This work concerns basic research on the concept of wood hardness in a sense similar to Brinell or in the modified sense of Monnin. The experimental part of this article is based on research carried out on beech wood with six indenters: three ball indenters of 10, 15 and 30 mm and three cylindrical indenters of 10, 15 and 30 mm. On the basis of measurements for a wide range of loads, relations analogous to Meyer power law of were obtained, with the exponent determined both for balls equal to 5/2 and for cylinders equal to 3/2. These exponents turned out to be exactly the arithmetic mean of exponents for ideally elastic and ideally plastic bodies. On this basis, new hardness formulae were proposed, taking into account Meyer law and the diameters of indenters. Therefore, the proposed two hardness formulae (for the ball and cylinder) are a generalization and development of Meyer hardness law.

The II law of thermodynamics is most often given in three supposedly equivalent formulations: two Clausius (I and II) and one Kelvin. The most general and indisputable entropy formulation belongs to Clausius (II). The earlier Clausius I principle determines the natural direction heat flow between bodies at different temperatures. On the other hand, the Kelvin principle states that it is impossible to completely convert heat into work. The author argues that the Kelvin principle is a weaker statement (or more strictly non-equivalent) than the Clausius I principle, and the latter is a weaker statement than Carnot principle, which is equivalent to Clausius II principle. As a result, the Kelvin principle and the Clausius I principle are not exhaustive formulations of the II law of thermodynamics. At the same time, it turns out that the Carnot principle becomes such a formulation. Apart from providing a complete set of proof and disproof, the author, indicates where the methodological errors were made in the alleged proof of the equivalence of the Kelvin principle and both Clausius principles.

The status of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, even in the 21st century, is not as certain as when Arthur Eddington wrote about it a hundred years ago. It is not only about the truth of this law, but rather about its strict and exhaustive formulation. In the previous article, it was shown that two of the three most famous thermodynamic formulations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics are non-exhaustive. However, the status of the statistical approach, contrary to common and unfounded opinions, is even more difficult. It is known that Boltzmann did not manage to completely and correctly derive the Second Law of Thermodynamics from statistical mechanics, even though he probably did everything he could in this regard. In particular, he introduced molecular chaos into the extension of the Liouville equation, obtaining the Boltzmann equation. By using the H theorem, Boltzmann transferred the Second Law of Thermodynamics thesis to the molecular chaos hypothesis, which is not considered to be fully true. Therefore, the authors present a detailed and critical review of the issue of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and entropy from the perspective of phenomenological thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, as well as kinetic theory. On this basis, Propositions 1–3 for the statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics are formulated in the original part of the article. Proposition 1 is based on resolving the misunderstanding of the Perpetuum Mobile of the Second Kind by introducing the Perpetuum Mobile of the Third Kind. Proposition 2 specifies the structure of allowed thermodynamic processes by using the Inequality of Heat and Temperature Proportions inspired by Eudoxus of Cnidus’s inequalities defining real numbers. Proposition 3 is a Probabilistic Scheme of the Second Law of Thermodynamics that, like a game, shows the statistical tendency for entropy to increase, even though the possibility of it decreasing cannot be completely ruled out. Proposition 3 is, in some sense, free from Loschmidt’s irreversibility paradox.

The II law of thermodynamics is most often given in three supposedly equivalent formulations: two Clausius (I and II) and one Kelvin. The most general and indisputable entropy formulation belong to Clausius (II). The earlier Clausius I principle determines the natural direction heat flow between bodies at different temperatures. On the other hand, the Kelvin principle states that it is impossible to completely convert heat into work. The author argues that the Kelvin principle is a weaker statement (or more strictly non-equivalent) than Clausius I principle, and the latter is a weaker statement than Carnot principle, which is equivalent to Clausius II principle. As a result, the Kelvin principle and the Clausius I principle are not exhaustive formulations of the II law of thermodynamics. At the same time, it turns out that the Carnot principle becomes such a formulation. Apart from providing a complete set of proof and disproof, the author, indicates where the methodological errors were made in the alleged proof of the equivalence of the Kelvin principle and both Clausius principles.