimed anything in Latin, let alone even heard of the language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.150.50 (talk) 02:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I have just searched Aristotle's "Physics" for the words containing "suck". No matching words were reported in the English translation I used. Perhaps some ancient Greek versions used a similar word or there is a similar sound in modern Greek, experts help, please. Or wasn't it Franciscus Linus (1595 - 1675) who insisted on the existence of funiculus that would attract all surrounding bodies, thus causing suction? (Source: Stephen Brush, Kinetic Theory Part 1, Introduction p.5, Pergamon Press 1965) This would only make a difference of 2000 years in the dating of the suction idea. Could Linus have been inspired by Aristotle? Anyway, Aritotle is frequently made responsible for various ideas he had definitely no knowledge of, so one more or less is not a problem.--C. Trifle (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creation[edit]

Yes - History should have its separate article. PAR 06:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I checked mathematics, physics, and biology, and they all have a history section; some have a small history section and then a link to the full article, but they all have a history section. Furthermore, I wrote this history section, not because I was so inclined but rather because if you look on the thermodynamics discussion page, there is a request by someone to create a 'history section'. Hence, a small history section on the main thermodynamics article is good (as people seem to want one), and a full article on a separate page is good as well. --Wavesmikey 17:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Karol 17:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More work[edit]

Yeah, this article needs some more work. I moved one image from thermodynamics of the engine (kind of historical) and formatted things a bit. Karol 07:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added in the "short history of thermodynamics", cleaned the intro, and put some good history external links in. It's starting to feel tighter. Later: --Sadi Carnot 16:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Parmenides[edit]

"Parmenides uses verbal reasoning to postulate that a void, essentially what is now known as a vacuum, in nature could not occur. This statement was disproved conclusively, approximately two-thousand years later, when Otto von Guericke built a vacuum pump,"

This is conjecture (influenced by modern concepts) regarding the meaning of an ancient text, whose real meaning has been lost to us.

Secondly, a vacuum is not a void but the absence of ponderable matter in space. Space in the absence of matter has properties, is an ether not a void/nothingness/non-existence. To suggest that Parmenides was describing such is to impose a modern world-view on his text. Its invention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.19.180 (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that the clarification of "partial vacuum" in the context of the Mercury barometer may be inaccurate. Is the "empty" space in the tube above the liquid mercury actually a vacuum? My initial thought (based on my low-level chemistry background) is that, in fact, a small amount of evaporation occurs, and probably relatively easily in the otherwise-empty space (lower pressure inside the tube). In the presence of this mercurial vapor, can it really be said that there exists a vacuum in the tube? My opinion: a partial vacuum perhaps, but not a "true" vacuum. Comment is invited from an expert on the subject. Thanks! Sabin4232 (talk) 06:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

history[edit]

Also you mentioned that Avicenna invented the first air thermometer, but thats not quiet the whole story. Ctesibius, Heron, and Philo were all aware of the elasticity of air and they knew that when heated it expanded and vice versa and they in fact built several mechanisms demonstrating this principle, particularly in Heron's Pneumatica. In reality Avic. would have had access and knowledge of these works so he in fact just used their theories and the devices they built to measure temperature and some sources claim in fact that they did built an air thermometer themselves http://www.enotes.com/history-fact-finder/science-invention/who-invented-thermometer. whether they built an air thermometer is in no doubt, its just that they most likely didnt use to measure temperature, but never the less their ideas and inventions are crucial Avic. just used what they made to gauge temp. difference. I thought id let you know so you alter to include those ideas, you know before i actually do it for you soooooo. Tomasz Prochownik (talk) 06:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


ya check when i posted that comment, and you haven't changed anything, both the sources you list under the air thermometer are brutally inappropriate, Briffault one having something along the lines, some say he used an air thermometer, and the other source witting one sentence on it. The problem being neither book is source is about the history of science. give me a source that explains his thermometer, how it worked, and how he built it. I like your little contribution of principle parameter, it would be pretty hard for it to be that since it could not tell the temperature, only relative temp., since temp. scales didn't exist at the time, also it would have been subject to barometric pressure. what compounds this even further, as stated before neither of your sources claim how it was built, how it worked, or anything to do about this device, except a sentence, i guess you thought you'd fill in the gaps huhhh. As far as measuring air temp. a rudimentary device was built by philo http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&id=qfmS7g4JzjwC&dq=Principles+and+Methods+of+Temperature+Measurement&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=3rLkeqdZz5&sig=tV2YrszNevkr61Eatbrk0YDiB4A&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result. of course avic. had access to these works also. Last, but not least these early devices are not thermometers, but more accurately thermascope's. any comments

