November Video
Added 2025-11-07 19:48:44 +0000 UTCThe topic was: Angela's choice. Angela's choice was thermodynamics is cool. Like usual I guess.
Comments
Thermo trauma๐
Farmer Bragg
2025-11-19 19:30:56 +0000 UTCThis is completely unrelated but your videos have been one of the ways I was able to keep enjoying science the last two years despite some things that happened in the pandemic in relation to it so thanks for putting your thoughts out there. I know you probably enjoy doing this but I just felt the need to say that I appreciate your efforts, pretty cool stuff! Also, I think because this is an unlisted video you might want to turn off the comments? I am not sure though, not an expert when it comes to online stuff
Zayne
2025-11-12 23:39:53 +0000 UTCAs you were discussing the Carnot engine, all I could think was "Oh like a heat pump!" And then you talked about heat pumps, loved it!
Nick A
2025-11-10 14:22:09 +0000 UTCI think (I welcome any corrections) the missing part (for me) was that the numbers for the Carnot machine were arbitrary in the sketch, but they were meant to represent the calculated theoretical thermodynamical limit, which is determined by the temperature delta between the colder heat sink and the warmer heat sink. The temperature difference (on an absolute scale like Kelvin) puts an upper limit on the theoretically possible max efficiency. Even that is not attainable in practice, but you can rule out that any heat exchanger (that is working with this principle) with a higher efficiency is possible. Hmm probably also any other heat exchanger? Not sure.
Schmor Braten
2025-11-09 00:16:40 +0000 UTCPython is a good cause, My daughter loves it.
Isabel and Lukas' dad
2025-11-08 22:39:49 +0000 UTCI don't understand at all. How can you draw one machine that takes in 1000 [some units of energy], outputs 200 units of useful work, and exhausts 800 in waste; then denote the machine as C and say it is the most close to perfect machine ever made. Then right next to it draw an identical machine except it takes in 1000, outputs 400 units of useful work, and exhausts 600 in waste; then denote that machine as F and say it is impossible? Both machines are perfectly realistic, it's just F is a bit more efficient. Secondly, if you put both machines into a "box" to make it a closed system, you cannot then separate Q1 and Q2 into Q1_C and Q1_F and Q2_C and Q2_F with Q1_C not equal to Q1_F and Q2_C not equal to Q2_F. You have one Q1 that both machines share and one Q2 that both machines share. You'd reach some steady-state Q1 and Q2 for the closed system. Thirdly, the logical proof you went through can easily be reversed by doubling and reversing machine F to "prove" machine C is impossible. This logical proof is flawed because I can make either perfectly reasonable machine logically impossible per you method. Lastly, please don't kick me off your Patreon, I absolutely love your videos - physics, comedy, and snark. My credentials speak for themselves: McDonald's crew member 1978 to 1982.
William Fleming
2025-11-08 21:39:20 +0000 UTC
