Why is work done by the system a negative quantity?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the differing sign conventions for work in thermodynamics, particularly regarding systems doing work versus work done on systems. Chemists typically define work done by a system as negative, while physicists often consider it positive, leading to confusion. This discrepancy arises from the formulation of the First Law of Thermodynamics, where engineers and chemists may prefer different expressions. The choice of convention does not affect the predictions of the theory as long as it is used consistently. Understanding these conventions is essential when interpreting various scientific texts and resources.
swell9
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I'm reading a book about a gas volume inside a system. It says that when the volume expands due to the heated gas, the system is doing work. I understand that part. But it says that the value for work is negative because the system is doing work.

From all the physics I have been studying over the years, work is positive when the system does work and negative when the surroundings do work on the system. Isn't this right?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's just a sign convention and does not have any consequences to the predictions of the theory, as long as you consistently use the same convention.

As far as I know, chemists tend to use the convention that the work done by a system is negative, while physicists use the opposite convention.
 
hilbert2 said:
It's just a sign convention and does not have any consequences to the predictions of the theory, as long as you consistently use the same convention.

As far as I know, chemists tend to use the convention that the work done by a system is negative, while physicists use the opposite convention.

Oh I think it is pretty irritating and kind of pointless to have two sign conventions. Thanks for help. Can anyone confirm this?
 
yeah, I remember the physicists and chemists use different sign convention for this. I never remember which way round though.
 
swell9 said:
I'm reading a book about a gas volume inside a system. It says that when the volume expands due to the heated gas, the system is doing work. I understand that part. But it says that the value for work is negative because the system is doing work.

From all the physics I have been studying over the years, work is positive when the system does work and negative when the surroundings do work on the system. Isn't this right?
Yes, if the gas expands then it is doing positive work on its surroundings. The sign convention comes in when expressing the first law of thermodynamics. If you choose a convention where by work you mean work done by the system, then you'll need a minus sign to reflect the change in energy of the system. (If the work done by the system is positive, then the work done on the system is negative.)
 
When classical thermodynamics as we know it was being developed, a major practical problem in thermodynamics (probably the most important one!) was analyzing the operation of steam engines with the aim of improving them. It seems to me that it would have been natural to consider the heat into the system (the engine's "input") and the work done by the system (the engine's "output") to be both positive numbers. This leads to writing the First Law in the form ΔU = Q - W. I think engineers still tend to use this convention.

Physicists came to prefer to think of energy flow into the system as always being positive (because it increases the internal energy), which leads to the convention that work done on the system is a positive number, and ΔU = Q + W.

Some books, web sites, etc. do it one way, some do it the other way. You have to take note of which convention is being used, and "translate" from one to the other if necessary when you're using different sources.
 
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top