as far as your knew contribution, well once again filled with some distortions as usual. Heron also conducted experiments on voids, but of course his don't count right, because as you would have us believe muslims invented experiments, right lol, but that's soon going to be addressed. Ya conducted the first experiments on a void, really were does it say that in the Stanford source specifically, as far as the other source Zahoor thats just a plain joke, kind of like you. Last but not least, this contribution is absolutely worthless to the history of thermodynamics. Why, simple show me the connection between this and thermodynamics, list one source that links this as being important to thermodynamics. Ideas on voids were just ideas, based on Greek philosophy. all the early ref. on this page are just precursor ideas to thermo., ideas like voids or atomic philosophy, not thermo. itself. what makes this contribution even more worthless is the fact he conducted "experiment", and i use the word loosely not experiments, he used them to demonstrate something totally untrue, vaccum's can exist!!! This would be analogous Volta failing to make the first battery and then showing thats his failed experiments proved that a device that harnesses electricity cannot be made, that would be contribution???, if anything thats actually a hindrance. Ahhh what a monumental contribution he used water plungers to prove the exact opposite of what is true. You've really outdone yourself here jagged lol. So pretty much this little bit is gone unless you can find some respectable source liking this to thermodynamics. I don't care about you interpretation, find me a respectable source that links this to thermodynamics, quote one for me please, am dying to know. Am now also making changes to the thermometer part as well, since you wont I and you better start looking for better sources on this device cause this ain't cutting it sorry. You also listed this little duzy "The transition from alchemy to chemistry began during the Middle Ages, with the introduction of an experimental scientific method by Geber,[8][9] and scientific refutations of alchemy by other Arabic chemists such as Alkindus,[10] Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī,[11] Avicenna[12] and Ibn Khaldun." Show me how any of them actually contributed to thermodynamics, listed respectable sources. The info. you listed here is important to chemistry not thermo.. Thermo. is part of physics and i ask again listed each of their specific contributions to thermodynamics, with respectable sources backing it up. you logic for listing this just plain flawed and its something comparable to one writing on the history of the automobile about the Assyrian invention of the wheel. Ya a wheel is used in a car just like many other components but it doesn't mean it has anything to do with the invention of the car. The comparison is made for this reason, ya things like thermometers. and methods of chemistry are used in thermo., like other sciences but its doesn't mean their contributions to the science of thermo. those methods are also used in quantum mechanics, electricity and magnetism, does that mean they also made a contribution to those fields as well. Even if one runs with the idea that chemistry diverged from alchemy in the middle ages, which is of course not true, the onus would still be on you to prove what specifics these individuals added to the eventual rise of thermo.. Thermodynamics is a specific branch of physics and isn't open that anything that has to do with chemistry is linked to thermo.. Ideas such latent heat, heat capacity, kinetic molecular theory, gas law, etc these are all in themselves pre-thermodynamic concepts but are mentioned because they played a role in its eventual genesis. So what did these people that you mentioned contribute to these pre-thermo. ideas. Did they form gas law, kinetic theory, law on heat. In fact these ideas are totally absent in chemistry in the middle ages. In fact there was no ideas on energy aside from incorrect philosophy borrowed from the Greeks. This is really sad logic jagged

Tomasz Prochownik (talk) 07:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I included the Arabic contributions to the prehistory of thermodynamics for the same reason you choose to include the Greek contributions. Why did you remove Al-Farabi despite the fact that his experiments are clearly described in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy source? I sense double-standards coming from you... How is Al-Farabi's experiments on the vacuum any less relevant than Aristotle's theory on the void? The Greek contributions are also irrelevant to the prehistory of thermodynamics according to your own twisted logic. Jagged 85 (talk) 06:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for the Arabic chemists, of course they didn't contribute to thermodynamics, but keep in mind that the section I added them to is called Transition from alchemy to chemistry. Since the Arabic chemists did indeed play an important role in the transition from alchemy to chemistry, it should be obvious why they should be included in that particular section of the article. Jagged 85 (talk) 07:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


