Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:04, 8 November 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Thermodynamics article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

	Thermodynamics was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 16, 2006 Good article nominee Listed June 17, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Chemical and Bio Engineering (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Chemical and Bio EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Chemical and Bio EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject Chemical and Bio EngineeringChemical and Bio Engineering Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Physics Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

Archives

2001 - Feb 2006, 73 kb Apr 2006 – Oct 2011, ~130kb Sept 2011 –

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Nuclear reactions thermodynamics

Aspects concerning how the thermodynamical concepts like entropy and free energy are applied (if they are) to nuclear reactions compared to the way these concepts are applied to chemical reactions should be inserted in the article.--79.119.220.11 (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

combined cycle power generation.

When there is heat loss between two cyclic plants coupled in series, how is the overall efficiency of the plant affected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.151.171.213 (talk) 02:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

This article is supposed to be for the general reader (one presumes). The article already complicates a very simple subject to the point of (IMO) near incomprehensibility. Adding Einstein's equivalence of mass & energy and the continuous fission & fusion of elements (with time) certainly mucks up the concept of (what is conserved during) a reaction. Only those applying nuclear physics would be interested in this subject. Would they really come here for information; and should one complicate the article further, just to be more inclusive? There seems no harm in referencing a classical work or two on the subject. I confess total ignorance of it, though slow fission is important in geological dating. Geologist (talk) 05:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Bruce Bathurst on this point. I see no objection to a separate article on nuclear reactions viewed from a thermodynamic angle, but I agree with Bruce that this article is not a good place for that.Chjoaygame (talk) 06:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it is a _grave_mistake_ to confuse thermodynamics with heat transfer or with chemical reactions solely. The basic laws of thermoynamics are of _general_ applicabilty. Energy is the ability to do work, but it is also reduced in availability by heat transfer. How much enegy is "used up" as heat in the changes of state of the system and it's sourroundings is governed by the increase of total entropy. What ammount of energy a perfect crystal has at absolute zero is established in the third law. The zeroth law is about thermal equilibrium. The laws of thermodynamics apply troughout physics, not on specific situations. Articles related to thermodynamics concepts seem to be written by people with a poor knowledge of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.32.17.47 (talk) 07:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Changing the paragraph on the third law by Adwaele

The statements that at absolute zero “all processes cease” and that at absolute zero “all activity (with the exception of that caused by zero point energy) would stop” is not part of the formulation of the third law and it is incorrect. E.g. it neglects the magnificent effects of superconductivity and superfluidity which are still active at 0 K. So, I removed these remarks.

(Adwaele (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC))

"which are still active at 0 K." How do you know? --Damorbel (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Reversal

I reversed Chjoaygame's latest edit because he gives no reference. Also it is completely bizarre for someone who insists that Heat is a dynamic process to define thermodynamics as only being defined in equlibrium. Chjoaygame, these are your own ideas. Please remove the contradictions you contribute such as that for heat. --Damorbel (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Damorbel for your helpful suggestions. I have taken them aboard, and improved the wording in consequence, and supplied some references. The term thermodynamics is of historical origin, referring to heat engines. Due to that, the part-word -dynamics refers to the doing of work by the engine, which is of course a comcomitant of heat transfer through the engine, which accounts for the part-word thermo-. It is occasionally proposed in various writings that one might speak of 'thermostatics' because the classical subject admits only static or equilibrium states. This proposal does not adequately recognize the historical origin of the term thermodynamics.Chjoaygame (talk) 10:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Your 'meaning of 'thermodynamics' argument just doesn't meet the situation. Sure, thermodynamics emerged from the discovery of the mechanical equivalent of heat, but a lot has happened since then. Don't you think it would be (is) absurd to invent new words everytime new features such as chemical interactions and mechanical interactions with photons involving thermal energy are discovered? No you are trying to change history, generally recognised as an academic defect.

This is why it is quite wrong to define heat as 'energy in transit', it doesn't match the experimental evidence i.e. the fact that temperature heat and thermal energy are all manifestations of particle motion. --Damorbel (talk) 12:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

my physics

NEWTON SAID THAT ENERGY IS NEITHER BE CREATED NOR BE DESTROYED BUT IT CAN BE CHANGED FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER........

