Proof that Heat Capacity is independent of Pressure for a new Equation of State

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on proving that the heat capacity at constant pressure (Cp) is independent of pressure for a gas following the equation of state P(v-b) = RT. Participants explore the relationship between enthalpy, entropy, and temperature, using Maxwell relations to derive the necessary equations. The challenge lies in handling the differential forms and understanding how to manipulate them to show that the partial derivative of Cp with respect to pressure at constant temperature is zero. The conversation highlights the complexities of the equations involved and the need for careful differentiation. Ultimately, the goal is to demonstrate the independence of Cp from pressure through mathematical proof.
Thyferra2680
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
For a gas that obeys the equation of State P(v-b) = RT, where b is a constant, show that Cp is independent of Pressure, i.e., (\deltaCp/\deltap) at constant T is equal to zero



Homework Equations


Maxwell Relations
H = U+PV
dh = TdS + PdV
dh/dT at constant P is defined as Cp


The Attempt at a Solution


Unfortunately I can't simply say that since Cp is defined as existing at a constant pressure state, that it's independent of pressure; would have made the problem much simpler.

I figure that I'm supposed to prove that (\delta(dH/dT)/\deltap) at constant T is equal to zero, but I'm having trouble figuring out which maxwell relation is the best fit.

d/dP (dH/dT) = d[((TdS)/dT + (VdP)/dT) at constant P]/dP at constant T

My problem is the dS portion of the equation. It's defined in terms of Cp, among other things, and that doesn't really help me in any way... I think.

I have a similar problem when I attempt it with dH = d(U+PV). dU is defined in terms of Cv, or if I break it apart with U = Q+W, I get U = TdS- PdV. Again, not too helpful.

Is it an issue of which relation I'm using to start? Or can the Cv and Cp actually help me?

Thanks for the help
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This is a good start. Now how about writing \partial/\partial P[(\partial S/\partial T)_P]_T in a way that let's you use a Maxwell relation?
 
Last edited:
Oh... Is it possible to switch the order of differentiation here? I suppose this is derived from an exact differential? If that's so, then (dS/dP) at constant T is equal to (dv/dT) at constant P...
 
Yep! Should be no problem now. (Don't forget any sign changes!)
 
Right! thanks a bunch
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top