Bibliography

Eng. B. V. Koshevoi. Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics, a textbook for higher technical educational institutions, TNTI, 1931, 228 pp.; price 2 rubles 25 kopecks.

We are now obliged, when we are being entrusted with the responsible task of training broad engineering and technical cadres, to pay special attention to the quality of scientific and instructional literature.

All specialists know what a dreary picture is presented by our latest textbooks—thermodynamics, and engineering thermodynamics in particular. Any person who has taken a course in physical, chemical, or engineering sciences at a higher school already considers himself competent to write a textbook on thermodynamics. As a result, we have an abundant output in this field. It is characteristic that newly appearing little books not only show no improvement in comparison with their predecessors but, on the contrary, only demonstrate a deterioration in quality. This is explained above all by the fact that authors working in haste widely practice copying from their predecessors, and the errors are copied as well; usually the incompetent author adds to the predecessor’s errors still more errors of his own invention. Thus there appear in print “works” in which a knowledgeable reader can find mistakes, from minor to very large ones, literally on every page. Let us give several quotations taken from the pages, opened at random, of the book that has just appeared and whose title is written above. These quotations, according to the errors contained in them, are divided into the following two categories:

1. In some cases, grossly distorted, and in others, meaningless definitions of basic concepts.

P. 6: “In the conversion of heat into work and back (A. B.), equivalence is observed, not equality, since the concepts of heat and work are not one and the same (syll.! A. B.). Heat, as energy, is the capacity of a body to perform work, while the second concept is work itself.” The whole phrase is a badly pasted-together set of highly confused assertions, among which what stands out as untenable is the claim that heat is allegedly the capacity of a body to perform work. Obviously, the author failed to realize that he is falling into glaring contradiction with the second law of thermodynamics.

Bibliography

P. 4. “Being at rest and on the earth (? A. B.), a body in any case (? A. B.) possesses internal energy. Thermal energy is the internal energy of a body. External energy, such as, for example, the energy of a body located at a certain distance from the earth, the energy of a falling body, the energy of a compressed spring, is called the mechanical energy of a body. Besides thermal and mechanical energy, there also exist other kinds of energy, for example electrical, radiant, sound energy, and the energy of chemical affinity.” In these few lines we observe a number of gross errors which are bound to create great confusion in the reader’s mind. “Thermal energy” not only cannot be identified with the internal energy of a body, but in general does not exist as a kind of energy. The author classifies the energy of a compressed spring as external energy, whereas it is undoubtedly the internal energy of the body. The concept of “external energy” is perhaps the author’s own invention, but, of course, an unfortunate one. In the author’s language external energy is a synonym of mechanical energy, and internal energy a synonym of thermal energy; but it is obvious that internal energy plus external energy must constitute the total energy of a body; this does not prevent the author from finding several more kinds of energy which fall neither under the category of external (mechanical) nor under that of internal (thermal) energy. Such, according to the author, is in particular the energy of chemical affinity, which is undoubtedly a special case of internal energy. The confusion of the concepts of heat and internal energy will place the author in a hopeless position when he proceeds to analyze an “adiabatic” process (see, for example, p. 167).

P. 10: “Temperature, or the degree of heating of a gas or vapor, is determined in degrees Celsius and is denoted by the letter \(t\). In thermodynamics one also deals with the so-called absolute temperature \(T\). The absolute temperature is equal to the readings of a Celsius thermometer plus 273.” And this is all that the author finds it necessary to say about one of the most important and difficult thermodynamic concepts! As a curiosity let us note that in this remarkable definition the author calls temperature the degree of heating of a gas or vapor, leaving, say, water without the right to a temperature.

2. Essential errors of a factual nature.

P. 12: “The state of vapor is an unstable state and intermediate between the liquid and the gaseous state.” The author has evidently heard something about thermodynamically unstable states of a substance, but has applied this term to vapor quite inappropriately. Both here and in a number of other places in the book the author draws a distinction between the vapor-like state and the gaseous state, which is completely unfounded. Thus, on p. 65 we read: “with the exception of gases (sic! A. B.) the magnitude of the heat capacity \(C_p\) for superheated vapors depends,” etc.; an analogous assertion is found on p. 121. The author’s theory of the “vapor-like state” contradicts universally known

...the facts. Thus, on p. 12 the author writes: “A gas can turn into a liquid only after passing through the state of vapor”; this is incorrect: since Andrews it has been known that a gas can be converted into a liquid by a continuous path, bypassing the critical point and thus avoiding the state of saturated vapor. In addition, the author completely ignores the phenomena of equilibrium between a solid body and vapor. Further, the author (p. 12) attempts to explain which gases are called permanent, and gives the following astonishing formulation: “Permanent gases are those gases whose critical temperature is very low in comparison with the temperature of the surrounding medium” (the spacing is ours. A. B.).

Pp. 12, 93, etc.: “Permanent gases obey Boyle–Mariotte’s and Gay-Lussac’s laws, whereas vapors do not obey these laws...” “These laws are valid only for perfect gases at temperatures considerably higher than their critical temperature...” Here there are three gross errors: 1) Mariotte’s and Gay-Lussac’s laws are valid (within a certain range of states) not only for permanent gases, but for all gases; 2) the applicability of these laws is determined not by the values of temperature, but by the values of density; 3) any vapor (dry) is a gas, and therefore, to the same extent as gases, it obeys the gas laws.

P. 27: “...between the particles of a gas there are no forces of interaction... When the temperature of a gas is lowered, i.e., when the velocity of motion of the particles is decreased, forces of cohesion between the particles are again (?) found...” The first assertion, emphasized by the author with spacing, is erroneous; the second absurd assertion, which makes the presence of interaction forces dependent on the velocity of motion of the particles, reveals the author’s absolute lack of understanding of the elementary foundations of the kinetic theory of gases.

P. 64: “The ratio of the heat capacities $C_p$ and $C_v$ for all (!) perfect gases is a constant quantity and equal to 1.41”... A gross error. It is generally known that, depending on the number of atoms in a molecule, the indicated ratio may have different values (for monatomic gases 1.67, for triatomic gases 1.33).

In conclusion, it must be acknowledged that the book under review, as one containing a long series of gross errors concerning the foundations of the science, cannot successfully fulfill the purpose assigned to it by the author and the publishing house as a textbook for institutions of higher technical education.

A. Bachinsky.