Equation of State: Understanding f(P,v,T)=0

In summary: In reality, gases are not so simple, and there are many possible relationships between pressure, volume, and temperature.Thank you. I still don't understand why f(P,v,T)=c=0 ?Can you give simple example which did not involve f()... or normal equation that show c=0?In summary, f(P,v,T) equals zero because f*(P,v,T)=c, and c is a convenient value.
  • #1
Outrageous
374
0
I know Pv=RT, but I don't understand why my book said f(P,v,T)=0 mean?
Why the function of P,v,T equals to zero? Why not equal to a constant?
Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
You could use any constant (with a modified function), it would not change anything. f(P,v,T)=0 implies f*(P,v,T)=c where f*=f+c.
=0 is chosen as 0 is a convenient value.
 
  • #3
I am sorry.
I still don't understand why f(P,v,T)=c=0 ?
Can you give simple example which did not involve f()... or normal equation that show c=0?
Thank you.
 
  • #4
For ideal gases, Pv=nRT and therefore Pv-nRT=0
That is a simple equation, and it shows that there is a function f with f(P,v,T)=0, namely f(P,v,T)=Pv-nRT.

There is another function f* with f*(P,v,T)=1:
f*(P,v,T)=Pv-nRT+1
As you can see, that function does not help - it just gives an additional constant.

Non-ideal gases have more complicated laws, but the idea is the same.

Edit: Oh, forgot to add n.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
Outrageous said:
I know Pv=RT, but I don't understand why my book said f(P,v,T)=0 mean?
Why the function of P,v,T equals to zero? Why not equal to a constant?
Thank you.

Please define you variables. From the definitions I am familiar with, you expression is wrong, unless you have made an unstated assumption.
 
  • #6
Since you know PV= RT where R is the gas constant, with P, V and T variables, you know that


[tex]\frac{{PV}}{T} = R = {\rm{a}}\;{\rm{constant}}[/tex]


We can rearrange this


[tex]\left( {\frac{{PV}}{T} - R} \right) = {\rm{0}}[/tex]

Isn't this now in the format you seek?

However noting your other threads about Van der Waal's equation I wonder if your book was leading up to some more complicated function of P, V and T such as VDW.

Incidentally the answer to your question about P, is that P is the real pressure exerted by the gas, not some equivalent pressure of an ideal or other gas.
 
Last edited:
  • #7
Studiot said:
Since you know PV= RT where R is the gas constant, with P, V and T variables, you know that[tex]\frac{{PV}}{T} = R = {\rm{a}}\;{\rm{constant}}[/tex]We can rearrange this[tex]\left( {\frac{{PV}}{T} - R} \right) = {\rm{0}}[/tex]

Isn't this now in the format you seek?

However noting your other threads about Van der Waal's equation I wonder if your book was leading up to some more complicated function of P, V and T such as VDW.

Are you talking about the universal gas constant R? If so, you units are off.

R = universal gas constant = 8.3145 J/mol K

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/idegas.html#c1

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.htmlYou need to specify the number of moles.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
You need to specify the number of moles.

Only if you are talking about a number of moles.

In which case you would use the equation PV = nRT.
 
  • #9
Thank mfb ,I totally understand.

Hetware said:
Please define you variables. From the definitions I am familiar with, you expression is wrong, unless you have made an unstated assumption.
Thank you Hetware, I wonder what is the definition.


Studiot said:
However noting your other threads about Van der Waal's equation I wonder if your book was leading up to some more complicated function of P, V and T such as VDW..

Thanks. What do you mean by more complicated ? VDW=van der Waals?
 
  • #10
VDW=van der Waals?

Of course

What do you mean by more complicated ? van der Waals?

Isn't van der Waals complicated enough for you?

What are you actually seeking to know?
 
  • #11
Understand already . Thank you
 
  • #12
Studiot said:
Only if you are talking about a number of moles.

In which case you would use the equation PV = nRT.

Your units don't come out right if you use the standard definitions. Feynman makes that mistake in Vol 1, eq. 54.13 where it is of little consequence, but he uses the same flawed understanding in the discussion preceding Vol 1, eq. 47.24 where his statements are simply wrong. It's sloppy to omit variables without justifying doing so.

The proper approach would be [itex]PV \propto T[/itex]. ##PV=RT## where ##R## is the universal gas constant is simply an incorrect proposition. One could also write ##PV=CT## declaring ##C## to be a constant.

Yes, these things do matter. I recall reading that chapter in Feynman back when I was first learning about thermodynamics and sound propagation. I was stumped by ##PV=RT##. I didn't understand the justification for omitting the number of moles. I now realize that is because he never gave a justification for it.
 
  • #13
##[R]=\frac{J}{mol K}##
##[PV]=\frac{J}{m^3}m^3=J##
The units match, if n is given as "x mol".

You can use the more fundamental Boltzmann constant, of course:
##k_b=\frac{R}{N_A}## with the Avogadro number NA.

##PV=Nk_bT## where N is the number of molecules.

All equations are for ideal gases.
 
  • #14
mfb said:
##[R]=\frac{J}{mol K}##
##[PV]=\frac{J}{m^3}m^3=J##
The units match, if n is given as "x mol".

You can use the more fundamental Boltzmann constant, of course:
##k_b=\frac{R}{N_A}## with the Avogadro number NA.

##PV=Nk_bT## where N is the number of molecules.

All equations are for ideal gases.

Thank you for supporting my position.
 
  • #15
Perhaps I should have specified R more thoroughly, but my excuse is that I was taught, nearly fifty years ago, that the gas constant, R is

Strictly R is the molar gas constant

(Formula edited to add missing index.)

R = 8.31 Joules °K-1 moles-1

and have been using it successfully ever since.

I see no inconsistency, perhaps you are referring to a different constant?

The dimensions of R have no bearing upon the answer to the original question which is why did the book state that a function of pressure, volume and temperature is zero rather than a constant.

I have shown a very simple mathematical manipulation of the ideal gas law to achieve this.

A physics motivation for this would be that R is the intercept on the PV/T axis of the PV/T v T graph ie the value of the constant at absolute zero. We cannot, of course, measure at this value but have to infer it from measurements at other temperatures an extrapolate back to the axis.
 
Last edited:

What is an equation of state?

An equation of state is a mathematical relationship that describes the physical properties of a substance, such as pressure, volume, and temperature.

Why is it important to understand f(P,v,T)=0?

This equation of state is important because it helps us understand the behavior of a substance under different conditions, such as changes in pressure, volume, and temperature. It also allows us to make predictions about the properties of a substance without having to physically measure them.

How is the equation of state derived?

The equation of state is derived through experiments and observations of a substance's behavior at different pressures, volumes, and temperatures. The data is then analyzed and a mathematical relationship is developed to describe the behavior of the substance.

What are the limitations of the equation of state?

The equation of state is not always accurate for all substances and may have limitations in certain conditions, such as extreme pressures or temperatures. It also assumes that the substance is in a state of equilibrium and does not account for any chemical reactions that may occur.

How is the equation of state used in science and engineering?

The equation of state is used in various fields of science and engineering, such as thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, and material science. It is used to model and predict the behavior of substances in different systems, and is also used in the design and optimization of processes and equipment.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
503
Replies
0
Views
488
Replies
2
Views
739
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • Classical Physics
2
Replies
41
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
938
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
6
Views
182
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
4
Views
686
Back
Top