Talk:Thermodynamics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Thermodynamics was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 16, 2006 Good article nominee Listed June 17, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted Current Status: Delisted good article

Chemical and Bio EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Chemical and Bio EngineeringTemplate:Chemical and Bio Engineering ProjectChemical and Bio Engineering articles		WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering
	v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chemical and Bio Engineering articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:Physicsphysics articles	WikiProject Physics	(Rated B-Class, Top-importance)
	Physics portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Version 1.0 Editorial Team
	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
	This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Additional information: ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images. This article is a vital article. This article is one of the supplemental core articles, which every encyclopedia should have.

Archives
2003 - Feb 2006, 65 kb Apr 2006 - May 2007, ~32kb

[edit] Lord Ceder ???

someone appearently removed the picture from Carnot from this article and added instead a picture of Gerbrand Ceder, together with the statement that 'Many' would consider this person as the new lord of thermodynamic. The citation given is the research Pager of Dr. Ceder.

Although I cannot fully judge wether Dr. Ceder is worth mentioning at this position, i don't find any proof for the consideration as Lord of Thermodynamics in the citation. Mr Ceder would be the only person mentioned in the history of thermodynamics since 1849. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.94.232.86 (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedian user boxes for those interested in thermodynamics

This user has a keen interest in Thermodynamics.

[edit] Unified thermodynamics

Unified thermodynamics is pure nonsence. So I have removed it! CaptinJohn (talk) 10:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps (on hold)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found that the following issues need to be addressed.

• Much of the article is missing inline citations. I realise the information is readily available in any textbook, but that should may it easier to find citable sources. Main articles of summary-style sections can probably be mined for appropriate references quite easily.
• The laws of thermodynamics section should be cleaned up to match proper style for embedded lists. Despite being covered in detail in their own article, I'd suggest expanding the information on each law a little more as well.
• The "Thermodynamic potentials" section needs improvement on jargon issues (for example, each of the variables in the equations needs explaining) and further wikilinking.
• Is there a reason for using numbered lists in the "Thermodynamic systems" and "Processes" sections? If not, bulleted lists should be used instead.
• Minor grammar: the first sentence of the "Classical thermodynamics" section is a run-on; I wasn't sure how best to fix it.

As long as work is being done towards fixing these issues, I see no reason to delist the article. Some other points/suggestions, unrelated to GA status:

• I find the lead moving image very distracting. I don't know if it's possible, but could it be changed to a startable-stopable movie?
• Is the a convenient way to expand the "Thermodynamic states" section? The summary style explanation given here seems a bit brief, but may well be complete as is.

Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far! --jwanders^Talk 18:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps: Delisted

Since the majority of the above issues were not addressed, the article has been delisted. Add additional citations from a variety of sources to provide a balanced representation of the information present. Perhaps sources can be pulled from the main articles linked to within the article. Look to books, magazines, newspaper articles, other websites, etc. The lead should also be expanded to better summarize the article, see WP:LEAD guidelines. Although the article has been delisted, the article can be return to GA status by addressing the above points. Once sources are added and cleanup is done, I recommend renominating the article at WP:GAN. If you disagree with this assessment, a community consensus can be reached at WP:GAR. If you need clarification or assistance with any of these issues, please contact me on my talk page and I'll do my best to help you out. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Why wasn't this set up in a regular GA reassessment? It would've showed up on the Article Alerts and the physics project would've been aware that this article had issues. I suspect response hasn't been all that great (or at least not all that it could've been) for these GA sweeps. Next time you decide to do one, I would strongly recommended using the usual channels so bots can pick things up. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Normally reviews go through a subpage, but it looks like the initial review was performed back in February 2008 (don't think that article alerts was set up back then), and I'm closing it now in the absence of the reviewer. When articles are placed on hold it is customary for reviewers to contact the main contributors and the related WikiProject(s). It appears that ample time was provided for the article to be improved, and now that it has been delisted, the issues can be addressed and the article renominated. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah well that explains it. (I read 28 Feb 2009).Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 13:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Credit

From the start of the article, it says that thermodynamics is a branch of physics and chemistry. . . . . no, clearly the thermodynamics is very important for chemistry, but the branch itself originated on physics and thus only belongs to physics. Application of thermodynamics on the field of chemistry is studied by Chemical thermodynamics and Thermochemistry. Otherwise, what these derivatives are for? I'm confused, you know.--Twicemost (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

very true, thermodynamics has its origins in physics and is just used in chemistry, the same as quantum mechanics is used in quantum chemistry. i doubt anyone would say that quantum mechanics is a branch of chemistry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.181.171 (talk) 01:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that it just does not make sense to say that thermodynamics is a branch of chemistry. It would be misleading for the readers. Surely chemistry or chemists have contributed to it, but that does not change the fact that TD is one of the fundamental subfields of physics, just like electromagnetism, or quantum mechanics or classical mechanics. -Ur —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.0.107 (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

