Jump to content

Talk:First law of thermodynamics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Physchim62 (talk | contribs) at 15:13, 9 December 2005 ({{chemistry}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconChemistry Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Separate article

I agree with such reunification, on the basis that statistical mechanics defines internal energy as the mean of energy. The averaging is done on the set of microstates of the systemThorinMuglindir 21:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - I was going to do this myself, but Karol was quicker. PAR 00:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - I was tempted to do this myself but feared that there would be some resistance. Cutler 12:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Succinctly

Hello - your recent edit states:

  • The work exchanged in an adiabatic process depends only on the initial and the final state and not on the details of the process; or,
  • The sum of heat flowing into a system and work done by the system is zero.

Mathematically, the first law is δQ=dU+δW. Mathematically the above two statements amount to the following

  • If δQ=0 then δW is an exact differential or,
  • δQ+δW=0

The first is true, but nowhere near a complete statement of the first law, the second is simply wrong. The sign of δW is wrong, and the dU is missing. PAR 23:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A succinct statement would help this article. I am not particular to the math and a english version of the math would be apreciable to the non-mathemtician reading Wikipedia. I gotta go right now ... but it seem to be related to this article Thermodynamic potentials (from a search) ... I just got your msg, but have not the time to respond in full. Mabey tomarrow .... sincerel,y JDR 22:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the statement from the previous page:

The first law states that the amount of energy added to a thermodynamic system
by heating is equal to the increase in the internal or "stored" energy of the
system plus the amount of energy lost by the system as a result of work done
by the system on its surroundings.

What about this do you think needs improvement so we can fix it. PAR 01:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's a lil wordy ... a good start and doesn't really need improvement .... I'm not sure if this would be any better, but how about "The amount of energy added to a system is equal to the increase of internal system energy plus energy lost in its surroundings as a result of work done". But if not the prior is good with me ... hopefully someone else can suggest a briefer one. Sincerely, JDR 21:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC) (PS., even this one I did seems a bit word to me ... oh well)[reply]

Using your statement, I took a cut at it. PAR 22:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note on my talk ... but I think either the version is good (and why I just indented it a few days ago and didn't change it) ... I don't have any objection to the sentence (just wish I was better @ words to 'condense' it) .... I just wanted something that got the concept out without the math or complicated word ... the main thermodynamic laws page need the statement too (I'll copy it over to the main page; which seems to need to be cleaned up ... mabey something I could take a stab at ...). I saw that you removed "thermodynamic", "or stored", and "work done by the system". I was just thinking that a nice short statement would be good for the article. The sentence is hard to cut down without losing needed parts. As I said before, mabey someone else will suggest a better one (though I think this doesn't get much attention; eg., trying to give laymen tersm to technical articles) ... but it may be "good enough". Sincerely, JDR