User talk:Chjoaygame/archive 4

Disambiguation link notification for January 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Instinct, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William McDougall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Brevity

Use it. VQuakr (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful comments on the relevant talk pages.Chjoaygame (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for clarifying the confusion. Lichinsol (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Second principle of thermodynamics and Sommerfeld formulation

Hi, Chjoaygame! I have seen your edits re laws of thermodynamics and I ask if you know/heard of the formulation of the second principle/law by Arnold Sommerfeld re the entropy from Electrodynamics – Lectures on Theoretical Physics Volume III Academic Press, NY, 1964? Thanks!--109.166.131.218 (talk) 02:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I searched the 1952 edition. I found nothing about entropy, nor about thermodynamics. I found only a use of Kirchhoff's second law, which is about electric circuits, not about thermodynamics.Chjoaygame (talk) 10:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Now I see that an error has occurred re the title of the book by Sommerfeld which is Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics – Lectures on Theoretical Physics Volume V (Academic Press, 1964) instead of Electrodynamics. Sorry for the error of copy/pasting the title of the work from the list in Sommerfeld wikiarticle. Therefore I ask you to check again.--109.166.135.197 (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I would feel more comfortable if you wrote here with a Wikipedia editor's name. I think there is no security risk in that for you. It is easy to set up.

The statement you refer to seems to be

      All thermodynamic systems possess a property which is called entropy. It is calculated by imagining that the state of the system is changed from an arbitrarily selected reference state to the actual state through a sequence of states of equilibrium and by summing up the quotients of the quantities of heat dQ introduced at each step and the "absolute temperature" T; the latter is to be defined simultaneously in this connection. (First part of Second Law.)

      During real (i.e. non-ideal) processes the entropy of an isolated system increases. (Second part of the Second Law.)

No doubt, this is a good statement. It includes a implicit definition of thermodynamic temperature, which is fine for Sommerfeld, but is a drawback here. The many statements already listed in the article are more or less historical. The Sommerfeld wording During real (i.e. non-ideal) processes the entropy of an isolated system increases is open to the criticism that during a process the system is not isolated. What Sommerfeld intends is that the system should be isolated before and after the process; but a process occurs during non-isolation. The entropy of an isolated system is not defined unless it is in a state of internal thermodynamic equilibrium, and cannot change if it is in state of internal thermodynamic equilibrium.

Slick writers like to say that the entropy of an isolated system can only increase, and think they have summarized things nicely. But it is not quite so obvious what they mean. What they mean refers to a system which has several sub-systems separated only by walls of specified respective permeabilities. The system as a whole is isolated, and in thermodynamic equilibrium. The permeabilities of walls between the sub-sytems are changed by a thermodynamic operation, and this will either leave the entropies of the sub-systems unchanged (if the permeabilities are decreased, when no process will occur) or increase the sum of the entropies of the sub-systems (if the permeabilities are increased, when a real process, in general, will occur) when thermodynamic equilibrium has restored itself. (Entropy is defined only for a system or sub-system in thermodynamic equilibrium.)

I am not persuaded that Sommerfeld's should be added to the list.Chjoaygame (talk) 04:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I may add that I don't like the present lead of the article Second law of thermodynamics. I think some parts of it are ridiculous. But I currently don't try to edit it.Chjoaygame (talk) 12:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

What are the weak or shakey parts of the lead?--109.166.135.197 (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Re the context of this question involving a source by a well-known author I can say that I have seen this source mentioned in a NON-Eng source about the laws/principles of thermodynamics, that source being browsed in order to have a clearer understanding of the equivalence between various formulations of this principle and the difference between statements with and without mentioning heat engines, as it seems that there is a problematic restrictive statement about the presumed impossibility of total conversion of heat into work at constant temperatures with heat engines. Some formulations of the principle omit the involvement of heat engines in this impossibility and just say that a monothermal (total) conversion of heat into work is impossible. This omission is problematic because the role of heat engines is essential in this impossibility because the conversion of heat into work seems to be possible with devices which are not heat engines (with gases as working fluids) like (thermo)electric devices or some type of galvanic cells which operate isothermally and are not heat engines. Thus the formulations including heat engines become irrelevant to devices that are not heat engines. --109.166.135.197 (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Re a editorname attached to this IP range, this would be (like) Electrochem-thermodyn.--109.166.135.197 (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I don't understand your last paragraph. It seems to me that you could easily keep your anonymity while giving other editors a handle to keep commentary coherent with your authorship, without making them struggle with IP ranges? Are you proposing to give yourself the User name Electrochem-thermodyn? That seems ok to me.

