Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:43, 7 November 2009

Template:ESCA

Relations between specific heats

Since Relations between specific heats redirects here, I included corresponding relations between specific heat capacities (c_v and c_p) also in this article, mentioning which heat capacities are extensive and which are intensive properties. H Padleckas (talk) 13:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have my copy of Atkins handy but this is the first place I would look here is the citation for the current addition if anyone can check to see if if contains this content.Atkins, Peter (2002-01). Atkins' Physical Chemistry (7th ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198792859. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help). Doesn't this material belong on the heat capacity page? This is very close to textbook material and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK.--OMCV (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The derivation of C_p - C_V can be found in he book by F. Reif. The derivation of C_P/C_V isn't there, perhaps in Atkins or in some other textbook. But then I don't think it is not so relevant, because even if a derivation can be found, it may not be the same as presented here and it may not be preferable to have the same derivation.

The heat capacity page gives a general description of what heat capacity is, it links to this page for the two derivations. And not everyone agrees with the policy WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Many of my larger contributions to wikipedia have been text-book style mathematical derivations, e.g. of Planck's law, Stefan-Boltzmann's law, Helmholtz-free energy, fundamental thermodynamic relation etc. etc. etc. I know many Wikipedians do not like my edits, but I see Misplaced Pages evolving from a stupid encyclopedia containing only simple factoids to a fully self-contained repository of all knowledge. Count Iblis (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I sympathize with much of what you say but I think you need to consider the big picture and why WP:OR is so valuable. With all that said I think you need to at least cite a source where the underived relationship can be found. So a future student can follow ciations back to the orginal source.--OMCV (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

One: I fail to see without any citations how this is notable, or just a list of equations derived and posted on WP WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Two: if you don't want to stand by WP:VERIFY, then maybe you shouldn't be editing WP and focus on more scholarly pursuits. Angryapathy (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If you fail to see that this is a closely reasoned mathematical derivation and just see this as a "list of equations", you are not qualified to comment here. I could just as well go to the Chinese Misplaced Pages and comment there that all the articles there are a string of Chinese characters. Count Iblis (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Style of presentation

I am not too worried about the referencing issue; any basic material from thermodynamics will be, in principle, sourceable to numerous textbooks. I did add one reference just to start the process and establish a referencing style.

I am more worried about the style of the prose. The article reads like a textbook; it is not clear to me what the overall point of the article is, beyond carrying these derivations. In general we have a preference against articles like that. But I think this might be fixed by adding to this page a more general discussion of the relationships between the capacities, instead of simply the derivations. Then we would actually have something that we can call an article with a straight face. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is referenced from a few other articles on heat capacity, and I think also from the internal energy article, so it functions a bit like an appendix. In some other articles, I've included derivations as appendices or directly in the articles themselves, e.g.:

Tachyonic antitelephone

Stefan–Boltzmann law

Planck's law

Helmholtz free energy

Joule–Thomson effect

Second law of thermodynamics#Proof of the Second Law Count Iblis (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't clear; I meant the purpose of the article may not be clear to a random reader who arrives here from the "random article" button. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the "style" the article is written in can be changed from a tutorial-like tone to a more encyclopedic tone, yet still keeping the same information. Someday when I have nothing to do, I may have a go at it. H Padleckas (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am certain that the style/tone/whatever can be improved at some point as information is added to the article. And I am not trying to force anyone to do it right now. It's just something to keep in mind as the article develops over time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)