There lies the rub, for What is "Chemistry", what is "Physics"? Where does one end and the other begin? I took Physical Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, ... I took 4 physics courses and many engineering courses and what I got from it is that the "point of view" of the physicist, the chemists and the engineers were quite different on the same subjects or phenomena. Thermodynamics is one of the most fundamental concepts for all of the physical sciences, it's laws are obeyed by the universe weather it is at a subatomic, atomic, "classical" or astrophysical level, all from concepts initially derived form a practical concern with combustion in order to produce work. Weather one does mechanics or electricity or astrophysics or nuclear physics or chemistry... one always ends up using the laws of thermodynamics to solve quite a lot of problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.241.6.32 (talk) 08:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] history

am not really sure about the history section written about ancient times. Those early ideas on void spaces and atomic philosophy have no real contribution aside from influencing future scientist, but the way its presented on this page makees it seem as those thermodynamics existed millenium ago, which of course is not true. I dont object to those points being there but i think there needs to be better effort to clear draw a distinction between the early ideas, which are not thermodynamics, and the actual science of thermodynamics.Tomasz Prochownik (talk) 07:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Also you mentioned that Avicenna invented the first air thermometer, but thats not quiet the whole story. Ctesibius, Heron, and Philo were all aware of the elasticity of air and they knew that when heated it expanded and vice versa and they in fact built several mechanisms demonstrating this principle, particularly in Heron's Pneumatica. In reality Avic. would have had access and knowledge of these works so he in fact just used their theories and the devices they built to measure temperature and some sources claim in fact that they did built an air thermometer themselves http://www.enotes.com/history-fact-finder/science-invention/who-invented-thermometer. whether they built an air thermometer is in no doubt, its just that they most likely didnt use to measure temperature, but never the less their ideas and inventions are crucial Avic. just used what they made to gauge temp. difference. I thought id let you know so you alter to include those ideas, you know before i actually do it for you soooooo. Tomasz Prochownik (talk) 06:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

ya check when i posted that comment, and you haven't changed anything, both the sources you list under the air thermometer are brutally inappropriate, Briffault one having something along the lines, some say he used an air thermometer, and the other source witting one sentence on it. The problem being neither book is source is about the history of science. give me a source that explains his thermometer, how it worked, and how he built it. I like your little contribution of principle parameter, it would be pretty hard for it to be that since it could not tell the temperature, only relative temp., since temp. scales didn't exist at the time, also it would have been subject to barometric pressure. what compounds this even further, as stated before neither of your sources claim how it was built, how it worked, or anything to do about this device, except a sentence, i guess you thought you'd fill in the gaps huhhh. As far as measuring air temp. a rudimentary device was built by philo http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&id=qfmS7g4JzjwC&dq=Principles+and+Methods+of+Temperature+Measurement&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=3rLkeqdZz5&sig=tV2YrszNevkr61Eatbrk0YDiB4A&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result. of course avic. had access to these works also. Last, but not least these early devices are not thermometers, but more accurately thermascope's. any comments

as far as your knew contribution, well once again filled with some distortions as usual. Heron also conducted experiments on voids, but of course his don't count right, because as you would have us believe muslims invented experiments, right lol, but that's soon going to be addressed. Ya conducted the first experiments on a void, really were does it say that in the Stanford source specifically, as far as the other source Zahoor thats just a plain joke, kind of like you. Last but not least, this contribution is absolutely worthless to the history of thermodynamics. Why, simple show me the connection between this and thermodynamics, list one source that links this as being important to thermodynamics. Ideas on voids were just ideas, based on Greek philosophy. all the early ref. on this page are just precursor ideas to thermo., ideas like voids or atomic philosophy, not thermo. itself. what makes this contribution even more worthless is the fact he conducted "experiment", and i use the word loosely not experiments, he used them to demonstrate something totally untrue, vaccum's can exist. Ahhh what a monumental contribution he used water plungers to prove the exact opposite of what is true. You've really outdone yourself here jagged lol. So pretty much this little bit is gone unless you can find some respectable source liking this to thermodynamics. I don't care about you interpretation, find me a respectable source that links this to thermodynamics, quote one for me please, am dying to know. Am now also making changes to the thermometer part as well, since you wont I and you better start looking for better sources on this device cause this ain't cutting it sorry.Tomasz Prochownik (talk) 07:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

I suggest the etymology given:- "Roughly, heat means "energy in transit" and dynamics relates to "movement"; thus, in essence thermodynamics studies the movement of energy and how energy instills movement" is really unsatisfactory for a work of reference.