You just seem intent on dogging the issues here aren't you. First thing is first,Al-Farabi, didn't conduct experiments, he conducted one and his experiments have no relevance. As i have stated before because it was used to actually prove that something totally wrong so does not mark any progress in science jagged. If you think is such a contribution explain why it is here, and even to do that your gonna require a respectable source saying yes this person did this and here is its relevance, the standford source doesnt say that at all. I ask again what is the relevance. Again with ideas on voids, such as Aristotle's and so forth i do thing they are pointless on this page at least delving into the detail that this page does it in, and am going to addressing that very soon. Tomasz Prochownik (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Al-Farabi's conclusion was not correct, but neither was Aristotle's claim. The fact is that Al-Farabi's experiments added legitimacy to Aristotle's claim. Otherwise, it would be completely incorrect to suggest that Aristotle's claim regarding the void was never supported by any experiments. Jagged 85 (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Okay so i ask again how is that a contribution to thermodynamics jagged or even pre-thermodynamic ideas. He's gone about to prove something wrong, so this isn't making any progress in the science or the ideas. Another factor that must be made clear is that the vacuum itself plays a very minor role in thermodynamics. Yet you've outlined all these names such Al-Farabi, Leucippus, Hero of Alexandria, Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) and the Mu'tazili theologians about their ideas on vacuums. thats giving way to much space to something very tiny, why? simply almost every single philosopher/scientist after Aristotle had ideas on vacuums, does not mean we should list the whole laundry list of names, no clearly not. As i have said before the whole mention on vacuums are only important in so much that Aristotle was the first to mention such a concept and it got others to think about the idea. Other then that the only relevant aspect is Otto von Guericke's invention of the first vacuum. Aristotle is only given mention because he introduced the concept. This same principle applies for atomic philosophy. its not really important to list all the various philosophy's on atoms but only the earliest, why because they're the initial ideas that got others thinking about the subject and its this curiosity that led to correct theories. The same principle applies here. There is no relevance in listing a laundry list of names about voids because almost all philosophers/scientists had ideas on them but they could neither prove or disprove them. As far as Al-Farabi "experiments" he didn't conduct experiments, he conducted one small experiment not experiments that mean more then one. You then list that Otto von Guericke was influenced by him to disapprove him. Really, prove it. List a source that says exactly that, its definitely not the one you listed here and you haven't offered any proof that Otto von Guericke was aware of his work or that it influenced him, you just decided to fill in that part yourself. Lastly, i ask know for the third time, because you have so far continuously decided to dodge the issue, which source claims that this has any relevance what so ever to thermodynamics. Name one, cause it ain't the source you've listed here. This one point demonstrates the problem with many of the things you write about. Neither me or you are scholars in history and even if we would still be required to follow what other respectable sources say on the issue. In order for you, for me, and for that matter anyone else witting on this page would require source that claim explicitly what were witting about. It's not up to me or you to make the leap of faith and fill in the blanks. So far your answer on this topic has been something to the effect, well someone listed Aristotle's ideas on voids and well thats trivial, so since someone else has made a trivial point i should be able to make one that is pointless. I ask one more time what respectable source links this to thermodynamics or pre-thermodynamic ideas. So far you dont have one, and because you don't have something backing up your claim your not permitted to list it here. If your so confident on the matter, then you wont have any problems whatsoever finding a source that makes that claim. I repeat for the last time jagged unless you have a source that makes that claim no exceptions will be made for you on scholarly rules for witting on history. i explain to you for the last time why Aristotle is mentioned here, its because he introduced the idea and got others thinking about them and his ideas on were accepted by all muslim scholars, including Al-Farabi, read your own source its clearly stated their, and mind you Aristotle's rational for why a vacuum can't exist, which was in its totality accepted by Al-Farabi, are in themselves in incorrect. This then ultimately leads us to this conclusion on l-Farabi experiment: It was based on false premises, couched in Aristotelian philosophy, and led him to make an absolutely incorrect conclusion. There is also a large section here in contributions from the ancient and medieval period. It lists a laundry list of what islamic scientist opinions were on voids. Firstly its totally biased. It goes to great lengths to explain their theories and doesn't mention the fact that most of it was couched in Aristotelian ideas on the matter, and that fact that dozens of other none-islamic thinkers also had ideas on the matter. There is essentially no need to write what others thought. the reason being simple, all the ideas on voids are wrong and it gives way to much weight to something that is totally trivial in the overall development of thermodynamics. thermo. deals with energy and its affects on matter, so witting paragraphs on what various thinkers had to say about voids is pointless, since the whole idea of voids only has merit in so much that it ultimately led someone to actually create a vacuum. It doesn't really matter what people;s ideas on voids were since none of them could prove or disprove it, it was largely philosophical in nature, and all incorrect. what counts is who actually built one, and even them a vacuum is only important because it became useful tool in pre-thermo.. This whole section gives way to much weight to something that clearly doesn't merit it. As stated before pretty much every philosopher/scientists had ideas on voids, should we just list a whole section and what the dozens and dozens of others thought, the obvious answer is no, and that ore appropriate for the vacuum page. This whole section can essentially be shortened to one sentence to something like "from the ancient to medieval periods various ideas existed on voids and whether they were feasible or not." It makes absolutely no sense to list a laundry list of people and their ideas on the topic.

