How Does Enthalpy Relate to Heat Capacity at Constant Composition?

fluidistic
Gold Member
Messages
3,928
Reaction score
272

Homework Statement


Demonstrate that C_{Y,N}=\left ( \frac{ \partial H}{\partial T } \right ) _{Y,N} where H is the enthalpy and Y is an intensive variable.


Homework Equations


(1) C_{Y,N}=\frac{T}{N} \left ( \frac{ \partial S}{\partial T } \right ) _{Y,N}
(2) T= \left ( \frac{ \partial U}{\partial S } \right ) _{X,N} where X is an extensive variable.

The Attempt at a Solution


Using (1) and (2) I reach that C_{Y,N}=T \left ( \frac{ \partial S}{\partial T } \right ) _{Y,N}+ P \left ( \frac{ \partial V}{\partial T } \right ) _{Y,N}. I don't know how to proceed further, I'm really stuck here.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Which intensive variables are we talking about?
What do you get if you pick the first one that springs to mind?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I like Serena said:
Which intensive variables are we talking about?
What do you get if you pick the first one that springs to mind?
Usually the pressure, but it is not specified.
C_{P,N}=\frac{T}{N} \left ( \frac{ \partial S}{\partial T } \right ) _{P,N}.
Where \left ( \frac{ \partial S}{\partial T } \right ) _{P,N}=\left ( \frac{ \partial U}{\partial T } \right ) _{P,N}\left ( \frac{ \partial S}{\partial U } \right ) _{P,N}=\frac{1}{T} \left ( \frac{ \partial U}{\partial T } \right ) _{P,N}.
Thus C_{P,N}= \frac{1}{N} \left ( \frac{\partial U }{\partial T } \right ) _{P,N }.
Now I use the relation U=H-PV to get \left ( \frac{ \partial U}{\partial T } \right ) _{P,N}=\left ( \frac{ \partial H}{\partial T } \right ) _{P,N} - \left [ \underbrace { \left ( \frac{ \partial P}{\partial T } \right ) _{P,N} V }_{=0} + P \left ( \frac{ \partial V}{\partial T } \right ) _{P,N} \right ].
Therefore I'm left with C_{P,N}=\frac{1}{N} \left [ \left ( \frac{ \partial H}{\partial T } \right ) _{P,N} - P \left ( \frac{ \partial V}{\partial T } \right ) _{P,N} \right ].
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hmm, let's start with H=U+PV, or rather dH=TdS+VdP.

When I take the partial derivative with respect to T, and with P,N constant, I almost get what you're looking for (typo?).
 
Last edited:
I like Serena said:
Hmm, let's start with H=U+PV, or rather dH=TdS-VdP.

When I take the partial derivative with respect to T, and with P,N constant, I almost get what you're looking for (typo?).
Hmm I don't think there's a typo.
Anyway you took the partial derivative of "dH"? I'm having some troubles to figure this out :)
 
dH=TdS+VdP
So:
$$\left({\partial H \over \partial T}\right)_{P,N}=\left({T\partial S + V\partial P \over \partial T}\right)_{P,N}$$

Factor out and replace with ##C_{P,N}## where applicable...
 
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