Hmolpedia Forum

Just received my copy of Robert Hanlon's 2021 Block by Block: the Historical and Theoretical Foundations of Thermodynamics in the mail, about an hour ago. I have already summarized what I could determine from his book, based on Google Books and Amazon Books searches, as summarized here:
https://hmolpedia.com/page/Robert_Hanlon

I haven't yet opened the book, as it sits in front of me now, but from what I have been able to determine, based on his over-use of the term "creation", as compared to Ingo Muller's 2007 A History of Thermodynamics, he is a closet creationist:
https://hmolpedia.com/page/Theistic_thermodynamics

And he is is also a "closet informationist" to boot:
https://hmolpedia.com/page/Informationist

Consider how Hanlon uses the term "creation" three times in respect to internal energy U and the first law:

“Consider that when Clausius created U, he was able to reasonably grasp the physical meaning behind it since he based the creation on two comprising properties that he grasped quite well, the vis viva of the moving atoms and the work needed to separate them. In other words, he first learned the pieces than created the whole.”
— Robert Hanlon (2020), Brick by Brick (pg. 457)

Correctly, the laws of thermodynamics were "derived", based on first principles, experimentally based.

Although Hanlon is not "teaching" this, e.g. "I am not currently teaching a class on thermo and am instead involved with MIT's school of chemical engineering practice" (16 Jan 2020 email), it is a bit of a dismay to see a modern MIT-trained and employed chemical engineer, present a history of chemical thermodynamics cloaked in creationism terminology.