Talk:Clausius-Clapeyron relation: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Milton Beychok
imported>Milton Beychok
m (→‎Just another suggestion: Deleted my duplicate posting)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{subpages}}
==Thanks for creating this article==
I created two redirects to this article: [[Clausius-Clapeyron equation]] and [[Clausius-Clapeyron relation]]. Both redirects use the ordinary dash ( - ) on our keyboards. The difference between that and the dash that I think you used is ( - – ). Most readers will probably use the keyboard dash to search for this article. Anyhow, thanks for creating this article. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 17:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
== Suggested revision of lead-in sentence ==
Paul, to me, a single-component is a single pure compound like say butane and liquids like gasoline or an aqueous solution of ethanol (which are mixtures of compounds) are not single-component systems. In the lead-in sentence, should it be revised to say "...an equation for a system consisting of two phases of matter in ..." rather than the current "...for a single-component system consisting of two phases in ..." ? [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 15:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
:Milt, I must confess that I don't have any hands-on experience with the C-C relation. But reading about it, I got the impression that it applies to single (pure) components only. At least the derivation  is for pure systems, because it deals  with only one chemical potential μ.  It seems to me that for mixtures the proof must be extended with more μ's. Do you know anything about that?--[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 16:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
::I also don't have any direct experience with a multicomponent C-C equation, but during my research for the [[Heat of vaporization]] article, I found these references:
::*[http://www.springerlink.com/content/h1503716192605m1 A Russian (Belarussian) journal article] This includes a preview explaining a "Clausius-Clapeyron equation for multicomponent systems"
::*[http://www.new.dli.ernet.in/rawdataupload/upload/insa/INSA_1/20005b8b_653.pdf Lucknow University (India)] By authors in the Physics and Chemistry departments. It includes their version of a "Modified Clausius-Clapeyron relation for ideal multi-component mixtures"
::*[http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1956JChPh..25..572L Clapeyron Equation for Multicomponent Systems"] A [[NASA]] paper
::*[http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=5171730 Paper by Wayne C. Edmister] Discusses the use of the use of a "multicomponent Clapeyron equation". Wayne Edmister (now deceased) was the one of the  most eminent experts on the thermodynamics of hydrocarbon systems back in the time when I was doing refinery process design.
::Unfortunately, I cannot access the last two of the above references without paying for them. Perhaps  they are avilable to you via your university.
::If you decide to tackle those references, perhaps they might be the makings of a separate multicomponent C-C article.[[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 20:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
== Just another suggestion ==
Paul, if you changed all of the II's into L's and all of the I's into V's throughout the article and the drawing caption, it would make it much easier for readers to keep up with which phase is liquid and which phase is vapor ... which seems to have been causing you problems as well. What do you think? [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 08:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
== Just another suggestion ==
== Just another suggestion ==


Paul, if you changed all of the II's into L's and all of the I's into V's throughout the article and the drawing caption, it would make it much easier for readers to keep up with which phase is liquid and which phase is vapor ... which seems to have been causing you problems as well. What do you think? [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 08:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Paul, if you changed all of the II's into L's and all of the I's into V's throughout the article and the drawing caption, it would make it much easier for readers to keep up with which phase is liquid and which phase is vapor ... which seems to have been causing you problems as well. What do you think? [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 08:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:43, 15 September 2009

Just another suggestion

Paul, if you changed all of the II's into L's and all of the I's into V's throughout the article and the drawing caption, it would make it much easier for readers to keep up with which phase is liquid and which phase is vapor ... which seems to have been causing you problems as well. What do you think? Milton Beychok 08:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Clausius-Clapeyron_relation&oldid=685577"