Talk:Joule-Thomson effect/Draft: Difference between revisions
imported>David E. Volk m (reply to Milton) |
imported>Karl D. Schubert m (→comments) |
||
Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
:: Milton, I checked my texts too and they also use <math>\mu_{JT}</math> as you have done, so clearly that is the standard nomenclature. As for theory, no time to work on it currently, but one day perhaps. [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 12:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | :: Milton, I checked my texts too and they also use <math>\mu_{JT}</math> as you have done, so clearly that is the standard nomenclature. As for theory, no time to work on it currently, but one day perhaps. [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 12:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
Milt, I may have missed it here (astigmatism sometimes does that to me) but I didn't see the elements of the equation defined. Those with the appropriate background will know what they are but not everyone will recognized the "del P" and "del T" and the "sub H". Is there a standard we use for defining the terms in an equation below the equation? [[User:Karl D. Schubert|Karl D. Schubert]] 17:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:57, 30 September 2009
NOTICE, please do not remove from top of page. | |
I released this article to Wikipedia. In particular, the identical text that appears there is of my sole authorship. Therefore, no credit for Wikipedia content on the Citizendium applies. | |
Check the history of edits to see who inserted this notice. |
Wikipedia has a similar article
I extensively contributed to the Wikipedia article of the same name. I would estimate that about 75 percent of the wording in that article was mine.
I reworked it somewhat in my CZ sandbox and conformed it to a CZ article format. - Milton Beychok 19:49, 17 February 2008 (CST)
comments
1) the equation for is written as if it is a constant. Should this be written as (T,P) to reflect its dependence on the initial temperature and pressure?
2) Is there any theoretical explanation for this phenomenon, or is it typically thought of as a phenominological effect that is just measured? In other words, does it relate to electrostatic interactions between atoms/molecules, polarizability, etc? I haven't thought about the JT effect for quite some time (decades!), but I'll look around for a textbook or two and look for answers also. David E. Volk 15:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
3) The original reference, should you want to incorporate it is: J. P. Joule and W. Thompson, Proc. Roy. Soc. (London), 143, 357, (1853). Another fine experiment conducted in a Brewery!
4) The JT effect is valid for liquids also, not just gasses, at least according to the thermo classic text by G. N. Lewis and M. Randall, Thermodynamics, 2nd Edition, revised by Pitzer and Brewer, McGraw-Hill Series in Advanced Chemistry (1961).
- David, in response to (1), I have always seen the J-T effect written simply as . I just made another Google search and all of the information I found used simply . The article does state that J-T effect "depends on the specific gas, as well as the temperature and pressure of the gas before expansion", so your point is made, don't you think?
- As for (2), there probably is a theoretical mechanism that can explain the phenomenon in terms of the attractive and repulsive forces between molecules. My main focus in writing the article was to explain what the J-T effect is and how it is used in industry ... rather than trying to explain the theoretical mechanism. I know ... that is the typical engineering attitude. If you would like to add another section to the article that explains the theoretical mechanism, please do so.
- In regard to (3) and 4, I will incorporate that original reference and I will include liquids in the lede.
- Thanks for your comments, I really appreciate them. Milton Beychok 18:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Milton, I checked my texts too and they also use as you have done, so clearly that is the standard nomenclature. As for theory, no time to work on it currently, but one day perhaps. David E. Volk 12:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Milt, I may have missed it here (astigmatism sometimes does that to me) but I didn't see the elements of the equation defined. Those with the appropriate background will know what they are but not everyone will recognized the "del P" and "del T" and the "sub H". Is there a standard we use for defining the terms in an equation below the equation? Karl D. Schubert 17:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Article with Definition
- Engineering Category Check
- Chemistry Category Check
- Physics Category Check
- Nonstub Articles
- Advanced Articles
- Internal Articles
- Engineering Nonstub Articles
- Engineering Advanced Articles
- Engineering Internal Articles
- Chemistry Nonstub Articles
- Chemistry Advanced Articles
- Chemistry Internal Articles
- Physics Nonstub Articles
- Physics Advanced Articles
- Physics Internal Articles
- Engineering Underlinked Articles
- Underlinked Articles
- Chemistry Underlinked Articles
- Physics Underlinked Articles
- Chemical Engineering tag