1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Chain relation/ triple partial derivative rule

  1. Sep 4, 2011 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data

    For the van der Waals equation of state, confirm the following property:

    (∂P/∂T)V (∂T/∂V)P (∂V/∂P)T = -1




    2. Relevant equations

    The van der Waals equation of state is:

    P = nRT/(v-nb) - an2/V2

    *R, n, a, b are const.



    3. The attempt at a solution

    I have come up with some partial derivatives, however, I cannot seem to figure out the algebra to make their product equal to -1. Perhaps my derivatives are incorrect?

    (∂P/∂T)V = nR/(v-nb)-1

    (∂T/∂V)P = P - an2/V2 + 2abn3/V3

    (∂V/∂P)T = 1/ (2an2/V3 - nRT/(v-nb)2)



    Any hints or ideas?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 4, 2011 #2
    I believe there is formula that is (∂X/∂Y) =-(F[itex]_{Y}[/itex]/F[itex]_{X}[/itex])
     
  4. Sep 4, 2011 #3
    Can you explain what the right side of the equality represents?
     
  5. Sep 4, 2011 #4
    I am not entirely sure it was just an equation in my book, I will leave it for some one else to answer because I do not want to tell you wrong
     
  6. Sep 5, 2011 #5
    Anyone else?
     
  7. Sep 5, 2011 #6

    SammyS

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Show how you arrived at the last two partial derivatives. (I suggest using implicit differentiation.)
     
  8. Sep 6, 2011 #7
    Well, i think i figured it out. I used the reciprocal identity:

    (dx/dy)z = 1/ (dy/dx)z (should be partial derivatives here)

    to make the triple partial derivative product a double partial derivative product, and then showed it to be equal to the resulting partial derivative on the other side of the equality (which occurs when you divide -1 by one of the terms originally on the left). It worked well =)
     
  9. Sep 6, 2011 #8
    Sorry for the hijack but i have a similar question:

    for a recent semester test we needed to show:
    [itex]\frac{\partial{P}}{\partial{V}} \frac{\partial{V}}{\partial{T}} \frac{\partial{T}}{\partial{P}} = -1[/itex]

    i simply converted each partial into its implicit version and cancelled terms:

    [itex]\frac{\partial{P}}{\partial{V}} = \frac{-F_V}{F_P}[/itex]

    [itex]\frac{\partial{V}}{\partial{T}} = \frac{-F_T}{F_V}[/itex]

    [itex]\frac{\partial{T}}{\partial{P}} = \frac{-F_P}{F_T}[/itex]

    resulting in

    [itex]\frac{-F_V}{F_P} \frac{-F_T}{F_V} \frac{-F_P}{F_T} = -1[/itex]

    yet this was marked very clearly wrong...

    Why?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Chain relation/ triple partial derivative rule
Loading...