BUT WHAT I THINK IS ANY THING IN THIS WORLD IS NEITHER BE CREATED NOR BE DESTROYED BUT IT CAN BE CHANGED FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER........ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viswa.sai25 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thermodynamics vs. Heat Transfer

"Thermodynamics is the branch of natural science concerned with heat and its relation to other forms of energy and work" the modern concept of thermodynamics is being confused with heat transfer. Thermodynamics studies the transformation of energy into work and heat. The study of how heat is transfered is dubbed "heat transfer". I've seen a lot of _wrong_ edits on this subject on the wiki. It seems people that have never taken a course in thermodynamics are the ones writing of thermodynamics and it's laws.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.32.17.47 (talk) 07:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually the first law of thermodynamics implies that _all_ of the change in the energy of the system is equal to the heat that the system releases to the sorroundings plus the work that the system exerts on the sorroundings: ΔE=Q+W. See: http://books.google.co.cr/books?id=IaLPhdMjCvEC&pg=RA1-PT54&dq=%22first+law+of+thermodynamics%22&hl=es&sa=X&ei=VMKRUP2EL5HQ8wSGuoHIAQ&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAw pp. 25-26. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.204.200.18 (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Will you guys please identify yourselves? And if you cite a reference, please indentify exactly what the reference does to support your argument and, very important, how it will improve the article. Otherwise you are wasting your time and everybody else's. --Damorbel (talk) 09:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not know what good indentifying myself does. As per sources there are plenty here and in the article on energy's talk page that I have pointed out, plus, i.e., Castellan's book on Physical Chemistry is a good source on thermodynamics, as is Smith and van Hess introductory book on thermodynamics. What I am doing is saying that these articles need the attention of a physicist spcialized in thermodynamics. I am only a chemical engineer but the wording in some parts of the thermodynamics article (specially does that do not cite sources) are plain wrong in confusing the role of thermodynamics in science and engineering with those of heat transfer. Now, if Damorbel and others prefer to keep articles that are _wrong_ in some aspects of thermodynamics then OK, so be it, I used up all the time I have to point out errors on these articles. If you wish to ignore me, fine, I'll stop "wasting my time". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.32.17.47 (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Hallo 186.32.71.47 (Oh dear, have I made a mistake?) Um, you feel I "prefer to keep articles that are _wrong" do you? You are of course aware that the talk pages are here to discuss the contents of the article, not the contributors, so please stop writning about the other contributors. I invite you to check my contributions to the talk pages on matters connected to thermodynamics such as temperature before making personal remarks.

If you are a chemical engineer you should have useful knowledge to suggest improvements to the article, merely stating that you know of a good source amounts to saying nothing, there are many, many books on thermodynamics, finding references is not really a problem. However the purpose of a Misplaced Pages is not to be a book on thermodynamics but to give a summary guide to the most important aspects with useful links to material available on line; it is surely useless to tell the Wiki reader to get a book. Of course it might, on occasions, to indicate a book but there should be a good reason given for recommending it. Likewise, when citing a document the cited text should be indicated (or even appear) in the article, it is surely quite useless to leave the readers to work out for themselves just what point the author is making. --Damorbel (talk) 06:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The link to the source is there, and there are plenty in the "energy page" talk on "wrong thermodynamics perspectives". There is also Castellan book on Physical Chemistry and Smith Van Ness introduction to thermodynamics. I have not edited the article, because I do not have the time and I _do_think_ that it requires the attention of an expert on the subject (A physicist, physical chemist or chemical physicist with a deep understanding of thermodynamics)not a mere engineer like myself. I do not know _where_ I made remarks that people would take so personal: If I offended you I am sorry: since, when commenting about aspects that are clearly wrong and require the attention of an expert, people on the wiki react with such strong emotions I will , from now on, keep from ponting out or correcting mistakes: I do not know where I made specific personal remarks against anybody.--186.32.17.47 (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you do not understand why personal comments are discouraged, it is not because they may be insulting, they may not be, it is because they are irrelevant, as are generalised references to books. For example describing yourself as 'a mere engineer' is also irrelevant and thus a waste of time and space. What does offend me is contributors misusing Wiki in this way. I would be just as offended if you used these pages to say I was the most wonderful person you had ever encountered (!). --Damorbel (talk) 09:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision by Chjoaygame

This revision is not coherent, so I have reversed it. The claim is that Themodynamics is empirical. Empirical means "derived from or relating to experiment and observation rather than theory". Clearly the author has no aquaintance with the laws of thermodynamics that have a sound theoretical basis, hence my reversal. --Damorbel (talk) 06:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I notice that Chjoaygame did not include the word empirical in his latest revision but Chjoaygame made no discussion about his 'improvements' in these talk pages and I now invite him to do so. --Damorbel (talk) 07:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear Damorbel, you seem to have taken upon yourself the office of policeman, prosecutor, judge and jury to dictate how I may edit in the Misplaced Pages. You demand that I give reasons for my edits in the talk pages. This is simply a captious demand by you, and has no proper basis. It seems obvious that you take this role as a way of responding to the fact that I accept the general consensus of Misplaced Pages thermodynamic editors that in physics, heat is technical concept that refers to a process not to a state, while you hold unflinchingly to your belief that heat should be treated simply as a word of the ordinary language that seems more or less to be able to be used for states as well as for processes, along with other ideas you have repeatedly expressed on this subject. If you wish to change my edits because you can improve them, that I see as your privilege. But you seem to regard it as your prerogative to simply dictate how I edit, and to undo any edit of mine that does not conform to your dictation as to how you think it should have been done.