Now am gonna get to them second part of this topic jagged and thats the chemistry issue. Lets just deal with the first part. You claim the transition from alchemy to chemistry and you list several sources. Here's the problem, there all legitimate sources, but not for the topic being discussed. In order to make such claims would require respectable sources that deal exclusively with the history of chemistry and science. Source #6 is not a book about chemistry or science but just makes some acknowledgments to it jagged. Would it be appropriate for me to use that same source to deal with the history of the industrial revolution or calculus, obviously not, because that source doesn't deal with any of topics specifically. Will Durant is not a scholar on the history of chemistry and is not considered an authoritative figure on the issue. The other sources you list have the exact same problems. Source #7 is text book on crystallography, again not on the history of chemistry and not a scholarly work on the matter at hand. You want me to list what my first year university text book says by Zumdhal titled Chemistry, 7th edition, cause it claims chemistry only existed at the onset of the 17th century and Robert Boyle was the first chemist and that everything before that is alchemy. to list that on the subject of chemistry is laughable jagged, its a plain joke. The other 2 source are loosely affiliated with science and once again they dont deal specifically with chemistry and its history. they merely deal with specific individuals. i order to make the claim you are making you would require scholarly sources that deal specifically with the history of chemistry, not just islamic works in that field, but one dealing with the whole topic at hand. Am not going delve deeper into this topic because its something to be more appropriately dealt with in the history of chemistry. So now lets proceed to the heart of the problem with your recent edits on chemistry and thermodynamics. The transition of alchemy to chemistry has nothing to do with thermodynamics jagged, and neither did the original authors of this page intend that. what they've done is used very slippery wording, which of course you have exploited to throw in your ethno/islamic driven agenda. Lets make something very clear here. Thermodynamics is a branch of physics, period. Thermodynamics and its methods and concepts are just used extensively in chemistry, just like quantum mechanics. At its core thermodynamics seeks to deal with effects how energy in its various forms affects the molecular activity of macroscopic objects. Its something quiet broad but also very specific. The only areas of chemistry that have anything at all to do with pre-thermodynamic ideas is essentially thermochemistry, which did not arise until the mid 18th century mostly based on the works of Joseph Black. Now we can clearly deduce that the authors had this in mind because they spent that whole section witting about essentially caloric theory, combustion, so essentially ideas on heat, although the section could use some expanding and am going to do that myself. They clearly didn't spend any time with the chemistry of Antoine Lavoisier, Dalton, etc and other founders of modern chemistry or anyone before that. Why, the answer is quiet simple neither they or anyone else before them contributed to even pre-thermodynamic ideas. They did contribute to chemistry, but this isn't a page dedicated to the history of chemistry. Just as before i ask again what did any of the islamic "chemists" contribute to pre-thermodynamic ideas, please list them here with respectable source explicitly saying this individual did such and such and this is how it contributed to pre-thermo. ideas. The very last part of my response going to deal with how specifically this chemistry section will now be dealt with. Since the wording on this page on the chemistry contributions is slippery and inaccurate and subject to unscrupulous authors such as yourself, who of course are purely driven by ethno/islamic centric agenda with massive douse of insecurity, the title heading is now going to be changed to FROM THERMOCHEMISTRY TO PRE-THERMODYNAMICS. this should essentially solve the problem once and for all. As stated before thermo. is not such a broad field that pretty anything and everything chemistry has somehow contributed to it, it clearly has not, if anything thermodynamics has contributed to chemistry more chemistry has to it.