I'm sorry I don't have time to answer your question about flaws in the lead.

Of course Sommerfeld's text is a reliable source, in general. But that isn't a sufficient reason to put his statement of the second law in the article.

I note your further comments. Transfer of energy as heat is essential to the definition of entropy. Transfer of energy as heat occurs only through pathways that do not involve transfer of matter. Transfer of energy as heat does not occur through a pathway of thermodynamic work. A system can accept energy as heat by such processes as Joule used, in his paddle experiment, and by Joule heating. I agree that a good analysis and classification of statements would be valuable.Chjoaygame (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

The Non-ENG sources where I've encountered the Sommerfeld book are by an author who has been in contact to American thermodynamicists like Hendrick Van Ness at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. He also mentions some other thermodynamicists' formulation like that by George Hatsopoulos and Joseph Henry Keenan.--109.166.135.197 (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Re the state of equilibrium required for the definition of entropy, a question appears re how is this connected to the entropy source or production included in non-equilibrium thermodynamic relations like Onsager relations?--109.166.135.197 (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Of course heat and work are distinct, as they appear in the equality of first principle, their algebraic sum being equal to the internal energy for a closed system (with no transfer of materials or fluids). Heat, in Joule paddle experiment, is generated by friction, similarly to Rumford experiment.--109.166.135.197 (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Some mentioned authors identify the heat as energy passed through the boundary of the closed system with the microscopic work of molecular (atomic) forces. Other considerations see heat as only calorimetrically measured, also Planck treats heat this way, but he underlines the central place for the internal energy.--109.166.135.197 (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

(Re the IP range associated to the previously mentioned name, the IP range is only one: 109.166....)--109.166.135.197 (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps sometime in the next months/next year you would specify the flows of the mentioned lead, perhaps as collateral result during the analyses of the statements and their associated wikisources.--109.166.135.197 (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

An interesting wikisource: Joseph Henry Keenan and Ascher Shapiro (1947) History and exposition of the laws of thermodynamics, Mech. Eng., 69:915–921--109.166.135.197 (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank for your comments. It is probably impossible to find a single perfect reliable source.Chjoaygame (talk) 09:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Can you access the Keenan Shapiro source?--109.166.139.194 (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't have immediate access to the 1947 Keenan & Shapiro Mech. Eng. journal article. I guess I could get access to it. Why are you asking?

It makes me uncomfortable that you continue to not use an ordinary Wikipedia username. You can easily, anonymously, and safely register and use one.Chjoaygame (talk) 09:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be an interesting citation. Electrochem-thermodyn--109.166.136.166 (talk) 23:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I have tried to get a copy of the 1947 Keenan & Shapiro article, but failed. Please post the full name of the journal, not just an abbreviation for it. Do you have any suggestions about how I might get a copy of the article?

Can you say why you think this Keenan & Shapiro article is likely to be valuable for our Wikipedia article? Chjoaygame (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I think this ref is a valuable for wikiarticles like the laws of thermodynamics because the book where I have encountered it is a very interesting and valuable book, with many historical details. I'll check the context where it is mentioned (and the full name of the journal). Electrochem-thermodyn--109.166.136.166 (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Archives of (a) talk page(s)

Hi again! I have noticed that at least a talk page you have recently edited like talk:temperature has some archives (1,2 and 3) which are too small and should be merged into a single archive 1 and the content of following archives like 4, 5 should be moved to a new content archives 2 and 3. Thoughts?--109.166.135.197 (talk) 11:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

This is not a topic that concerns me.Chjoaygame (talk) 13:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Thus you have no objection to it, isn't it?--109.166.139.194 (talk) 11:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

