Textbook 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is WRONG

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/capchg.html
zero energy travel

Initially I thought the  2nd Law of Thermodynamics is just too accurate and not scientific but just a few days ago realised that it is actually completely wrong.

My lecturer at City University London, in 1980 in a course on Thermodynamics in a BSc in Electronic Engineering, only showed the Carnot's equation to show the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. He mentioned briefly and without compassion that some people use it as a universal law to prove that we cannot convert one form of energy to another completely. However the equation certainly does not show it.

Only recently that I realised that my understanding of the textbook 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is wrong. I was surprised that all my colleagues believe that we cannot convert completely from one form of energy to another because of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics so I decided to visit my textbooks. I read 4 textbooks including the most recent textbook, Engineering Thermodynamics.

Carnot's engine is just a derivation of the energy conversion equation from heat to mechanical energy and it is an example of a reversible engine. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics includes reversibles ( shouldn't it be, irreversibles) or commonly called losses such as friction and electrical resistance. Strangely, I can't find the definition of revesibles in the internet.

The textbooks also mention that it is assumed that these reversibles cannot become zero because of our common experiences that losses in inevitable and occur widely in our environment. I notice that this is actually nonsense. It reminds me of the days when learned people believe that the Earth is Flat because their environments appear flat.

I still do not question the validity of the textbook definition of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics but I found that it is very strange that it is the only equation on energy conversion that includes losses. All others, usually do not include losses in their treatment such as Newton's laws of motion, F=ma, Einstein's E=mc^2 and Faraday's law for the electrical to mechanical energy conversion. However, by including losses, it makes the textbook description of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics much more accurate but not practical. Now I realise that it is completely wrong.

The required precision of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is an infinite number of decimal places. This is similar to requiring that the voltage must be accurate to an infinite decimal places for a capacitor to be fully charged as shown in the link above.  http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/capchg.html

The textbooks note also that the lower limit of the reversibles(losses such as friction) is still unknown because they keep on dropping. Actually, given infinite resources such as time and materials, we can get zero losses. With that, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is incorrect.

It is similar  to saying that a capacitor will never be fully charged because it will take an infinite time to be fully charged. It is only asymptotically approaching to be fully charged. It also occurs in many other engineering circumstances.

It is wrong to say that a capacitor cannot be fully charged. We consider a capacitor to be fully charged when the capacitor voltage is equal to the charging voltage value to within our required precision.

Similarly for energy conversions. We consider the conversion to occur fully when the conversion efficiency reaches a certain practical precision. It can be 99.9% or even 90%. It all depends on how much money you are willing to spend.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics also breaks a few other laws and conventions. The textbooks note that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not agree with the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, the conservation of energy. The 1st Law of Thermodynamics allow full conversion of energy. Textbooks explained it as a different case. Anything that breaks the most fundamental of laws such as the Law of the Conservation of Energy, must be scrutinised closely.

The assumption, that our environment is mostly lossy is completely false. The lossless environment occurs in full vacuum and at absolute zero temperature. This environment is billions of times more common than our atmospheric environment. It is called Outer Space.

If you want to know about it, and myself, you may refer to my pre publication at Arxiv called Zero Energy Travel. I had patented at WIPO an invention called Zero Energy Transportation System. My current employer, Universiti Malaysis Sabah refused to finance its patenting so I patented it as an individual. The Japanese Patent Office, had allowed the name and deemed the invention novel but not fully inventive. However, JPO made a lot of wrong comments about my invention. I shall file an informal comment to defend my invention.

I am looking for financiers to finance the patenting and commercialising of this invention and the coming, Zero Aerodynamic Drag vehicles. I don't think UMS is willing to finance it. They are so brainwashed by these textbooks.

I shall write ebooks explaining in details these concepts and my inventions. Still waiting for EIN from the US Government. It has to be self publication. I don't think the established textbook publishers want to publish anything that proves that their textbooks are wrong.
http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/sell-ebooks/ is a start. Already learning about smashwords

There is nothing wrong with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as long as it sticks to science. Science is mathematical and simple. If it sticks with simple Energy Conversion from Heat to Mechanical, there is nothing wrong with it.