Tomasz Prochownik (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you make your responses any shorter? I really can't be bothered anymore to read such large blocks of text (without any paragraphs) that just seems to be repeating the same things. Again I sense double-standards from you, as you yourself have not yet cited any sources at all connecting the Greeks to thermodynamics. Again, I don't see how the Arabic work on heat and vacuum is any less relevant than the Greek work on those topics. And when did I ever claim Al-Farabi had any influence on Otto von Guericke? As for the chemistry section, I've renamed it to Transition from chemistry to thermochemistry to avoid confusion. Jagged 85 (talk) 08:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ill try to make my witting style a little cleaner. As for the vacuum ideas jagged, i did'nt write this page. If you ask me i personally think those ideas are irrelevant themselves and i have no objections to them being shortened to one sentence and no more then that. you've now been given several opportunities to address the questions that i ve posed and you've chosen not to answer them so the appropriate changes will be made. I thought i would still like to get some feedback from you on what ideas on vacuums contribute to pre-thermodynamic ideas or thermodynamics for that matter. Also you made a recent inclusion that al-jazari invented suction pumps and they are partial vacuums. That been removed cause neither of the source you listed say that. Yea some suction pumps can create partial vacuums, but that doesn't necessarily mean his did. Your gonna require a source to say that they did. Secondly, early thermascopes were subject to some barometric pressure, does that mean that they were also partial barometers? Not really. Lastly, a syringe, piston pumps and for that matter any suction device can create a partial vacuums (such devices were invented in antiquity), and when you say a partial vacuum your pretty much saying its not a pure vacuum, and such devices have traces of water molecules and air that are still present, which then of course is not a vacuum. Tomasz Prochownik (talk) 06:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I have also removed the post "he hypothesis that heat is a form of motion was initially proposed in the 13th century, by the medieval Arabic physicist ʻAbd Allah Baydawi" The source you listed for that doesn't make that claim. Baydawi is not a scientist, he's just a theologian and he is making commentary on Aristotelian ideas on heat. All he says is that heat is caused by a change in motion of objects, such as rocks or any other macroscopic object. Lastly, Baydawi, is actually objecting to the idea of "motion-change" causing heat, hence his mention about celestial objects in the paragraph after and why their movement doesn't cause them to gain heat. This is hardly what were talking about when we speak of heat as a form of motion, that is about particle movement caused by heat You just seem hell bent on in cluttering this page with irrelevant and in this case untrue facts don't you.Tomasz Prochownik (talk) 08:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've directly quoted what Baydawi stated. How much clearer can you get than "heat may occur through motion-change" (in Baydawi's own words)? If you did read the source I've cited, then it's quite clear he did consider this as one of two possibilities, and there is nothing in the next paragraph to suggest that he is trying to refute the idea, but he is simply trying to explain how heavenly spheres are not receptive to heat. In fact, he states in the preceding paragraph that "It is most likely that natural heat is different from the heat of fire, and likewise, [from] the heat that emanates from the heavenly bodies." In other words, he thought that the heavenly bodies have their own properties. I don't see how you somehow managed to interpret it as some kind of refutation against heat from motion-change, but it seems you've misread the source. Jagged 85 (talk) 05:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nice try jagged, but this doesn't cut. Motion change, okay motion change of what. all you have done is taken the words motion change and immediately assumed motion change of particles, but the funny thing about that is, if that's what he's taking about why hasn't he said sooo. Notice how he says heat may be caused by motion-change of something, not heat itself being motion Heat causes change in the motion of particles not vice versa. Don't you find it a bit odd that he starts talking about motion of planets, why would be mentioning such a thing if he s talking about motion of particles. In order for you to list that this is related to the motion of particles your gonna require someone to actually say it in those words, not just picking the words motion change and making the leap. i ask ask gain motion change of what? whats he referring to jagged. Find out what he's talking about when he says motion change then you can list it here and have me convinced, not just the word motion change without any real explanation of what that motion change is. For all we know he could be talking about anything, and it looks pretty clear that hes' talking about motion change of macroscopic objects. Lastly, the fact that i cant find a single source to cross-reference this claim just adds to my suspicion. If your right you'll have something to cross-reference this claim. I gotta say i like the part were you called him a physicist, ya right you should probably read the whole book cause its clear he's a theologian. Damn, your really a piece of work jagged, like wow. The fact that you would list this and try to defend clearly demonstrates that your ideas on science are so fanciful and convoluted that its mind boggling. Tomasz Prochownik (talk) 07:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And so what if he didn't say motion-change of atoms or microscopic objects? The 13th century is too early for someone to be saying something like that. At least his suggestion of heat caused by motion change is an improvement over what his predecessors said, and that fact alone makes it notable enough to be mentioned. The reference I provided for Baydawi is clearly a reliable source. Again, you're showing double-standards by expecting me to provide cross-references when you yourself have not provided any references at all for any of the other views mentioned on this page. You're hypocrisy is just mind-boggling. And for your information, many physicists and scientists during the Middle Ages were often theologians as well, not that it makes a difference to me whatever you want to call him. Jagged 85 (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