In response to your message, I have now looked at the Archive pages of the talk page of the article Heat. I think they are not too small. I think they should be left as they are. I think it would be a mistake to try to change them.Chjoaygame (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

In comparison to talk page archive of heat article, those from temperature are/seem rather normal. I was noticing initially the discrepancy of the size of 1,2,3 archives summed compared to that of 4 or 5 archives from talk:temperature. I don't quite understand why it would be a mistake to change them. I think that the normal size of an archive should be that of the 4 or 5 mentioned archives.--109.166.139.194 (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't usually spend much time considering the page lengths of archives of talk pages. I have had a little look in response to your questions. I see that a bot has created an index of the talk pages of the article on Temperature. I also see that a bot is doing some of the archiving. I don't know how it would affect the function of the bot, to rearrange the archive pages. I think the present talk page archives are fine. I would be worried if someone tried to change them.Chjoaygame (talk) 07:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

reasons for undoing an edit

Hi Chjoaygame, I've just exposed my point of view about your revert of my edit in the leader of the article "Causality". Please, let me know what you think about it. Thank you, Fabio Maria De Francesco (talk) 11:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Reasons for semi-protection of the page Heat

Hi, again! Have you any idea why is the heat article semi-protected? Thanks!--109.166.139.194 (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I haven't examined the details of why the Heat article is semi-protected. I guess quite likely because it attracts vandals.Chjoaygame (talk) 07:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Thermodynamic process path

Hi Chjoaygame. A few days ago I stumbled upon Thermodynamic process path. It wasn’t much better than an orphan as only 5 other articles made use of it. It didn’t even have a Talk page so I started it. (I’m guessing you are also unaware of it.)

I suspect this one will eventually be merged with Thermodynamic process. What do you think? Dolphin (t) 22:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Indeed I was unaware of the article on Thermodynamic process path.

That article seems unaware of the importance of the difference between a natural or physically possible thermodynamic process and an idealised quasi-equilibrium process. The idea of a natural process admits such things as explosions and total dismantlement followed by re-assembly of the system; in such cases, the notion of a thermodynamic process path suggested in the article is also exploded. The article seems perhaps to assume tacitly that one is talking about an idealized quasi-equilibrium process, throughout which the system has existing throughout itself a state of uniform quasi-equilibrium with well defined thermodynamic state variables. This is useful for calculations, but part of the virtue of thermodynamics is that it allows for processes that take the system very far from quasi-equilibrium, where few or no proper thermodynamic variables exist, as long as the initial and final states are considered to be states of internal thermodynamic equilibrium.

A thermodynamic system possesses various representations, of two cardinal kinds, with various choices of state variables. The two cardinal kinds are the energy and the entropy representation. Each representation has a characteristic equation, that describes the system's equilibrium hypersurface.

For example, an energy representation is

$U(S,V)$, with ${\text{d}}U(S,V)={\frac {\partial U(S,V)}{\partial S}}{\text{d}}S+{\frac {\partial U(S,V)}{\partial V}}{\text{d}}V=T{\text{d}}S+P{\text{d}}V$,

with $U$ being called the 'internal energy'.

Another energy representation is usually written

$H(S,P)$, with ${\text{d}}H(S,P)={\frac {\partial H(S,P)}{\partial S}}{\text{d}}S+{\frac {\partial H(S,P)}{\partial P}}{\text{d}}P=T{\text{d}}S+V{\text{d}}P$,

with $H$ being called the 'enthalpy'.

Again, an entropy representation is

$S(U,V)$, with ${\text{d}}S(U,V)={\frac {\partial S(U,V)}{\partial U}}{\text{d}}U+{\frac {\partial S(U,V)}{\partial V}}{\text{d}}V={\frac {{\text{d}}U}{T}}+{\frac {P}{T}}{\text{d}}V$,

with $S$ being called the 'entropy'.

Another entropy representation is

$S(H,P)$, with ${\text{d}}S(H,P)={\frac {\partial S(H,P)}{\partial H}}{\text{d}}H+{\frac {\partial S(H,P)}{\partial P}}{\text{d}}P={\frac {{\text{d}}H}{T}}+{\frac {V}{T}}{\text{d}}P$.

