Modern Thermodynamics Research Articles

What Is Modern in the Eighteenth Century?–Not Science

SYMPOSIUM: THE MODERNITY OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY What Is Modern in the Eighteenth Century?~Not Science Robert Schofield Every DISCIPLINE has its professional disease, some ailment of flesh or spirit to which its practitioners are peculiarly heir and against which they must guard themselves with particular care. For historians of science, possibly because priority disputes appear so prominently as dramatic elements in the sciences they study, the dis­ ease is that known as "precursoritis”—an endemic compulsion to locate some expression of a scientific law or discovery earlier than that commonly accepted as the first. It is, on the whole, a pleasant disease with no terminal complications, for the discovery of one precursor leads at once to the desire to find a precursor to that pre­ cursor, and so on through the span of time until one comes at last to rest with the Greeks. On the other hand, it is so infinitely con­ sumptive of time and ingenuity that professional historians of sci­ ence are inoculated against even the hint of precursors. To suggest, therefore, that one might find an aspect of modernity in the concepts of eighteenth-century science is to propose a viola­ tion of the canons of history of science on a centurial scale. Nor is this one of those rules established only for professional harmony, to be honored in cases like this one with canonical variations. For the rule is a realization of the nature of scientific ideas as products of creative imagination. An eighteenth-century novel is not modern because its plot employs the same elements employed in a modern novel. Tom Jones is not David Copperfield, and neither of these is Augie March, though all three are young men and each has experi­ 61 The Modernity of the Eighteenth Century ences with young women in his search for maturity. The tone, aim, and structure of the novel reflects the style of its age, and so it is with the concepts of science. The scientific style of an age is established by the way in which particular phenomena are set within a world view defined by selection from a limited set of fundamental dichot­ omies. The world may be finite or infinite, vitalistic or reductionist, static or changing, continuous or discontinuous, mechanistic or ma­ terialistic. Unless the selection of alternatives and the mode of order­ ing phenomena within that selection are both congruent to a mod­ ern view, there is no possibility of true precursority. If we look closely, every apparent case of conceptual similarity between eighteenth-century science and our own reveals just those incongruities which justify the canonical exclusion of comparisons. The elementary version of modern thermodynamics is a kinetic the­ ory reminiscent of eighteenth-century mechanical theories of heat. But only in the unpublished work of an anachronistic Henry Cav­ endish and in the scarcely-read suggestions of Daniel Bernouilli did that mechanical theory reach toward quantification, and their work scarcely approached the indeterminacies of twentieth-century statis­ tical mechanics. Eighteenth-century electricity was entirely static, while electrical theory from the nineteenth century to today is essentially current. Only the concept of charge conservation and the force law between charges remains unchanged from the eighteenth century. But con­ servation of charge, like that of heat, meant to the eighteenth century a conservation of material substance—that fluid of electricity which was also of conceptual significance in Coulomb’s determination of electrical force laws. Whatever electricity may be assumed to be —and the question is scarcely asked today, let alone answered—it is not regarded as a material fluid. Conceptually, eighteenth- and twentieth-century electricity are very different. Similar demonstrations can be produced for nearly every eigh­ teenth-century theory wistfully projected into the twentieth century. Newton’s light particles, with their periodic interactions with mat­ ter, are neither formally nor empirically equivalent to the photons of Einstein. Boscovich’s atoms, physically neutral point nodules of a forcefully described space, have no conjunction with modern atoms, 62 Symposium: Science filled to overflowing with strange particles and still stranger proper­ ties. The physiological speculations of iatro-physicists were not even related to the physical reductionism of the mid-nineteenth century and bear no...