ya my double-standard is really mind-boggling, every single fact listed on this page can be cross-referenced by dozens of sources, and yours clearly can't. Jagged saying heat is motion change means absolutely nothing, cause heat isn't some motion, and your author is not stating that heat is motion he's implying that it is caused by some sort of motion-change, which immediately begs the question motion change of what? Cause if this guy is talking about planets, rocks, spirits, or god knows what then it definitely doesn't apply here. As far as particles thats not an advanced idea, read articles on Hero, if you want i can direct you to them, he thought air was composed of particles, thats the reasoning he used to explain the elasticity of air. I'll make you a proposition. Any claim made on this page, you can ask me to cross-reference and in return you have to cross-reference this. Since their is an entire book written about this guy, there is absolutely no way you cant find what his ideas on heat are either from other books or journals. Like i said in order for you to list this you have to explain his ideas on heat, am not asking for grand theories, am asking for a response to a simple question. motion-change of what? thats one sentence, the fact that you wish to engage on Ad hominem responses is only compounding my suspicions that this guy isnt speaking nothing of the sort. So am putting this as a temporary removal, once you elaborate this can be put in the appropriate context in this page and included. If he's not talking about particles jagged then the whole idea that heat is the motion of something is totally out to lunch cause heat isn't motion. Like i said am waiting for the answer to this very simple question, your next response jagged, should consist of only one thing, the answer to my question, plus you can ask me to cross-reference any claim on this page i ll be glad to do it for you. Also am trimming the huge swaths of info. you just copy and pasted from the history of heat page cause in the end this page is about thermo. not the history of ideas/mythologies on heat. When you list ideas about a branch of science, you have to list things that are somewhat correct, or in the right direction not mythology, mythology on heat has nothing to do with thermo. and didnt much influence it and is more appropriate for the history of heat were a much broader approach to the subject can be taken, instead of page dealing with the history of a science. Hooke is being removed cause his idea on heat is just plain ridiculous. Tomasz Prochownik (talk) 04:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to history sections[edit]