This would usually also be called the 'entropy', and doesn't usually have another distinctive letter and alias corresponding to $H$ and 'enthalpy' as above, but logically it might do; there isn't a complete system of distinct names for such quantities.

I am not keen to try to work on the article Thermodynamic process path. It seems not to have been substantially edited since 2014. If someone wanted to delete it, I would probably support that.Chjoaygame (talk) 10:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Chjoaygame (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree that there isn't much incentive to work on it. Its contents should be included in Thermodynamic process. Dolphin (t) 12:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Have you considered putting the material in the article on process functions? That article concerns paths in the equilibrium hypersurface.Chjoaygame (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I see another User has taken the content of Thermodynamic process path and pasted it into Thermodynamic diagrams. The former title now redirects to the latter. Dolphin (t) 23:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The article Thermodynamic diagrams was just about atmospheric thermodynamics. The move of the material from Thermodynamic process path has made the article Thermodynamic diagrams into a ragbag of poorly organised material. Perhaps the mover noticed the creation of the talk page and decided to rescue the material.Chjoaygame (talk) 01:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

IUPAC definitions

I hesitate to write the following.

For Wikipedia editors in areas such as thermodynamics, it is notable that IUPAC offers definitions of physical and chemical terms.

Let me give some examples.

(1) The choice of sign of the term for thermodynamic work in the statement of the first law for closed systems.

(2) The choice between the kinetic theory and the thermodynamic definition of temperature.

(3) The definition of the internal energy versus the total energy of a thermodynamic system, for example in a gravitational field.

(4) The definition of the enthalpy of a closed system, either as a function of the state variables {entropy, pressure} or as a term appearing in the Euler relation $H=U+PV$.

What is a reliable source? Is it necessarily the declaration of a committee, or could it be a text that concords with other texts?

Could Wikipedia admit that there may be several logically different definitions of a commonly used chemical or physical term?Chjoaygame (talk) 07:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

IUPAC in general does not invent conventions out of thin air, but rather chooses from the conventions which many chemists actually use. For the sign of thermodynamic work as an example, I will remind you that a few years ago, you made a list of chemistry textbooks writing the first law as q + w and as q - w. See your list Some references at Talk:First_law_of_thermodynamics/Archive_1#Sign_convention_once_again_-_NPOV_needed.

I believe Wikipedia should mention the various definitions of a quantity which are found in the literature of a subject, in order to help readers who encounter different definitions in their reading. The First Law article provides a good model: most of the article uses a single convention (q - w) so that the equations are consistent, but there is one section on Sign conventions which explains the alternate (q + w) convention, so that readers can learn that it exists and why. Dirac66 (talk) 22:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your valuable comment.

I am happy to read that you favour mention of various definitions.

Yes, I accept that IUPAC doesn't invent conventions out of thin air. But I think it fair to say that it sometimes takes a point of view that is distinct.

I will try to think this over a bit more.Chjoaygame (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I made some changes to the Thermodynamic process page and ... um

Friendly greetings, Chjoaygame! I made some changes to the Thermodynamic process page. It is difficult material, not within my fields of knowledge. If you have the time and inclination, you may want to have a look at what I did. I am kind of uh... um... worried that I introduced erroneous content, although I was very careful. The only reason I ended up on that page was because I was editing the page about so-called adiabatic quantum computing that the D-Wave company supposedly pioneered. That's very different than adiabatic processes in thermodynamics!

Please do not feel obliged to review my work on the thermodynamic processes page. Someone will eventually come along to correct anything truly terrible I might have done. In the section on increased entropy within a single system, I will try to provide an additional source and add it as a reference.--FeralOink (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your message and contribution. I have made some edits in response. Properly, thermodynamics does not admit change or flow in a thermodynamic system, except when a thermodynamic operation changes the permeabilities of the walls of the system, or changes the surrounding conditions that can access the system through its permeable walls. Though careless thinkers and slick talkers may do so, it is misleading or erroneous to speak of thermodynamic processes without these predicates. A thermodynamic process of change is defined by its initial and final states of thermodynamic equilibrium, without consideration of the details of the passage.Chjoaygame (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Causality

