Is there anyone out there who also thinks this law is a scam? If we look at it, it states that new heat supplied into a system is equal to net work done. It is true to some extent but the second law which introduces Internal energy U made nonsense of it.
My question is thus why do we still call it a law when the second law has nullified it? Sound pointless to me.
How about you?

There is no fraud in it. . .
I'll give you here an example you can follow and comprehend.

Say you have 100joules free energy and you apply all of it to an isolated system. . .
The 2nd law immediately comes into play first that is. . .out of the 100joules applied there will be some loss (inevitably). . .say 20joules.

Now what the 1st law says is after that loss, the 80joules that gets into the system will be equal to the amount of work done by or raise in the temperature of the system.

So in essence, if you apply energy to a system, there will be some loss (2nd law) . . .
But whatever gets into the system will never be lost. It will either do work or raise temperature or both (1st law)

I hope its crystal-clear now.

Wow! I'm so clueless

Mynd_44: Is there anyone out there who also thinks this law is a scam? If we look at it, it states that new heat supplied into a system is equal to net work done. It is true to some extent but the second law which introduces Internal energy U made nonsense of it.
My question is thus why do we still call it a law when the second law has nullified it? Sound pointless to me.
How about you?

seriously did you ever think you were smarter than the scientists that put that law together and those still working with it??

ijebabe: Wow! I'm so clueless

i would be surprised otherwards

flash11:
i would be surprised otherwards

I'm not even remotely offended

ijebabe:
I'm not even remotely offended

good for you then

flash11:
seriously did you ever think you were smarter than the scientists that put that law together and those still working with it??

You never can tell

flash11:
seriously did you ever think you were smarter than the scientists that put that law together and those still working with it??

Excuse me but is this supposed to insult me or get me offended? What a load of poo
Besides I did not say it was wrong, what I said was that it was pointless having two when they both point to the same thing

adolfe bad: There is no fraud in it. . .
I'll give you here an example you can follow and comprehend.

Say you have 100joules free energy and you apply all of it to an isolated system. . .
The 2nd law immediately comes into play first that is. . .out of the 100joules applied there will be some loss (inevitably). . .say 20joules.

Now what the 1st law says is after that loss, the 80joules that gets into the system will be equal to the amount of work done by or raise in the temperature of the system.

So in essence, if you apply energy to a system, there will be some loss (2nd law) . . .
But whatever gets into the system will never be lost. It will either do work or raise temperature or both (1st law)

I hope its crystal-clear now.

You mistake my point dude.
The first law came before the second law right? So, I point in essence is that there is only one law which is the combination of the two. The second law just came in after it was realised that the has to be losses due to the factor U so why did they not just dice up the first and chuck the second law into it leaving everyone with on significant law instead of two

ijebabe: Wow! I'm so clueless

It is not your field nah so no one blames you

Mynd_44:
You mistake my point dude.
The first law came before the second law right? So, I point in essence is that there is only one law which is the combination of the two. The second law just came in after it was realised that the has to be losses due to the factor U so why did they not just dice up the first and chuck the second law into it leaving everyone with on significant law instead of two

Trying to chuck the 2nd law into the 1st is like mixing kerosene with water.
They can never mix because they are 2 extremely separate entities even though they are both liquids.

The 1st and 2nd laws are different entities even though they both deal with energy. . .

While the 1st law is concerned ONLY with what happens 'inside' a system, the 2nd is concerned with the reaction of the system with the environment.
What those 2 laws apply to are hugely different.

For example if you have a closed system where heat is neither lost nor gained such as the whole universe. . .where heat generated within itself by the decomposition of matter is used to do a vast amount of work. . .
Now tell me does the 2nd law apply to such a system?

to the post above me yes you can actualy drawconclusions from the second law in the case of a close system.

adolfe bad: For example if you have a closed system where heat is neither lost nor gained such as the whole universe. . .where heat generated within itself by the decomposition of matter is used to do a vast amount of work. . .
Now tell me does the 2nd law apply to such a system?

The Universe? Please we don't know enough about it to use that as an example. We can use a closed system to explain it so I get your point like the poster above me said but assuming heat lost to the boundary like the containers of a cylinder to be negligible

flash11:
seriously did you ever think you were smarter than the scientists that put that law together and those still working with it??

The scientists you talk about weren't soo smart in their own days. It took thinking in the same mindset as the op to make the discoveries we all study now. You learn these things when you do philosophy, we should broaden our minds to foster creativity. Left to conformist thinking we will probably all still believe the earth is flat.

Now to this lot- boiii my knowledge on this is rusty, but i think this used to confuse me too. the entropy nonsense. Let me google this ish.

I see what you mean, the literal definition of the first law doesn't take efficiency into account. Then again it depends on how you read it, it can still apply. The first law says that the energy of a closed system is increased by work done on it by an external system, the energy dissipated won't necessarily have effect on that of the closed system will it?

In simple terms (cos thats how i like it) the first law is telling you energy is conserved, the second law is telling you some of it is usable the rest of it isnt.
The second law introduced entropy, which is (as i remember it) a form of unusable energy, it doesn't affect the total energy- it just outlines efficiency between systems when doing work.

I like warm settings and climates. I think it should be a law that summer time lasts a year too!

I get frost bites easily..

MsDarkSkin: I like warm settings and climates. I think it should be a law that summer time lasts a year too!

I get frost bites easily..

Get off this thread ma'am. You are causing loss of energy.

Mynd_44:
Get off this thread ma'am. You are causing loss of energy.

MsDarkSkin: I like warm settings and climates. I think it should be a law that summer time lasts a year too!

I get frost bites easily..

Lolz
Dont worry. . .you can have your law.
Its always SUMMER in your guy's ARMS.

Loooooooooooongest tym sugar!!

adolfe bad:

Lolz
Dont worry. . .you can have your law.
Its always SUMMER in your guy's ARMS.

Loooooooooooongest tym sugar!!

The both of you should get a room

Mynd44. You still think it is a fraud?