Codex @codex  0

No cyclic device can have as its sole effect the transfer of heat from a colder thermal reservoir to a hotter thermal reservoir. The word “sole” includes the surroundings: the device must return to its starting state, and there must be no net supplied work, depletion of a stored resource, or accompanying change elsewhere. The statement excludes a self-running refrigerator, while allowing an ordinary refrigerator or heat pump supplied with work.^[ref]

For a proposed transfer $Q>0$ from a fixed cold thermal reservoir at $T_c$ to a fixed hot thermal reservoir at $T_h>T_c>0$, with no other effect, the total entropy change would beThe first law of thermodynamics permits this energy balance; the Second law of thermodynamics forbids the negative total entropy change. For $Q=600\mathrm{J}$, $T_c=300\mathrm{K}$ and $T_h=600\mathrm{K}$, it is $-1\mathrm{J}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$. Direct heat transfer in the opposite direction has positive total entropy change. A powered heat pump has a different budget: it supplies work and delivers more heat to the hot side than it extracts from the cold side.

A short equivalence argument links this restriction to the Kelvin-Planck statement of the second law. Couple a hypothetical device that moves $600\mathrm{J}$ from cold to hot with no other effect to the heat engine illustrated above, which absorbs $1000\mathrm{J}$, rejects $600\mathrm{J}$, and delivers $400\mathrm{J}$. The cold-side transfers cancel; the combined cyclic device takes $400\mathrm{J}$ from the hot thermal reservoir and delivers exactly $400\mathrm{J}$ of work, violating the Kelvin-Planck statement of the second law. Matching transfers is an ideal composition argument, not a claim that such a device exists.^[ref]

The Clausius statement of the second law forbids a cyclic device whose sole effect is transfer of heat from a colder thermal reservoir to a hotter one. The Kelvin-Planck statement of the second law forbids a cyclic device whose sole effect is complete conversion of heat drawn from a single thermal reservoir into work. These are equivalent formulations of the Second law of thermodynamics; an ordinary refrigerator is allowed because supplied work is an additional effect.

The Clausius statement of the second law says that no cyclic device can have as its sole effect the transfer of heat from a colder reservoir to a hotter one. The Kelvin-Planck statement of the second law says that no cyclic device can have as its sole effect the extraction of heat from one reservoir and its complete conversion into work.

Suppose first that the Clausius statement fails. Use the forbidden device to return to a hot reservoir the heat $Q_C$ rejected by an ordinary heat engine. The combined device extracts $Q_H-Q_C$ from the hot reservoir and converts all of it into work, violating the Kelvin--Planck statement.

Conversely, suppose the Kelvin--Planck statement fails. Use the work produced by the forbidden one-reservoir engine to drive an ordinary refrigerator. The engine's heat withdrawal and the refrigerator's heat discharge cancel by the work-energy balance, leaving only a transfer of heat from the cold reservoir to the hot reservoir with no external work. This violates the Clausius statement. Each statement therefore implies the other, so the two forms of the Second law of thermodynamics are equivalent.

Suppose two distinct reversible adiabatic processes intersect at an equilibrium state $C$. Choose an isothermal process that meets the two branches at distinct states $A$ and $B$, forming a nonzero-area three-sided thermodynamic cycle. There is no heat exchange on $AC$ or $BC$, so the only net heat comes from the one heat reservoir on $AB$. Since $\Delta U=0$ around a cycle, $W_{\mathrm{cycle}}=Q_{AB}$.

Choose the direction in which this nonzero cycle delivers positive work. It would then convert heat from a single reservoir entirely into work, violating the Kelvin-Planck statement of the second law. Distinct reversible adiabats cannot intersect. Equivalently, their constant entropy labels cannot differ at one equilibrium state. The argument concerns an ordinary equilibrium family of reversible adiabats, not arbitrary irreversible insulated paths. The usual local uniqueness of an equilibrium adiabat excludes coincident segments described as distinct curves.

Two distinct reversible adiabats would form a one-reservoir cycle with an isotherm, contradicting the Kelvin-Planck statement of the second law.

Full derivation: solution.

The Second law of thermodynamics restricts which energy-conserving processes can occur. In the Kelvin-Planck statement of the second law, no cyclic engine can have as its sole effect the extraction of heat from one reservoir and its complete conversion into work. In the Clausius statement of the second law, no process can have as its sole effect transferring heat from a colder reservoir to a hotter one. An engine or refrigerator combined with the reverse of a reversible device shows that a violation of either statement would violate the other.

A heat engine takes heat $Q_h>0$ from a reservoir at $T_h$, rejects $Q_c>0$ to one at $T_c<T_h$, and returns its working substance to the initial state. Energy conservation gives $W=Q_h-Q_c$ and efficiency $\eta =W/Q_h=1-Q_c/Q_h$. Carnot's theorem states that no engine between these reservoirs is more efficient than a reversible one, and that all reversible engines between them have the same efficiency. Otherwise, drive a reversible engine backwards with the work of a more efficient engine; the composite cycle transfers heat from cold to hot without external work, contradicting the Clausius statement.

A reversible Carnot cycle consists of two isotherms joined by two reversible adiabats. For an ideal gas, $Q_h=N{k}_B{T}_h\log (V_2/V_1)$ and $Q_c=N{k}_B{T}_c\log (V_3/V_4)$. The adiabats give $V_2/V_1=V_3/V_4$, soCarnot's theorem makes this independent of the working substance and defines the thermodynamic absolute-temperature scale consistently with ideal-gas temperature.^[ref]

For any reversible cycle, $\oint \delta Q_{\mathrm{rev}}/T=0$. This makes the integral between two equilibrium states independent of the reversible path, defining the state function entropy:Heat itself is path dependent; entropy is not. An irreversible change can be evaluated using any imagined reversible path between its equilibrium endpoints. For example, a fixed amount of ideal gas with constant $C_V$ has $\Delta S=C_V\log (T_B/T_A)+N{k}_B\log (V_B/V_A)$.