Y I have reverted the undiscussed move, as requested. Let me know if any issues. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your care and promptness. I will look at what has been done.Chjoaygame (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Boltzmann's Entropy Formula

Hello Chjoaygame,

I cancelled the statement about the multinomial coefficient because it is wrong. Check that it is wrong as follows. Take two gases each one of $N$ particles at the same temperature and put them together. The formula for the number of microstates should work also with the mix, but the multinomial coefficient does not. If you multiply the number of microstates of the two you get $(N!/\sum_i(N_i!))^2$, while if you consider the mix you have $(2N)!/(\sum_i (2N_i)!)$. The two are different, so the multinomial coefficient doesn't work for the mix (Gibbs paradox). This is because the multinomial coefficient does not take into account that the particles are indistingushable, in the sense that they are not indexed (does not exist a first particle, a second particle and so on). Also, why do you cancelled my addition about the proof of equiprobability of microstates? There is a paper about that which has been peer-reviewed.5.171.73.26 (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello anonymous. Thank you for talking here. It is good that you talk about this.

It seems from what you have posted that you are not familiar with the rules and policies of Wikipedia editing. In my post, I tried to briefly explain for you the relevant ones. Perhaps a flavour of them might be conveyed to you by the following statement in my own words: 'An item posted in a Wikipedia article is allowed only when it complies with Wikipedia rules and policies. The post must be verifiable by the reader of the Wikipedia article. This means that the post must cite a reliable source as defined and recognized by Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia policy does not allow user/editors to decide for themselves what is right or wrong, what is true or false; instead the policy requires user/editors to post only material that has an immediate direct basis in reliable sources as defined and recognized by Wikipedia policy. The words "immediate and direct" mean that the user/editor is not permitted to make or synthesize inferences by combining elements of reliable sources. User/editors are not permitted to post their own original research in Wikipedia articles. These rules are used because, in general, Wikipedia user/editors may not be well informed or expert: anyone can post in Wikipedia articles.' Sometimes the foregoing is summarized in the slogan 'Verifiability, not truth.' A paper that has been peer-reviewed is not a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia, because, in general, if a peer-reviewed paper were admitted as a reliable source, then Wikipedia would cease to be a useful encyclopaedia. In general, especially in physics, a reliable source is an established and reputable textbook. It is preferable to collect several established and reputable textbooks with concordant views; a single source can be idiosyncratic or eccentric, which disqualifies it from being a Wiki-reliable source. What I have written here is far from exhausting what Wikipedia policy requires. It takes some time to become familiar with that.

It seems from your post above here that you did not inwardly digest the post that I put on the talk page of the article giving my reasons for undoing your edits. Your comments above do not begin to address the reasons I gave. I suggest that you re-read what I posted, about your edits, on the talk page of the article. What you wrote in your above comment is the sort of thing that Wikipedia defines as original research or synthesis, and is not admissible as a post in an article.

Perhaps this is not what you would like to read. But if you want to edit Wikipedia articles, you need to learn and abide by Wikipedia rules and policies. I wish you well in your journey doing so.Chjoaygame (talk) 13:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

yes, you are right, I am not familiar with Wikipedia rules, thank you for your explanation, sorry for the inconvenience.5.171.73.26 (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your care in this. The Wikipedia policies are intended to improve Wikipedia, even though falteringly. Again, I wish you well in your journey.Chjoaygame (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Definition of enthalpy

I would like to chat, here on this my talk page, with editor Klaus Schmidt-Rohr about the definition of entropy, and some other topics, if he is willing.Chjoaygame (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

The title of your new section uses the word enthalpy; but in your sentence above you use the word entropy. Klaus might be confused:) Dolphin (t) 13:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. It must have been the type-ahead/spell-checker. Sorry I didn't catch it. For definiteness now, I meant enthalpy, not entropy.Chjoaygame (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

November 2021

Thank you for your edit to the disambiguation page Temperature (disambiguation). However, please note that disambiguation pages are not articles; rather, they are meant to help readers find a specific article quickly and easily. From the disambiguation dos and don'ts, you should:

• Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
• Use short sentence fragment descriptions, with no punctuation at the end
• Use exactly one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry
  • Only add a "red link" if used in existing articles, and include a "blue link" to an appropriate article
• Do not pipe links (unless style requires it) – keep the full title of the article visible
• Do not insert external links or references

per my edit summary - please familiarise yourself with WP:MOSDAB before making more edits to dabs, as this is the second time I've mentioned more than one link, but you repeat it Widefox; talk 14:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

RIP @Chjoaygame

Is @Chjoaygame gone because his user page is gone. EẞotsEle^{ẞottalk|ẞotEdi} 12:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

No, chjoaygame isn't gone. He doesn't want a user page.Chjoaygame (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh ok, I mean that's good for staying. EẞotEle^{ẞottalk|ẞotEdit} 22:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I have just been a bit overwhelmed over recent months. No leisure time to edit. Still interested.Chjoaygame (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi again, it's been a long time since I've been on Wikipedia, like 4 months, and I just wanted to say hi again, also right now I won't be on Wikipedia for a bit because of schoolwork. And now I have a new look for my username at the end. EẞotEle^ẞtakẞEds 01:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Thermodynamics

People dispute whether one should in English speak of 'the minus oneth law of thermodynamics', or of the 'minus first law of thermodynamics'. I prefer to speak of 'the minus oneth'. I don't know what is the conventional preference. I am inclined to pronounce 'oneth' with a silent 'e' as in the dot in 'mon·th' and in 'ten·th'. The pronunciation may not matter too much. Sorry to say I am ignorant of the German language.

So I have to quote the 1903 English translation of Planck's 1897 Treatise. Having started with what is often called 'the zeroth law of thermodynamics', Plank goes on to write:

§6. In the following we shall deal chiefly with homogeneous, isotropic bodies of any form, possessing throughout their substance the same temperature and density, and subject to a uniform pressure acting everywhere perpendicular to the surface. They, therefore, also exert the same pressure outwards. Surface phenomena are thereby disregarded.

That will do as a start.Chjoaygame (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Bailyn on page 20 expresses the minus oneth law as follows:

THE LAW OF EQUILIBRIUM: A macroscopic, bounded, nongravitating system that is otherwise isolated or in a uniform environment attempts to reach an asymptotic state called equilibrium characterized by constant and piece-wise uniform values of its intensive state variables, unless it is already in equilibrium, in which case it will remain indefinitely in this state unless acted on by systems with different intensive state variables, or systems in relative motion.

Callen on page 12 expresses the minus oneth law as follows:

Postulate 1. There exist particular states (called equilibrium states) of simple systems that, macroscopically, are characterized completely by the internal energy U, the volume V, and the mole numbers N₁, N₂,...., N_r of the chemical components.

Brown & Uffink (2001) write the minus oneth law as follows:

Equilibrium Principle: An isolated system in an arbitrary initial state within a finite fixed volume will spontaneously attain a unique state of equilibrium.Chjoaygame (talk) 04:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Heat

@Dirac66: I guess I have made a silly mistake by raising an RfC. I would have been wiser to say or do less, and to have hoped for the best.Chjoaygame (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I haven't been following Heat or Talk:Heat, but at a quick glance I don't see that your RFC provoked any changes to the actual article. So if you are not happy with the direction of the discussion, you could try leaving it alone for a while and perhaps the article itself will not be changed. If it is, then you can decide whether the changed are harmful enough to insist on reverting. Dirac66 (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind thoughts. Yes, I wish I had gone more quietly about it. I did provoke one change that I think unfortunate, but I have not tried to undo it, and, as you suggest, I will leave it, and hope for the best.Chjoaygame (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, dear, what mistake I have made !!!! I would like to say nothing, but I fear the consequences of that too. Chjoaygame (talk) 08:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Dirac66:Oh, dear, what I have unleashed: not only the power of the instant expert, but even more, the ultimate authority himself !! The logic is now irreparably destroyed.Chjoaygame (talk) 01:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@StarryGrandma:Thank you for your work. In this matter, have been threatened with the 'b' word, and so have removed the article from my Watchlist, and won't be touching it in the foreseeable future. Just a couple of points of detail: for thermodynamics, friction is a form of transfer of energy as heat (Planck is one good authority for that, while there are many more), while, strictly and rigorously speaking in thermodynamic terms, convection is a form of transport of internal energy through transport of matter, not a form of transfer of energy as heat in the rigorously thermodynamic sense (Maxwell is a good authority for that, though it isn't the ordinary language or perhaps engineering way of seeing it). Chjoaygame (talk) 02:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

