![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
The person that added this to the top of the article should also have modified the parts of the text that talk about the four common thermodynamic potentials, because now there are five equations. Why don't we just list all the energy potentials? I think there are only eight of them. ChrisChiasson 12:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the merging of of the thermodynamic potentials section from the thermodynamics page - I think a paragraph or two for someone wanting to get an overview is appropriate, then they can link to this main article for a more in-depth explanation. PAR 22:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I removed the section that was added, because I think it was just pulled from the thermodynamics article, and it doesn't fit.
I think the statements this article makes about the second law might be wrong because there is no mention that the temperature in the first statement is the temperature of the surroundings and not the system. Flying Jazz 04:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
The introduction is good (especially when compared with other articles around this topic) but is weakened by the words "in a sense,". For this sort of article we need positive statements. If the author has reservations about this assertion we should at least be told what the other "senses" are.
I move we remove the words "in a sense,". It still stands as a correct and meaniningful statement.
Overall the style is clear and is way ahead of the "entropy" articles which are long on jargon and short on clear defintions. PAS 22:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
What is the "square" and how should it be used? It doesn't appear to be mentioned in the article. 192.102.214.6
The entropy S(U,V,N) is also referred to as a thermodynamic potential. Not only the thermodynamic potential one get when performing a legendere transformation are thermodynamic potentials. I can provide a german theoretical physics book as reference: Grundkurs Theoretische Physik 4: Spezielle Relativitätstheorie, Thermodynamik page 230 et seqq. Maybe there is an english version of this book. -- Biggerj1 ( talk) 09:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if there is a need to include a negligible [gravitational potential energy] at the introduction. It seems to me it only makes it confusing without the need. Felipebm ( talk) 12:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
It is incorrect to compare thermodinamic potentials with gravity or similar because gravity actually is the energy while thermodinamics potentials are mathematical definition that only in particular conditions represent energies. It is ok to give the idea of what they represent but very confusing to declare them as definitions. I think i'll correct in the text soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.16.181.249 ( talk) 09:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't think so. Thermodynamic potentials are energies as any other energy (e.g. kinetic, potential) in physics. Terminologically, there are not potentials - they are energies [1]. They are well defined for any system in equilibrium, as well as other extensive state functions , whereas intensive ones under external field , even homogeneous like gravity , should be considered rather locally having in equilibrium different values in different places far enough from each other (see standard thermodynamic models of Earth atmosphere). I think no change nee to be made concerning this problem. --JOb 20:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOb ( talk • contribs)
Part of the wiki says "Josiah Willard Gibbs in his papers used the term fundamental functions" but without a citation. Any idea which of his papers he uses that term? Can someone add that citation? WolfgangECE ( talk) 23:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
The person that added this to the top of the article should also have modified the parts of the text that talk about the four common thermodynamic potentials, because now there are five equations. Why don't we just list all the energy potentials? I think there are only eight of them. ChrisChiasson 12:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the merging of of the thermodynamic potentials section from the thermodynamics page - I think a paragraph or two for someone wanting to get an overview is appropriate, then they can link to this main article for a more in-depth explanation. PAR 22:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I removed the section that was added, because I think it was just pulled from the thermodynamics article, and it doesn't fit.
I think the statements this article makes about the second law might be wrong because there is no mention that the temperature in the first statement is the temperature of the surroundings and not the system. Flying Jazz 04:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
The introduction is good (especially when compared with other articles around this topic) but is weakened by the words "in a sense,". For this sort of article we need positive statements. If the author has reservations about this assertion we should at least be told what the other "senses" are.
I move we remove the words "in a sense,". It still stands as a correct and meaniningful statement.
Overall the style is clear and is way ahead of the "entropy" articles which are long on jargon and short on clear defintions. PAS 22:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
What is the "square" and how should it be used? It doesn't appear to be mentioned in the article. 192.102.214.6
The entropy S(U,V,N) is also referred to as a thermodynamic potential. Not only the thermodynamic potential one get when performing a legendere transformation are thermodynamic potentials. I can provide a german theoretical physics book as reference: Grundkurs Theoretische Physik 4: Spezielle Relativitätstheorie, Thermodynamik page 230 et seqq. Maybe there is an english version of this book. -- Biggerj1 ( talk) 09:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if there is a need to include a negligible [gravitational potential energy] at the introduction. It seems to me it only makes it confusing without the need. Felipebm ( talk) 12:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
It is incorrect to compare thermodinamic potentials with gravity or similar because gravity actually is the energy while thermodinamics potentials are mathematical definition that only in particular conditions represent energies. It is ok to give the idea of what they represent but very confusing to declare them as definitions. I think i'll correct in the text soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.16.181.249 ( talk) 09:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't think so. Thermodynamic potentials are energies as any other energy (e.g. kinetic, potential) in physics. Terminologically, there are not potentials - they are energies [1]. They are well defined for any system in equilibrium, as well as other extensive state functions , whereas intensive ones under external field , even homogeneous like gravity , should be considered rather locally having in equilibrium different values in different places far enough from each other (see standard thermodynamic models of Earth atmosphere). I think no change nee to be made concerning this problem. --JOb 20:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOb ( talk • contribs)
Part of the wiki says "Josiah Willard Gibbs in his papers used the term fundamental functions" but without a citation. Any idea which of his papers he uses that term? Can someone add that citation? WolfgangECE ( talk) 23:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)