Thermodynamics of solvent selectivity in extractive distillation of hydrocarbons

AbstractThe selectivity of a polar solvent is expressed in terms of an approximate theory of solutions. The theoretical results are insufficiently precise for the accurate prediction of activity coefficients, but the analysis shows that in the absence of chemical effects selectivity depends primarily on the difference in molar volumes of the hydrocarbons to be separated and on the polar energy density of the solvent. The effectiveness of a solvent is related to its polarity (which should be large) and to its molecular size (which should be small). In cases where chemical effects are important or where the molar volumes of the hydrocarbons to be separated are only slightly different, selectivity also depends on the relative ability of the hydrocarbons in acting as electron donors and on the ability of the solvent to act as an electron acceptor in forming acid‐base complexes. The theoretical conclusions, which are based on modern thermodynamics and on the theory of intermolecular forces, are in agreement with experimental observations. The results obtained in this work provide theoretical criteria for the selection of an optimum solvent for a given separation and give semiquantitative explanations of solution phenomena related to extractive distillation.

Application of Thermodynamics to the Chemistry of Rubber

Abstract The purpose of this paper is to show how thermodynamic data on rubber and related substances can be employed in studying and predicting their reactions. The method will be illustrated by the results of recent studies on rubber and iso-prene made at the National Bureau of Standards. These results enable us to predict the conditions which favor the polymerization of isoprene to form rubber, and also the conditions which favor the reverse reaction, the thermal decomposition of rubber to give isoprene. Rossini, in his review paper on “Modern Thermodynamics,” makes the following statement : “The ultimate end of chemical thermodynamics may be said to be the evaluation of the free energy of formation, from the appropriate fundamental units of matter, of every substance in all possible states….” Our chief object, then, for rubber is to obtain as accurately as possible the free energies of formation of rubber, sulfur, rubber-sulfur compounds and other forms of vulcanized rubber, isoprene and all other substances with which rubber reacts or from which it may be made.

Modern thermodynamics by The Methods of willard gibbs. By E. A. Guggenheim, with a preface by F. G. Donnan. Pp. xvi + 206. London: Methuen & Co., 1933. 10s. 6d

Journal of the Society of Chemical IndustryVolume 53, Issue 18 p. 379-379 Review Modern thermodynamics by The Methods of willard gibbs. By E. A. Guggenheim, with a preface by F. G. Donnan. Pp. xvi + 206. London: Methuen & Co., 1933. 10s. 6d First published: 4 May 1934 https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.5000531806AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume53, Issue184 May 1934Pages 379-379 RelatedInformation

Modern Thermodynamics by the Methods of Willard Gibbs (Guggenheim, E. A.)

ADVERTISEMENT RETURN TO ISSUEPREVBook and Media Revie...Book and Media ReviewNEXTModern Thermodynamics by the Methods of Willard Gibbs (Guggenheim, E. A.)T. F. Young Cite this: J. Chem. Educ. 1934, 11, 5, 319Publication Date (Print):May 1, 1934Publication History Received3 August 2009Published online1 May 1934Published inissue 1 May 1934https://doi.org/10.1021/ed011p319.2RIGHTS & PERMISSIONSArticle Views380Altmetric-Citations-LEARN ABOUT THESE METRICSArticle Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated. Share Add toView InAdd Full Text with ReferenceAdd Description ExportRISCitationCitation and abstractCitation and referencesMore Options Share onFacebookTwitterWechatLinked InReddit PDF (2 MB) Get e-Alerts Get e-Alerts

Modern Thermodynamics by the Methods of Willard Gibbs.

ADVERTISEMENT RETURN TO ISSUEPREVArticleNEXTModern Thermodynamics by the Methods of Willard Gibbs.E. A. GuggenheimE. A. GuggenheimMore by E. A. GuggenheimCite this: J. Phys. Chem. 1934, 38, 5, 713Publication Date (Print):May 1, 1934Publication History Published online1 May 2002Published inissue 1 May 1934https://doi.org/10.1021/j150356a017RIGHTS & PERMISSIONSArticle Views210Altmetric-Citations21LEARN ABOUT THESE METRICSArticle Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated. Share Add toView InAdd Full Text with ReferenceAdd Description ExportRISCitationCitation and abstractCitation and referencesMore Options Share onFacebookTwitterWechatLinked InReddit PDF (101 KB) Get e-Alerts