To all those who wish to contribute to the ancient and middle ages section of this page i think there should be more attention being paid ideas on heat and temperature and less on the vacuum. I think the whole idea that thermodynamics begins with the invention of the vacuum is way of course. I have consulted several sources on the history of thermodynamics and none of them state that thermodynamics begins with the vacuum pump. The vacuum pump gets scarcely any mention at all, and i think the general consensus from the books and internet sources is that thermo. begins with the need to make more efficient steam engines. The part were it says a vacuum is precursor to a steam engine is totally of the mark. The ancient and middle ages section should focus more on things like the fact that Heron and others were aware of the elasticity of air and in fact thought air was composed of particles. Much more attention should be paid to things that are related to heat, temp. and so forth rather then the vacuum, which is not even as important as a thermometer in thermo. Tomasz Prochownik (talk) 06:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger[edit]

FilipeS (talk · contribs) has proposed that the separate article Entropy in thermodynamics and information theory be dropped, and its content merged to here.

I would oppose such a merger, because it seems to me that

  • The relationship between entropy in information theory and entropy in thermodynamics is an important current topic, of current interest and current disagreement, important in a full current understanding of thermodynamics. It deserves a full discussion of current perceptions of the relationship, not just as a topic in a general history. That is best done in its own article (which was created because the current status of the topic kept on being brought up and disputed in a number of other current articles).
  • The length of treatment that can be afforded in an article specialised to this one issue would be out of place and unbalance this article if it was all brought over here.

Better IMO would be mentions here of the development of the statistical and latterly informational understanding of thermodynamics, but with the detail handed off to the specialist article as now, per WP:Summary style. Jheald (talk) 09:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing discussion is probably best centralised at Talk:Entropy in thermodynamics and information theory#Proposed merger. Jheald (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are we sure of these fields[edit]

Earthquake thermodynamics - 2000

Drug-receptor thermodynamics - 2001

Pharmaceutical systems thermodynamics – 2002

Are these really the historical dates a "field" was "founded"? Or is it more a matter of patenting "a device for using the internet to make payments for X"?

178.38.146.163 (talk) 11:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of thermodynamics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of thermodynamics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicated text within the article[edit]

Dear fellow Wikipedians,

I have divided the History section into smaller parts, put the subsections in chronological order, and added lots of subheadings. I have also duplicated most of the sections "Kinetic theory", "Entropy and the second law", "Heat transfer", "Absolute zero" into the "History" section, also in chronological order. Unfortunately, some of the new subsections are very small, just 1-2 sentences. Hopefully someone will expand them.

I have left the four sections above intact, for many would prefer their content to stay together rather being split up into fragments, albeit chronological. I don't want to make it unnecessarily difficult to restore the page to the way it was. But as long as duplicates of text within the article exist, it is almost inevitable that some edits will be made in the original paragraph, and other edits in its duplicate (duplicated version). In fact, I have already began editing the duplicates.

My hope is that a senior editor moves the relevant parts of the above mentioned "Heat transfer" section (for example) to a/the History section of the "Heat transfer" main article, or else deletes the duplicates, the sooner the better. (You will understand that I'm not eager to undo hours worth of my own edits.) The edits that after today have been done in the to-be-deleted original or duplicated paragraphs will be lost.

Please be informed. The Cosmic Ocean (talk) 07:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No one has objected, and no edits seem to have been made in the four sections, so I'm removing them. It's a lot of text, but it has all been duplicated piecemeal in the history sections, The Cosmic Ocean (Please feel free to modify or undo any of my edits as deemed appropriate.) 19:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Descartes blockquotes[edit]

Changed two Descartes quotes inside the text into blockquotes for increased clarity. On the other hand they interrupt the flow of the text and they are both found in their main articles. Feel free to put them back into the running text if deemed better. The Cosmic Ocean (talk) 03:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "Atmospheric pressure replaces "vacuum-abhorrence""[edit]

Dear fellow Wikipedians,

With due respect for the hard work of whoever wrote this subsection, I have taken the liberty of removing the "Atmospheric pressure replaces "vacuum-abhorrence"". It seems to me this text is better suited for—and well covered in—pages Evangelista Torricelli, Galileo Galilei#Water pump, Barometer#History, and Vacuum pump#History. The Cosmic Ocean (Please feel free to modify or undo any of my edits as deemed appropriate.) 18:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_thermodynamics&oldid=1194739405"