Entropy per unit mass question (ds)

AI Thread Summary
In thermodynamics, if ds = 0, the process is reversible, indicating no entropy change. A negative change in entropy (ds < 0) raises questions about its feasibility, as it suggests a decrease in disorder, which is typically not possible in natural processes. When comparing two processes with ds1 < ds2, it can be concluded that ds1 is "more" reversible, meaning it has fewer irreversibilities. The discussion clarifies that "more reversible" refers to a process being closer to ideal conditions with minimal entropy production. Understanding these concepts is crucial for grasping the principles of thermodynamic processes.
ksle82
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
I'm attempting to answer these thermodynamic quesions about entropy. It's been years since my last thermo course so knowledge is cloudy. If I'm incorrect or missiong relevant answers, please help.

a. If ds = 0, what can you say about the process?
b. If ds < 0, what can you say about the process?
c. If ds1 < ds2, what can you conclude about these processes?

A. process is reversible
B. ds<0 <----is this possible?
C. ds1 is "more" reversible than ds2
 
Physics news on Phys.org
a. yes
b. yes, its possible
c. yes, that's true.
 
If it's possible for the answer B, then what can I say about the process? I don't recall learning anything about ds<0.
 
What do you mean by "more" reversible? I don't understand. A process can either be reversible or irreversible. What do you mean when you say more reversible?
 
He means it has less irreversibilities.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top