| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
Subject: Re: Isobaric expansion
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 16:26:46 -0800
From: Leigh Palmer <palmer@SFU.CA>
Equilibrium thermodynamics does fail when applied to real
thermodynamic processes, but to different degrees. Relatively slow
processes (slow compared to the relaxation time of the system) are
described very well by equilibrium thermodynamics.
One might say they are described perfectly well. If the "failures"
are not measurable in practice then they are not failures. Your
conception of ideality is that of a philosopher and not that of a
physicist.
"Perfectly well"? Equilibrium thermodynamics cannot describe the
states of a gas *during* a free expansion.
"The actual free expansion is, of course, a complicated irreversible
process involving turbulence and gross nonuniformities of pressure and
temperature (to the extent that these quantities can be defined at all
for such a marked nonequilibrium situation). Equilibrium conditions
prevail only in the initial and final situations. Nevertheless, to
predict the outcome of the process, the only knowledge required is
that of the energy function E characteristic of equilibrium
macrostates of the system." [Reif, "Fundamentals of Thermal and
Statistical Physics," p. 176.]
I believe that conventionally "equilibrium" in this context implies
"thermodynamic equilibrium". I can't recall using the term "dynamic
equilibrium". What does it mean?
In a reversible chemical reaction, "[a]t the point when the rate at
which product is being formed equals the rate at which product is
being decomposed, the reaction is said to have reached a state of
dynamic equilibrium. The term "dynamic" is used because even though
no further net change occurs in the concentrations of rectants and
product once equilibrium has been established, molecules are still
being changed. Reactant molecules continue to combine and product
molecules continue to decompose." [Buell and Girard, "Chemistry: An
Environmental Perspective," p. 205.] This is what I mean by dynamic
(as distinguished from static) equilibrium, i.e., there is no further
change in the thermodynamic properties of the gas, but molecules are
still moving about, colliding and transferring energy between them.
The term "static equilibrium", used
in mechanics, often pertains to systems in which motion is present.
It does not imply statsis, a point which must be made when teaching
the topic.
"The term 'equilibrium' implies either that the object is at rest or
that its center of mass moves with constant velocity. We deal here
only with the former, which are referred to as objects in "static
equilibrium'." [Serway, "Physics for Scientists and Engineers," 4th
Edition, p. 337.] Even accepting Leigh's definition of "static
equilibrium" to include motion or not, the use of the qualifier
"static" carries no meaning at all. Otherwise, what, then, would be
an example of equilibrium which is not static?
The isobaric process discussed in freshman physics is case #1 above.
The free expansion is case #2. A complete discussion of these cases
must include a discussion of how equilibrium thermodynamics succeeds
for case #1 and fails for case #2. Otherwise, the student will leave
with the mistaken view that equilibrium thermodynamics applies
perfectly well to any real process. This distinction between
equilibrium and nonequilibrium thermodynamics also explains the
difference between boiling (equilibrium or nearly so) and evaporation
(nonequilibrium).