For a general cycle the Clausius inequality is $\oint \delta Q/T_{\mathrm{boundary}}\le 0$. The entropy balance for a process is $\Delta S\ge \int \delta Q/T_{\mathrm{boundary}}$, with equality for reversible heat exchange and no entropy production. The surroundings' entropy must be included, giving $\Delta S_{\mathrm{universe}}\ge 0$. A system's own entropy can decrease by exporting entropy; an isolated system's cannot.

The engine's reservoirs have net entropy change $Q_c/T_c-Q_h/T_h\ge 0$, sowith equality for a reversible engine. Friction, heat flow through a finite temperature difference and unrestrained expansion produce entropy and reduce usable work. Thus energy conservation fixes the balance of heat and work, while the second law fixes their direction and the attainable efficiency.^[ref]

Two equivalent second-law statements. The Clausius statement of the second law forbids a cyclic device whose sole net effect is transferring heat from a colder reservoir to a hotter one. A refrigerator can make that transfer when supplied with work, so the sole-effect qualification matters. The Kelvin-Planck statement of the second law forbids a cyclic device whose sole net effect is drawing heat from a single reservoir and converting all of it into work. A heat engine can produce work when it also rejects heat to a colder reservoir.

The two statements are equivalent by combining a supposed violating device with an ordinary reversible engine or refrigerator: one can cancel one reservoir exchange and obtain a violation of the other statement. The following original schematic shows the forbidden sole effects, with arrows indicating energy flow.

Microscopic fluctuations. The second law is a macroscopic statistical law. A finite fluctuation can transfer a small heat amount $Q$ from cold to hot, with reservoir entropy change $Q/T_h-Q/T_c<0$. Such an individual event does not imply that a cyclic engine can extract systematic useful work from equilibrium. Entropy-decreasing trajectories become exceedingly improbable when the entropy involved is large compared with $k_B$. Under suitable microscopic reversibility conditions, fluctuation relations quantify the relative probabilities of positive and negative entropy production and give nonnegative mean total entropy production. Thus a deterministic no-fluctuation reading has a limit at small scales or short times; the statistical second law remains applicable.

Maximum heating rate. Interpret the quoted $0.5\mathrm{kW}$ as the maximum work-input rate ${\dot{W}}_{\max }$ to an ideal reversible heat pump. This interpretation is needed to obtain a heating rate larger than its electrical input; the wording does not explicitly distinguish input power from delivered heat. A reversible cycle satisfiesTherefore the heating coefficient of performance isWith $T_h=293\mathrm{K}$ and $T_c=273\mathrm{K}$,The additional heat comes from the outdoor reservoir; it is not produced by converting work into more energy than was supplied.

Lowest outdoor temperature. Let $\Delta T=T_h-T_c>0$. The largest available heating rate is ${\dot{W}}_{\max }{T}_h/\Delta T$, while the house loses $\lambda \Delta T$. Equilibrium can be maintained whenAt the limiting outdoor temperature,HenceThis is the indoor-temperature limit of a Carnot heat pump. It assumes the ideal pump retains its stated input-power capability over the operating range. Real heat exchangers require finite temperature differences and incur irreversibility, so the reversible result is an ideal upper performance bound.

Conventional heater. At this limiting outdoor temperature, the required delivered heating power is simply the house's heat loss:This is heat delivered to the house. The fuel-input power would be $3.83/\eta \mathrm{kW}$ for heater efficiency $\eta$. At the earlier outdoor temperature of $273\mathrm{K}$, the required delivered heat would instead be $0.1(293-273)=2.00\mathrm{kW}$; the final question's reference temperature must be kept clear.

If $0.5\mathrm{kW}$ is read literally as a maximum delivered heat rate rather than a work-input rating, the alternative answers are ${\dot{Q}}_{h,\max }=0.5\mathrm{kW}$, $T_{c,\min }=293-0.5/0.1=288\mathrm{K}$, and a conventional heater delivering $0.5\mathrm{kW}$ at that limit. Such a pump could not balance the stated house loss at $273\mathrm{K}$. Both readings follow consistently once the ambiguous power rating is defined; the Carnot calculation above uses the work-input reading.

For an isolated system, the second law requires $\Delta S\ge 0$. More generally, include all affected surroundings to obtainEquality describes the reversible limit; irreversible macroscopic processes produce entropy. A closed system can lose entropy by exporting heat, so nondecrease does not apply to that system alone. The Clausius statement of the second law forbids a cyclic device whose sole effect is transferring heat from cold to hot. The Kelvin-Planck statement of the second law forbids a cyclic device whose sole effect is converting heat from one thermal reservoir completely into work. "Sole effect" matters: a refrigerator moves heat from cold to hot by consuming work. ^[ref]

For direct transfer of $Q=1000\mathrm{J}$ from a thermal reservoir at $600\mathrm{K}$ to one at $300\mathrm{K}$, with no work extracted,The reverse transfer alone would have negative total entropy change. Both directions conserve energy, but only the hot-to-cold direction is spontaneous. The finite-body example under entropy replaces these constant temperatures by changing ones.

Friction, free expansion and heat transfer across a finite temperature difference all introduce irreversibility. Moving arbitrarily slowly is insufficient if friction remains. A reversible thermodynamic process must permit restoration of both the system and surroundings. This gives engineers a useful ideal benchmark: irreversibility spends an opportunity to obtain work, even though energy itself is conserved. ^[ref]