Sadi Carnot, at the age of 28, wrote a book in 1828 in a very popular and non-mathematical style (although it was clear he had strong grasp of complex mathematics), Réflexions sur la puissance motrice du feu ("Reflections on the Motive Power of Fire") about the operation of heat engines. A heat engine is a device which converts heat to mechanical work.
In one famous section of the book, Carnot proposed that the simplest heat engine would be one between two thermal reservoirs at different temperatures. He then compared this heat engine with a water wheel where water is discharged from a reservoir from a high level and allowed to fall over the arms of a wheel to a lower level. We know now that the gravitational potential energy in the high reservoir is converted to kinetic energy which can be captured without any loss of water. Carnot likewise reasoned that the amount of work generated by the energy is subject to a maximum which varied with the difference in the temperatures of the two reservoirs, as heat fell from one to the other. This picture makes it a little clearer. This is known as Carnot's theorem which still holds today. Carnot further postulated that a heat engine generally cannot convert all heat to work in a cyclic process, and attain this maximum - and that some heat would be lost. Carnot was guided primarily by his intuition.
The statement of the second law of thermodynamics has a number of different forms but the simplest form may be expressed as follows : "No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body". Carnot's postulates form the basis of the derivation of the second law of thermodynamics in the majority of modern books on engineering thermodynamics. Without Carnot's work, the law might have been stated in its present form far later. A more extensive examination of the relationship of his work to modern thermodynamics can be found here.
There is only one problem. Carnot's statement of the theorem was complete pseudo-science (edit : or at least, discredited science).
It relied on the existence of a liqui
... keep reading on reddit ➡
All science and innovation in history has rightfully been met with its fair share of backlash and confusion; but none-the-less the wheels keep rolling regardless of setbacks. Scroll Through the timeline of the history of combustion engine just for a little context of how drawn out and sometimes novel innovation can be.
It wasn't until the early 20th century people believed the combustion engine coudl fully replace the horse. All change in history is met with opposition.
I stole this timeline from the first link I found on google, source at bottom.
Pre-Industrial Revolution
- 1206: Al-Jazari described a double-acting reciprocating piston pump with a crankshaft-connecting rod mechanism.[1]
- 1232: Rockets are invented in China and was the first example of an internal combustion engine, though with very short duration and it was very inefficient.
- 1509: Leonardo da Vinci described a compressionless engine.
- 1673: Christiaan Huygens described a compressionless engine.
18th Century
- 17th century: English inventor Sir Samuel Morland used gunpowder to drive water pumps, essentially creating the first rudimentary internal combustion piston engine.
- 1780's: Alessandro Volta built a toy electric pistol[2] in which an electric spark exploded a mixture of air and hydrogen, firing a cork from the end of the gun.
- 1791: John Barber receives British patent #1833 for A Method for Rising Inflammable Air for the Purposes of Producing Motion and Facilitating Metallurgical Operations. In it he describes a turbine.
- 1794: Robert Street built a compressionless engine whose principle of operation would dominate for nearly a century.
- 1798 - Tipu Sultan, the of the city-state of Mysore in India, uses the first iron rockets against the British Army and wins the first war.
19th Century
- 1806: Swiss engineer François Isaac de Rivaz built an internal combustion engine powered by a hydrogen and oxygen mixture.
- 1823: Samuel Brown patented the first internal combustion engine to be applied industrially. It was compressionless and based on what Hardenberg cal
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Black Clover. The humour is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of battle shounen philosophy most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer’s head. There’s also Asta's liberalist outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation- his personal philosophy draws heavily from Chikamatsu Monzaemon literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of the series, to realise they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Black Clover truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn’t appreciate, for instance, the humour in Asta's existential catchphrase “MADA MADA!,” which itself is a cryptic reference to Murasaki Shikibu's The Tale of Genji. I’m smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Yūki Tabata's genius unfolds itself. What fools.. how I pity them. 😂
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand K-On!. The humor is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of CGDCT tropes, most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer’s head. There’s also Yui's optimistic outlook, which is deftly woven into her characterization – her personal philosophy draws heavily from Epicurean literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these jokes, to realize that they’re not just funny – they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence, people who dislike K-On! truly ARE idiots – of course they wouldn’t appreciate, for instance, the humor in Yui's hedonistic catchphrase "Fun Things Are Fun," which itself is a cryptic reference to Miller's great American novel Tropic of Cancer. I’m smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Naoko Yamada's genius wit unfolds itself on their television screens. What fools... how I pity them. 😂
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Jojo. The humour is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of western popular music, most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer’s head. There’s also DIO's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation- his personal philosophy draws heavily from biblical literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the dep
... keep reading on reddit ➡I name the scientist, you name their theory
$200- Charles Darwin
$400- Alfred Wegener
$600- Georges Lemaître
$800- Johannes Kepler
$1000- Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot
Hello everyone! This is my first post on this sub.
So recently I happened to watch this obscure yet peculiar youtube video in which the author- the staunch Albanian nationalist decided to show us the "truth" about Napoleon's supposed real origin all in a one-minute youtube video. Here's the link. However, in this post, I shall indeed protect the Emperor's good name and go through this video text by text debunking the claims presented by this notorious nationalist. Here we go...
>Napolean was born inCorsica, Italy
>.He knew a lot about the Albanians. He wanted to be like Alexander another great Albanian. He went to Egypt where Alexander the great was buried and he told his soildiers to be alone in the room.
Though I clearly can't answer to the first claim due to the lack of any sources mentioning Napoleon's knowledge about the Albanian nation I can say that Bonaparte, indeed had a great admiration for Alexander ever since his childhood, though he happened to criticize him on occasion, for example when working on a discourse on the subject 'What are the Most Important Truths and feelings for Men to Learn to be Happy?' for the Lyons Academy's essay prize he negatively commented Alexander's despotism, to quote:
"What is Alexander doing when he rushes from Thebes into Persia and thence into India? He is ever restless, he loses his wits, he believes himself God [...]"^([1])
In the following two sentences, the author tries to tell, in a pretty short manner, why Napoleon went to Egypt by saying that his expedition was only motivated by Alexander's conquests and that it was his initiative. This theory, however, is purely based on common myths and it's completely false. The plans of invading Egypt were first considered by French military strategists in the 1760s. In 1782, the Austrian Emperor Joseph II suggested Louis XVI annexe Egypt as a part of a larger unsuccessful plan of the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire^([2]). During the revolution, the plan itself was brought in again and was quite popular among revolutionaries and idealists who wished to bring revolutionary ideals to the people of Egypt, oppressed by Mameluke tyranny and rational strategists like Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand, Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot and of course, Napoleon. Bonaparte himself prioritized Egypt, calling it "the geographical key to controlling the world"^([3]) a
... keep reading on reddit ➡I don't know how to properly categorize it but roughly from the 1880s to the end of WW1, we just see this string of high-profile assassinations back to back.
James Garfield, American President - 1881
Alexander II - Russian Emperor - 1881
Sadi Carnot, French President - 1894
Umberto I - King of Italy - 1900
William McKinley - American President - 1901
Carlos I - King of Portugal - 1908
Geórgios I - King of Greece - 1913
Franz Ferdinand - Duke of Austria - 1914
Nicolas II - Russian Emperor - 1917
And not to mention the ones that had been attempted but managed to survive; Teddy Roosevelt, Kaiser Wilhelm, Leopold of Belgium, Sultan Abdülhamid II, and Spanish king Alfonso XIII.
I understand that there were plenty of chaotic and violent periods throughout history, however, this period here stands out as pretty interesting.
What was going on?