thanks, Ancheta Wis

@Ancheta Wis. Thank you. Yes, that's what I intended. Somehow I messed it up!Chjoaygame (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

the editor of superior knowledge

@Dirac66:. As you may have noticed, the editor of superior knowledge has endorsed the definition of heat as energy transferred because of temperature difference. That may be good enough for the Encyclopaedia Britannica, but surely Wikipedia should do better. Today the editor of superior knowledge demonstrated his superior knowledge by correcting "Another kind of heat transfer is by radiation" into "Another kind of energy transfer is by radiation, performing work on the system." I am inclined to guess that laser light could be made to perform work directly in transfer, but not ordinary light from thermal sources; I am not sure about this. I think that Planck would say that the temperature of laser light is higher than the thermal temperature of the body that emits it. I do not try to do anything in response to the works of the editor of superior knowledge, because I am inclined to see him as likely to respond further.Chjoaygame (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I presume that you are referring to the editor who made 3 edits yesterday on the Heat article? I believe that the definition as energy transferred due to T difference is the usual introductory definition in textbooks. If you want to go further, then you will need references to support any more advanced definiton. Dirac66 (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification.

I am coming from a long-standing Wikipedia tradition of definition of heat. That definition was established by a lot of work by many editors on the article on heat and on its talk page. Nearly all of the Wikipedia editors who worked on it now seem to have retired or moved to other parts of Wikipedia. The work on it was based on careful selection of the best reliable sources. It was loosely agreed that perhaps the most standard source was F. Reif (Fundamentals of statistical and thermal physics, 1965, McGraw-Hill). Since you don't recognize that, I can see that, at least for the present, that tradition is abandoned. I don't have the strength of motivation to try to resurrect it all on my own. I will just observe that one of the new edits we are talking about, in the article on Work (thermodynamics) ("Another kind of energy transfer is by radiation, performing work on the system."), as I read it, seems to express the idea that radiative transfer is work, not heat. Do you read it that way too?

A primary motive of the Wikipedia traditional definition was to have a rigorously logical development of thermodynamics. That meant defining heat purely through the first law before stating the thermodynamic definition of temperature in the context of the second law, basing the definition on a relationship of heat and thermodynamic work. The present Wikipedia definition of heat defies that. Thermodynamics regards the current SI definition of temperature as a theory-based definition of an empirical temperature, not as a definition of thermodynamic absolute temperature as per Kelvin.Chjoaygame (talk) 09:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I thought I would try to consider your above remark "I believe that the definition as energy transferred due to T difference is the usual introductory definition in textbooks." So I have started to look alphabetically at my textbooks. I am not clear about the difference between an "introductory definition" and a definition proper. Howsoever, in looking through my alphabetically first textbook (Adkins, C.J., 1983, Equilibrium Thermodynamics, 3rd edition, Cambridge University Press), I came across the following. I thought that it might be useful to quote it here. There are various approaches to thermodynamics, and I know that some Wikipedia editors and other physicists disagree with Adkins.

It is perhaps because thermodynamics is not concerned with fundamentals in the microscopic sense that it sometimes does not appeal readily to the physicist; but he will disregard it at his peril. It is precisely because it avoids microscopic theories that it is so valuable. It often yields answers to problems where an understanding of the fundamental processes involved might be difficult or impossible. It also helps to prevent mistakes; for any result which does not satisfy the requirements of thermodynamics must be wrong. But, perhaps more important, a physicist's training is not only concerned with learning fundamental theories but also with developing a sensibility to the way in which physical systems behave, and here thermodynamics has a peculiar contribution to make by providing a very general framework of ideas from which the understanding of particular systems may more readily be achieved.

end of part comment.Chjoaygame (talk) 01:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)