To say heat is "energy in transit" is obscure, to have the quality of heat a body has only to have a steady temperature above absolute zero, there is no need for the "energy to be in transit". Conversely, "dynamics" is used in many branches to convey the concept of movement, electrodynamics and electrostatics are good examples where "dynamic" is used to distinguish between moving and none moving charge. The analogy is compelling. To paraphrase Thermodynamics - "energy in transit" "movement" is prolix, using only one word for movement is much better style. By way of comparison, Thermodynamics "heat" and "movement" indicates very well the actual fact that thermodynamics is the science that converts heat energy to mechanical movement and viceversa, nothing "roughly" about this! --Damorbel (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be confusing heat and thermal energy or internal energy. Heat is the transfer of energy, not the amount of energy something has due to its temperature. It is an important distinction in thermodynamics. PhySusie (talk) 10:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

'Energy in transit' is not necessarily heat. Mechanical or electrical work is usually not called heat. Bo Jacoby (talk) 09:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC).

Right - only the transfer of thermal energy. My point to previous post was that heat is not a quality that an object has. Thanks for catching that. PhySusie (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Defining "Heat is the transfer of energy" seems to leave you with temperature hanging in the air. What, in your definition, is temperature? It certainly isn't a measure of thermal energy. Does your definition of heat mean that a system in thermal equilibrium "has no heat"?--Damorbel (talk) 07:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Heat _is_not_ "the transfer of energy" heat is the energy rejected that was not transformed into work. Recheck the second law and first laws of thermodynamics. E=W+Q the energy is transformed into work rejecting heat, raising the entropy of the universe. In this case energy is all kinds of energy not "heat energy" energy is potential or it is kinetic, if it is potential it implies a "property" that interacts with a "field" and thus has potential energy if it is not in equilibrium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.241.6.32 (talk) 08:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rational thermodynamics

This section is in the wrong article, it contains a link to a non existent article (Rational Thermodynamics), it is submitted by [Petr10] an untraceable user. I suggest it has no place here; I propose to delete it shortly.

Further the archiving is far too aggressive; since they are so small can't they be restored. I am looking into it.--Damorbel (talk) 07:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of Rational Thermodynamics before. [Not meant to be a slight on thermodynamics. :) ] I tried looking for that term in the index and TOC of one of the references for that section at Amazon.com.[2] Couldn't find the term rational thermodynamics. :--Bob K31416 (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I found something on it in the other reference. Don't delete without better reasons.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I did some more looking and googled "rational thermodynamics" (including parentheses) and got 1260 hits. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

But (LOL) there does seem to be a problem. The section doesn't seem to say anything. It doesn't look ready for prime time so I moved it to this discussion page.

== Rational thermodynamics ==

--Bob K31416 (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Petr10 should not be untraceable. My e-mail address is now registered on Wikipedia. I don't know how to make it 'traceable'.

Yes, I am new in Wikipedia and I am surprised by the hysterical tone of the reactions to my addition to Wikipedia. Is it always like this in Wikipedia? Calm down, people!

This is not a joke, it's a serious scientific matter. That somebody has not heard of rational thermodynamics does not mean that it does not exist. Anyway, the text taken from one of the references and included in one of the comments proves that it exists. If it exists, it should be in Wikipedia. If it is not there, it must be added.

Only one reaction has a merit: yes, the main article is not there. It will be there shortly. It has 34 references so it takes time to write it Wikipedia-way.

I will restore my addition when I am finished with the main article.

Bob, have you been appointed to be the final arbiter who can decide if it is 'prime time'??

--Petr10 18 March 2009

Petr10, Please define Rational Thermodynamics. Thank you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Also - looking at the posts here - I don't see any hysteria or reason to be defensive. The editors who have posted here seem to be calmly looking into this section and trying to determine its merit. I appreciate the fact that they are investigating this in a professional manner. PhySusie (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Bob, a shortened quote from 'Thermodynamics: A Dynamical Systems Approach' by Wassim M. Haddad, Vijay Sekhar Chellaboina, & Sergey G. Nersesov, Princeton University Press, 2005:

In the last half of the twentieth century, thermodynamics was reformulated as a global nonlinear field theory with the ultimate objective to determine the independent field variables. This aspect of thermodynamics became known as rational thermodynamics. As a result of this approach, modern continuum thermodynamics was developed using theories from elastic materials, viscous materials, and materials with memory. The main difference between classical thermodynamics and rational thermodynamics can be traced back to the fact that in rational thermodynamics the second law is not interpreted as a restriction on the transformations a system can undergo, but rather as a restriction on the system's constitutive equations.

Another edited quote from Internet:

RT is mathematically rigorous yet physically well founded theory for irreversible thermodynamics. It diverges from the classical theory to assume temperature and entropy to be primitive variables, not dependent on something else (like mass, length etc.). This enables it to postulate the existence of these quantities in situations far from equilibrium.

