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] |

*From*: John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>*Date*: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 02:55:49 -0400

On 06/15/2007 12:40 AM, Stefan Jeglinski wrote:

I'm looking for a better discussion than I've found regarding thermodynamic functions. In particular, in reading various treatments, it would appear that E = E(S,V) and E = E(V,T) are valid, but E = E(S,T) is not.

Yeah, I've seen that sort of treatment. It has trivial

advantages and horrific disadvantages.

I was thinking originally that there was some rule about mixing intensive and extensive variables, but the 2nd of the above 3 functional forms seems to kill that idea.

Agreed, there is no such rule. Your skepticism is well-aimed.

Some peculiar things happens if *all* of the variables are intensive,

but other than that, you can choose any combination of intensive and

extensive variables. Even the all-intensive case makes sense if you

are careful, and is actually kinda elegant.

But why can't I use the 3rd functional form, E(S,T)?

You can. No problemo. Again, your skepticism is well-aimed.

It would seem no more or less valid than E(V,T) from an intensive/extensive standpoint, but I'd get

dE = (dE/dS)dS + (dE/dT)dT = TdS + CvdT

which is clearly at odds with the above.

[1] Interpret the parenthetical quantities as garden variety partial derivatives with the appropriate variable held constant.

Well, that's the *ENTIRE* issue. What are the "appropriate"

things to hold constant? The widely-used and wildly-used

notation e.g. dE/dT is ambiguous.

Introducing the idea that E is "naturally" a function of V and S

is a lame attempt to solve some problems with the notation for

partial derivatives ... but it is usually neither necessary nor

sufficient to solve the problems.

You can solve and/or prevent a huge range of problems by

explicitly writing

dE/dT (at constant P)

or

dE/dT (at constant V)

i.e. being super explicit about what is being held constant.

There is an ever-present temptation to leave out the statement

of what is being held constant, and in *some* cases you can get

away with it, especially in introductory "end-of-chapter question"

situations ... but in real-world thermo problems, the usual result

of taking the "short cut" is complete disaster.

This is mentioned at

http://www.av8n.com/physics/thermo-laws.htm#sec-efgh

and discussed with more formality and more detail at

http://www.av8n.com/physics/partial-derivative.htm#sec-complete

I'm looking for a better discussion

Here's my attempt to formulate thermodynamics without the usual

hogwash:

http://www.av8n.com/physics/thermo-laws.htm

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: [Phys-l] thermo differential and extensive/intensive variables***From:*Stefan Jeglinski <jeglin@4pi.com>

**References**:**[Phys-l] thermo differential and extensive/intensive variables***From:*Stefan Jeglinski <jeglin@4pi.com>

- Prev by Date:
**[Phys-l] thermo differential and extensive/intensive variables** - Next by Date:
**Re: [Phys-l] Physics year-end projects revisited...** - Previous by thread:
**[Phys-l] thermo differential and extensive/intensive variables** - Next by thread:
**Re: [Phys-l] thermo differential and extensive/intensive variables** - Index(es):