Silly doubt about thermodynamics: molar representation

Telemachus
Messages
820
Reaction score
30
Well, I have a doubt about something that I've found in the book. It's really silly, but it's been bothering me for a while, so perhaps you can help me to understand this.

As you should know, the fundamental equation of a system can be represented in the entropic representation as a function S(U,V,N). And this function is a homogeneous first order function of the extensive parameters. That is, if all the extensive parameters of a system are multiplied by a constant , the entropy is multiplied by this same constant.

S(\lambda U,\lambda V, \lambda N)=\lambda S(U,V,N)

Then one can take \lambda=1/N to obtain S(U,V,N)=NS(U/N,V/N,1)
U/N is the energy per mole, and is denoted by u. Similarly V/N is the volume per mole, denoted by v, and S/N is the entropy per mole.

S(U/N,V/N,1) is the entropy of a system of a single mole, denoted s(u,v).
S(U,V,N)=Ns(u,v).

I think that the previous ideas are clear to me. But then I found some difficulties with some examples.

I have that the entropy per mole of a system is:
s=4A^{-1/2}u^{1/4}v^{1/2}+s_0
A is just a constant.
Then the entropy for all the moles in the system according to the book is:

S=4A^{-1/2}U^{1/4}V^{1/2}N^{1/4}+Ns_0

I don't know where the N1/4 comes from. I know I'm not understanding this clearly, because as I think it, there would be no N's at all, and that's just wrong. As I'm reasoning this, I just multiply by N the left side of the equation to obtain the big S, and then in the other side I can do the same, or multiply each U and V by N. If I just multiply everything by N I would get:
S=4NA^{-1/2}u^{1/4}v^{1/2}+Ns_0
and if I multiply U and V by N I would get:
S=4A^{-1/2}U^{1/4}V^{1/2}+s_0

I don't know what I'm doing wrong, and I don't know how to get that N1/4 on it's place. What's so wrong with my reasoning?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
N u^1/4 v^1/2 = N (U/N)^1/4 (V/N)^1/2 = U^1/4 V^1/2 N^1/4, right? Sorry for not using latex, on mobile.
 
Thank you :)
 
To solve this, I first used the units to work out that a= m* a/m, i.e. t=z/λ. This would allow you to determine the time duration within an interval section by section and then add this to the previous ones to obtain the age of the respective layer. However, this would require a constant thickness per year for each interval. However, since this is most likely not the case, my next consideration was that the age must be the integral of a 1/λ(z) function, which I cannot model.
Back
Top