How can you transform the equation to calculate delta U from delta H?

  • Thread starter Thread starter p3t3r1
  • Start date Start date
p3t3r1
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
So the equation

\Delta H = \Delta U + \Delta (PV)<br /> <br />

I know you can transform this equation into the form


\Delta H = \Delta U + \Delta (nRT)<br /> <br />

I commonly see the previous equation transferred into the following


\Delta H = \Delta U + \Delta n(RT)<br />

What I want to know is.. can you transform it into

\Delta H = \Delta U + nR \Delta T<br />
 
Physics news on Phys.org
p3t3r1 said:
What I want to know is.. can you transform it into

\Delta H = \Delta U + nR \Delta T<br />

I'd say so. But only if n is constant. What are you trying to do?
 
It was really in relation to this problem

Calculate the values of delta U, delta S, and delta H for the following process

1 mole of liquid water at 25 c and 1 atm to 1 mole of steam at 100 c and 1 atm

I figured out the delta H for the entire process.

then I tried to figure out delta U from delta H using the relationship

delta H = delta U + delta (nRT)

See the thing is... delta H I figured out is for the entire process (temperature rise and state change) and I forget about that.. so I was tryign to get the equation into the form

delta H = delta U + n x delta T x R

but that isn't right since delta H already included the delta T variable. and n is really delta n = 1 since I generated 1 mole of gas.

so yeah all I had to do was times it by T to the right answer
 
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