--Petr10 19 March 2009

Re "In the last half of the twentieth century, thermodynamics was reformulated as a global nonlinear field theory with the ultimate objective to determine the independent field variables. This aspect of thermodynamics became known as rational thermodynamics."

Could you explain what this means? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Assertions such as The classical methods of equilibrium and nonequilibrium thermodynamics do not allow for a description of states and processes outside equilibrium. indicate a profound misunderstanding (to put it kindly) of classical thermodynamics. Equilibrium (in terms of "classical thermodynamics" is a condition where no energy is flowing (being transported). When energy is introduced into a system by definition energy flow is initiated, equilibrium no longer applies. Now it doesn't matter if you are firing up a steam locomotive, pulling the pin from a hand grenade or forcing a fluid through a porous membrane (typical non-equilibrium conditions), thermodynamics as based on the works of Boltzmann et al, explains matters quite well.

Petr10, do you agree? Do you have observations where it is clear that it is failure of classical thermodynamics and not a failure in the observer? Perhaps you could start show just how the second law of thermodynamics is "rather as a restriction on the system's constitutive equations". This would be helpful because the 2nd law has at its root the concept that you don't get energy from nothing.--Damorbel (talk) 08:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I am terribly sorry to disappoint you but I cannot argue with you and I cannot explain anything myself. I just want to show on Wikipedia an article that explains the situation with rational thermodynamics. That's all. RT has friends and enemies, see the discussion from which I took my earlier quote in Journal Club Theme of October 2007: Irreversible thermodynamics of continuous media - in that discussion, Kosta Volokh does not like RT.

The article that I want to show has not been published due to the death of the author who also wrote more general articles about thermodynamics, e.g. CONCEPTUAL PROBLEMS OF MODERN IRREVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS.

--Petr10 (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Petr10, you say "I cannot explain anything myself" which makes one wonder why you want to edit here. The idea of an encyclopedia is to have a reasonably reliable store of knowledge available for consultation. Wikipedia is a very attractive proposition for people who wish to publicise their own point of view, since Thermodynamics is a rather obscure subject there are many want to post here. Bearing this in mind would you mind putting your contributions in a separate article? If you cannot show the link between Rational thermodynamics and classical thermodynamics, then Rational thermodynamics has no place in this article.--Damorbel (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly! A "reliable store of knowledge available for consultation" is what I want. I want to contribute to that. That's one reason why I am doing it. (But it's more like an obstacle course.) Putting my "contributions in a separate article" is what I want (I mentioned it earlier). It will certainly be reliable!

You and I cannot understand everything! To be able to explain RT to you, I would have to study a lot of things and you would have to study a lot of things otherwise you would not understand it anyway even if I am able to explain it to you. People who have the right background and are really interested will benefit from my contribution.

"If you cannot show the link between Rational thermodynamics and classical thermodynamics, then Rational thermodynamics has no place in this article" is worrying. Of course there is a strong link but not necessarily the easy way for everybody to understand.

Your article is called 'Thermodynamics'. It is not called 'Classical thermodynamics' and it is not called 'Thermodynamics in 19th century'. That's why a link to my article (not necessarily the text that I put in originally) must be in 'Thermodynamics'.

A lot is happening and if you decide to ignore it because you personally cannot understand it, you are hurting Wikipedia. There are many people in the world who can understand it. Some of these people will be able to improve my article or extend it. --Petr10 (talk) 00:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

How did you come to be interested in Rational Thermodynamics? --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Bob, I came across my cousin's unpublished (because of his death, otherwise he published a lot) article about RT, discovered that RT has not yet been mentioned in Wiki. (although the book 'Rational Thermodynamics' is in under Clifford Truesdell), and decided to put it in as the 'main article'.

However, you were right, my text (culled from the article) was not 'prime time'. I will try to get something better.

I think this discussion can now be closed. --Petr10 (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Good luck and best regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Untitled

Thermodynamics deals with the transformation of energy into work and heat. Work is what is equivalent to "lifting a mass" = opposing a field (gravitational, electromagnetic, nuclear...). Heat is what is rejected to the "universe" raising the universes temperature (energy rejected can't be used as "work"). Thus the concept of entropy (the "state function" of the universe that increases as energy is rejected as heat). There is no "heat energy" involved, heat is what is rejected to the universe as processes are carried out. The main confussion in the definition of Thermodynamics and mixup with Heat Transfer is when laymen confuse the etymology of the word thermodynamics with its current use in science and engineering. It's like confusing "atom" with something indivisible,as its greek roots suggest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.182.27.96 (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not place comments above the talk page again. Every new post must be at the bottom; OK? --186.14.102.80 (talk) 21:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I moved this down here to make it a little cleaner. Overthinkingly (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)