I deriving this Maxwell relation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving a specific Maxwell relation involving enthalpy, starting from the fundamental equations of thermodynamics. The user attempts to express changes in enthalpy and relates them to other thermodynamic variables, ultimately deriving a different Maxwell relation than required. Participants clarify that the splitting of the term pV into pdV and Vdp is a result of the chain rule in calculus. Suggestions are made to utilize the Helmholtz free energy to achieve the desired relation, emphasizing the importance of using the correct thermodynamic potential. The conversation highlights the need for a clearer approach to the problem while remaining focused on the enthalpy context.
Yekonaip
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


By considering small changes in enthalpy,
and using the central equation, derive the Maxwell relation

\left (\frac{\partial S}{\partial V} \right )_{T}= \left (\frac{\partial p}{\partial T} \right )_{V}


Homework Equations


H=U+pV
dU=TdS-pdV


The Attempt at a Solution


So the way I attempted this was to get an expression for dH,
dH=dU+pdV+Vdp
dH=TdS+Vdp

Honestly I don't know the reason that pV splits up into pdV and Vdp but just know that it does that so I'd appreciate it if someone could input on that?

Then I used the fact that,
dH=\left ( \frac{\partial H}{\partial S} \right )_{p}dS+\left ( \frac{\partial H}{\partial p} \right )_{S}dp
and that
\frac{\partial^{2} H}{\partial S\partial p}=\frac{\partial^{2} H}{\partial p\partial S}

This basically yields me with the relation,

\left (\frac{\partial T}{\partial p} \right )_{S}= \left (\frac{\partial V}{\partial S} \right )_{p}


So I know this is a correct relation, however it isn't the relation that the question requires. I'm not really sure where to go from here, is there a way to rearrange the equation I ended up with? Or was this a Red Herring and I should have gone about it a different way?

Thank you for your time. I really appreciate it!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Since, as independent variables in the partial derivatives you have T and [/itex]V[/itex], you should use the corresponding thermodynamic potential, for which these variables are "natural". This is the free energy rather than the enthalpy, i.e.,
F(T,V)=U-TS.
Write down the first Law, i.e., evaluate \mathrm{d} F=\ldots and use the commutativity of the 2nd derivatives as in your example with the enthalpy.
 
Sorry I may have been a little vague. I understand what you're saying but the question specifically asks to consider Enthalpy and use the equation,
H=U+pV
 
Yekonaip said:
Sorry I may have been a little vague. I understand what you're saying but the question specifically asks to consider Enthalpy and use the equation,
H=U+pV
From the central equation and the definition of F, it follows that dF = -SdT-PdV. This should give you the required maxwell relation. The equation for the enthalpy is consistent with all this too. So, who knows what the question means.

Chet
 
Yekonaip said:
Honestly I don't know the reason that pV splits up into pdV and Vdp but just know that it does that so I'd appreciate it if someone could input on that?

That is just the chain rule from simple calculus. d(pV) = pdV+VdpFor the rest of it, you did indeed prove one of the Maxwell relations, although I am not sure, how to do it for the one you had to find, using the enthalpy. An idea would be to try using:

U = -T^2 (∂(F/T)/∂T)V

in the equation for the enthalpy, or some other way of expressing U, that allows you to introduce F
 
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Back
Top