Derive heat capacity at constant pressure

tjlaxs
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



For temperatures T >> T_C (critical temperature) derive the heat capacity at constant pressure C_P from van der Waals equation.

Homework Equations



Critical temperature:
T_C = \frac{2N(V - Nb)^2}{kV^2}

T_C is derived from the fact that it exist at the point in which
(\frac{\mathrm{d}P}{\mathrm{d}V})_T = 0 but I'm pretty certain that this is not needed in this derivation.

Van der Waals equation:
(P + aN^2/V^2)(V - Nb) = NkT

Heat capacity:
C_P = (\frac{\mathrm{d}U}{\mathrm{d}T})_P + P(\frac{\mathrm{d}V}{\mathrm{d}T})_P

The Attempt at a Solution



I've tried to get the point in this. The first term in the equation of C_P is easy, but the problem is the second term.

If I try to solve for the V in the van der Waals equation I get a long equation set to derive. And I don't think this is what is the point of the exercise.

Is there another approach or something to simplify the van der Waals equation before the derivation?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It looks like you get a cubic equation in V to solve, which I agree is probably not what you're expected to do.

Just taking an educated guess here, but it's probably the case that
V >> Nb​
and
P >> aN2/V2
.
It may be a reasonable approximation to replace the "V2" term with whatever the ideal gas equation gives for V, since it appears as part of a term that is small to begin with.
 
You're using the wrong equation for hear capacity, you should use Cp = dh/dt

where h is enthaply
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top