This revision of mine was substantial only in your judgement, but looked at more objectively it was a rewording and more precise explication of what was already in the article, but not adequately explicitly.

Your stated reason for your undoing of my edit seems specious and irrational. Your stated reason is "The claim is that Themodynamics is empirical". Evidently your stated reason refers to this sentence in the article: "The macroscopic state variables of thermodynamics have been recognized in the course of empirical work in physics and chemistry." This statement in the article was not new in my edit, but had stood in the article for some long time. It is a precise statement directly based on a nearly identical statement cited in the article as from a well respected text by a respected Nobel Prize winner and a respected colleague of his. It is not my invention and is not new in this edit. The statement is not about thermodynamics in general as stated by you. It is about the finding of suitable state variables, which is stated by Prigogine and Defay, as cited, to be based on empirical work. If you had a real objection to this statement long present in the article, it would be odd that you express it only now that I repeat it unchanged. One wonders if you have really checked and considered what Prigogine and Defay have to say about this. This makes your undoing of my edit seem specious and irrational.

I regard your actions in this as simply violent and unethical.Chjoaygame (talk) 10:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Chjoaygame, please explain how your revision is an improvement to the article and I will either agree or disagree. A basic objection I have to the article is that it gives no name to the kinetic energy of the particles in a thermodynamic system; without this the article has neither meaning nor value. --Damorbel (talk) 11:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear Damorbel, you demand that I explain how my revision is an improvement to the article, with a view to your either agreeing or disagreeing. You seem to think that it would make sense that you would agree or disagree with the edit as a whole, rather than your taking the edit as a collection of items which you might consider one by one. You say that you have a "basic objection" to the article, that it gives no name to the kinetic energy of the particles in a thermodynamic system. You are trying, yet again after many previous tries, to lure me into a detailed discussion with you. I have found by bitter experience with you in the past that it is futile to try to engage in detailed discussion with you because your style is persistently irrational. That you have that "basic objection" is hardly relevant to my edit, and your demand here is just another of your attempts to hijack editorial work on the article into discussion of your "basic objection", and of other ideas of yours.

Foolishly perhaps I will try just once to help you with your present difficulties. My revision, as I indicated with my cover note, makes more explicit the fundamental logical interrelations of the constituent concepts of thermodynamics, namely, of the notions of working body of the system and of the surroundings, and the thermodynamic processes that link them. Thermodynamics mostly in the early days focused on the processes, in particular the cyclic processes. Their cyclic character ensures that they leave the working body of the system effectively intact, though the working bodies of the surroundings are supposed to change and signal the nature of the processes. An approach that is in some ways more convenient is to consider the states of thermodynamic equilibrium of the working body of the system at the times in between the times of the processes. In this approach, the states of thermodyanmic equilibrium supersede the effective intactness of the working body.

Your "basic objection" represents a fundamental misunderstanding of thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is essentially about the processes or about the thermodynamic states of the working body regarded as a macroscopic object fully specified by the state variables. It is essential here to ignore and avoid mention of "the particles in a thermodynamic system", because consideration of such particles is foreign to thermodynamics, as you may verify for yourself by checking the references or more generally reading about it. Consideration of such particles belongs to statistica mechanics. It is true that some writers of student texts think they are very clever and can teach thermodynamics and statistical mechanics at the same time, but as is apparent in your case, this tends to lead students to muddle thermodynamics and statistical mechanics in their minds. The point about thermodynamics, its peculiar and characteristic merit, is that it reveals what can be found without any consideration of the particles in the system. You are seeking to destroy the thermodynamic essence of the article in pursuing your interest in the statistical mechanical explanation of the macroscopic thermodynamics. The statistical thermodynamic explanations are not wrong and are not to be avoided in general, but they are essentially irrelevant to the basic structure of thermodynamics, and it would be a mistake to let them intrude inappropriately into an article on thermodynamics as if they were its main concern.Chjoaygame (talk) 14:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference Prigogine and Defay 1954 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• Delisted good articles
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class physics articles
• Top-importance physics articles
• B-Class physics articles of Top-importance