Thermodynamics: proof about free expansion

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on proving the equality for free expansion in thermodynamics, specifically that (∂T/∂V)U = - (1/CV) [T(∂P/∂T)V - P]. The initial assumption that (∂T/∂V)U should be zero is challenged, leading to the use of identities to manipulate partial derivatives. The solution progresses through various thermodynamic equations, ultimately confirming the desired relation using Maxwell's relation. Participants also discuss the triple product rule and inverse function rule for partial derivatives, highlighting their relevance in the proof. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding these mathematical tools in thermodynamic contexts.
A_B
Messages
87
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


prove that for a free expansion the following equality holds:

\left( \frac{\partial T}{\partial V} \right) _{U} = - \frac{1}{C_{V}} \left[ T \left(\frac{\partial P}{\partial T} \right)_{V} - P \right]

Homework Equations


thermodynamic potentials, maxwell equations etc.

The Attempt at a Solution


I've tried playing around with the equations a little, but didn't get anywhere. I thought that \left( \frac{\partial T}{\partial V} \right)_{U} should be zero, because if the energy remains constant, so should the temperature.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A_B said:
I thought that \left( \frac{\partial T}{\partial V} \right)_{U} should be zero, because if the energy remains constant, so should the temperature.

Only for an ideal gas.

A good start to this problem would be to use the identity

\left(\frac{\partial x}{\partial y}\right)_z \left(\frac{\partial y}{\partial z}\right)_x \left(\frac{\partial z}{\partial x}\right)_y=-1

and get that constant U constraint out of there.
 
OK, this is what I got so far:

<br /> \begin{align*}<br /> <br /> \left( \frac{\partial T}{\partial V} \right)_{U} &amp;= \left[ \left( \frac{\partial T}{\partial V} \right)_{U}<br /> \left( \frac{\partial V}{\partial U} \right)_{T} \left( \frac{\partial U}{\partial T} \right)_{V} \right] / \left[ \left( \frac{\partial V}{\partial U} \right)_{T} \left( \frac{\partial U}{\partial T} \right)_{V} \right]<br /> <br /> \\ &amp;= -1 / \left[ \left( \frac{\partial V}{\partial U} \right)_{T} C_{V} \right]<br /> <br /> \\ &amp;= - \frac{1}{C_{V}} \left[ \frac{1}{ \left( \frac{\partial V}{\partial U} \right)_{T}} \right]<br /> <br /> \end{align*}<br />

am I on the right track?
 
ok, i finished the problem, it continues:

<br /> \begin{align*}<br /> &amp;= - \frac{1}{C_{V}} \left[ \frac{1}{ \left( \frac{\partial V}{\partial U} \right)_{T}} \right]<br /> \\ &amp;= - \frac{1}{C_{V}} \left[ \left( \frac{\partial U}{\partial V} \right)_{T}\right]<br /> \\ &amp;= - \frac{1}{C_{V}} \left[ \left( \frac{ \partial Q}{\partial V} \right)_{T} + \left( \frac{ \partial W}{\partial V} \right)_{T} \right]<br /> \\ &amp;= - \frac{1}{C_{V}} \left[ T \left( \frac{ \partial S}{\partial V}\right)_{T} - P \left( \frac{ \partial V}{\partial V} \right)_{T} \right]<br /> \\ &amp;= - \frac{1}{C_{V}} \left[ T \left( \frac{\partial S}{\partial V} \right)_{T} - P \right]<br /> \end{align*}<br />

Finally, using the maxwell relation \left( \frac{ \partial P}{\partial T} \right)_{V} = \left( \frac{ \partial S}{\partial V} \right)_{T} we obtain the desired relation:

<br /> \left( \frac{\partial T}{\partial V} \right) _{U} = - \frac{1}{C_{V}} \left[ T \left(\frac{\partial P}{\partial T} \right)_{V} - P \right]<br />


The things I'm still having some trouble with is first of all the identity
<br /> \left(\frac{\partial x}{\partial y}\right)_z \left(\frac{\partial y}{\partial z}\right)_x \left(\frac{\partial z}{\partial x}\right)_y=-1<br />
Any reference about this?

Also , it seems very plausible that
<br /> \frac{1}{ \left( \frac{\partial V}{\partial U} \right)_{T}} = \frac{\partial U}{\partial V} \right)_{T}<br />
But I'm not 100% sure why this works.

These are both calculus questions i suppose, so they're in the wrong place here.


Thanks

Alex
 
These are definitely useful identities when manipulating partial derivatives. They're called the triple product rule and the inverse function rule, respectively, if you want to search for more information.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top