Thermodynamic constant -- misunderstanding

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the definition and implications of thermodynamic constants, specifically the coefficients of volumetric thermal expansion (##\dot{\alpha}##) and bulk compliance (##\dot{\beta}##). Participants explore the reasoning behind including volume (V) in these definitions and the impact on understanding and measurement in thermodynamics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the necessity of defining ##\dot{\alpha}## and ##\dot{\beta}## with respect to volume, seeking clarity on its purpose.
  • Another participant explains that dividing by V simplifies the physical dimensions of ##\dot{\alpha}## and ##\dot{\beta}##, making them independent of the system's volume.
  • It is noted that ##\dot{\alpha}## and ##\dot{\beta}## are not constants and vary with temperature and pressure, which is a point of contention in the discussion.
  • A participant suggests that omitting V could make the coefficients more intuitive, proposing that expressing alpha in terms of volume change per temperature change might be more straightforward.
  • Another participant counters that the proposed method would depend on the initial volume, while the conventional definition does not, arguing for the robustness of the established definitions.
  • Further elaboration is provided on the mathematical implications of the definition of ##\dot{\alpha}##, including its integration and application in expressing thermal expansion.
  • A later reply expresses appreciation for the mathematical explanation, indicating it deepened their understanding.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity and utility of the volume-dependent definitions of ##\dot{\alpha}## and ##\dot{\beta}##. There is no consensus on whether omitting V would enhance understanding or if the conventional definitions are superior.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight the variations of ##\dot{\alpha}## and ##\dot{\beta}## with temperature and pressure, suggesting that the discussion is limited by these dependencies and the definitions used.

mohamed_a
Messages
36
Reaction score
6
I was reading about thermodynamics in my textbook wheni came across the following thermodynamics constants:
1658871292131.png

However, i don't understand why did we define 1/V inthe constants. What is the point in doing this?
 
Science news on Phys.org
By dividing by V, physical dimensions or units of dotted ##\alpha,\beta## become simple, i.e. ##T^{-1},P^{-1}.##
Now dotted ##\alpha,\beta## do not depend on volume of the system e.g. 200 ml or 400 ml of volume prepared in the experiments do not matter for measurement of these constants.
 
##\dot{\alpha}## and ##\dot{\beta}## are not constants. They vary (typically gradually) with both temperature and pressure. However, the V's are included in these definitions because ##\dot{\alpha}## is what we conventionally define as the coefficient of volumetric thermal expansion and ##\dot{\beta}## is what we conventionally define as the bulk compliance of a material (the reciprocal of the bulk modulus).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
anuttarasammyak said:
By dividing by V, physical dimensions or units of dotted ##\alpha,\beta## become simple, i.e. ##T^{-1},P^{-1}.##
Now dotted ##\alpha,\beta## do not depend on volume of the system e.g. 200 ml or 400 ml of volume prepared in the experiments do not matter for measurement of these constants.
i still can't find a use of this .So, omitting the V would just make the coefficient more intuitive, for example alpha being meter cube/ kelvin this points more to a rate which makes more sense.
 
Why would your method be better than giving the % change in volume per unit change in temperature? Besides, your method would depend on the initial volume, and this definition wouldn't. Plus, their definition gives a value that is much more constant than yours does. Do you really think you are smarter than these brilliant scientists who worked this out and studied it over the past few hundred years?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Lord Jestocost and vanhees71
Chestermiller said:
##\dot{\alpha}## and ##\dot{\beta}## are not constants. They vary (typically gradually) with both temperature and pressure. However, the V's are included in these definitions because ##\dot{\alpha}## is what we conventionally define as the coefficient of volumetric thermal expansion and ##\dot{\beta}## is what we conventionally define as the bulk compliance of a material (the reciprocal of the bulk modulus).
So is it just a matter of definition?
Chestermiller said:
Why would your method be better than giving the % change in volume per unit change in temperature? Besides, your method would depend on the initial volume, and this definition wouldn't. Plus, their definition gives a value that is much more constant than yours does. Do you really think you are smarter than these brilliant scientists who worked this out and studied it over the past few hundred years?
that's a probing question not an objection because i couldn't grasp the intuition. However, i understood it when i read wikipedia's page about it. the problem is i didn't understand its meaning because i didn't apply it on an example.
 
mohamed_a said:
i still can't find a use of this .So, omitting the V would just make the coefficient more intuitive, for example alpha being meter cube/ kelvin this points more to a rate which makes more sense.
I would tell more about this implication
of definition
\alpha(T,p)=(\frac{\partial \log \frac{V}{V_0}}{\partial T})_p
where ##V_0## is volume with temperature ##T=T_0##
For simplicity of notion under the condition p=const. through the discussion
\alpha(T)=\frac{d \log \frac{V}{V_0}}{d T}
It is integrated to be
V=V_0 e^{\int_{T_0}^T \alpha(T)dt}
In case ##\alpha## is constant
V=V_0 e^{\alpha (T-T_0)}
Further when ##\alpha (T-T_0) << 1##
V=V_0 (1+\alpha (T-T_0))
We can make use of thus defined ##\alpha## to express thermal expansion nature of matter in such a way. I hope you would share its convenience with us.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and mohamed_a
anuttarasammyak said:
I would tell more about this implication
of definition
\alpha(T,p)=(\frac{\partial \log \frac{V}{V_0}}{\partial T})_p
where ##V_0## is volume with temperature ##T=T_0##
For simplicity of notion under the condition p=const. through the discussion
\alpha(T)=\frac{d \log \frac{V}{V_0}}{d T}
It is integrated to be
V=V_0 e^{\int_{T_0}^T \alpha(T)dt}
In case ##\alpha## is constant
V=V_0 e^{\alpha (T-T_0)}
Further when ##\alpha (T-T_0) << 1##
V=V_0 (1+\alpha (T-T_0))
We can make use of thus defined ##\alpha## to express thermal expansion nature of matter in such a way. I hope you would share its convenience with us.
thanks for your generosity. the explanation is amazing and it deepened my understanding
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Delta2, Chestermiller and anuttarasammyak

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K