Modern Thermodynamics by the Methods of Willard Gibbs

Modern Thermodynamics by the Methods of Willard Gibbs

An Introduction to the Principles of Physical Chemistry from the Standpoint of Modern Atomistics and Thermodynamics

TEACHERS and students alike should' be grateful to Prof. Washburn for supporting the use in physical chemistry of the differential and integral calculus, which he introduces freely in the work now under review. Students will be surprised when they see how little calculus they need, and how much that little will strengthen the grip they get of physical chemistry. The time required for acquiring the necessary knowledge of calculus is nothing compared with the time wasted in wading through the tedious mathematics involved in evading the calculus. It is not only a waste of time—it is also misleading—to subject a number of difficulties each to a separate treatment, as is done when no calculus is used, as if they were of several quite distinct kinds in cases where they might be ranked together and enfiladed in a single attack. An Introduction to the Principles of Physical Chemistry from the Standpoint of Modern Atomistics and Thermodynamics. By Prof. E. W. Washburn. Pp. xxv + 445. (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.; London: Hill Publishing Co., 1915.) Price 15s. net.

Address of the President, Lord Rayleigh, O. M., D. C. L., at the Anniversary Meeting on November 30, 1906

On this list are to be found the names of veterans distinguished in many branches of science and in public affairs. One name is a household word in every physical and chemical laboratory. It would be difficult, indeed, to enumerate the investigations which have owed their success to the invention of the Sprengel mercury pump. In other cases, scientific careers still in full activity have, unhappily, been cut short. I allude especially to Joly, Marshall Ward, and Weldon. Even within my term of office our discussions have been enlivened by Weldon’s scientific enthusiasm and vigorous polemics. On the Foreign list are two distinguished names. Professor Ludwig Boltzmann, of Vienna, was perhaps the first Continental physicist to take up the ideas of Maxwell’s electric theory of light, of which he had early grasped the scope, and became for many years one of its most emphatic supporters. One of his earliest series of experiments was a determination of the influence of the crystalline quality on the dielectric constant of sulphur, with a view to comparison with its optical double refraction. In the theory of gases he is to be classed along with Clausius and Maxwell as one of the creators of the dynamical theory, on which he became the highest authority. By developing an idea originated by Bartoli he placed Stefan’s law of intensity of natural radiation on a theoretical basis, and thus became the pioneer in the modern thermodynamics of radiant energy. He contributed to the advance of physical science by many other investigations, and by his books on Gas Theory, on Electrodynamics, and on Mechanics. I may perhaps be allowed to add that at the time of his unhappy death, Boltzmann’s name was before the Council as proposed for one of our medals.

Section A. -Mathematical and physical sciences. - Address of the President, Lord Rayleigh, O. M., D. C. L., at the anniversary meeting on November 30, 1906

On this list are to be found the names of veterans distinguished in many branches of science and in public affairs. One name is a household word in every physical and chemical laboratory. It would be difficult, indeed, to enumerate the investigations which have owed their success to the invention of the Sprengel mercury pump. In other cases, scientific careers still in full activity have, unhappily, been cut short. I allude especially to Joly, Marshall Ward, and Weldon. Even within my term of office our discussions have been enlivened by Weldon’s scientific enthusiasm and vigorous polemics. On the Foreign list are two distinguished names. Professor Ludwig Boltzmann, of Vienna, was perhaps the first Continental physicist to take up the ideas of Maxwell’s electric theory of light, of which he had early grasped the scope and became for many years one of its most emphatic supporters. One of his earliest series of experiments was a determination of the influence of the crystalline quality on the dielectric constant of sulphur, with a view to comparison with its optical double refraction. In the theory of gases he is to be classed along with Clausius and Maxwell as one of the creators of the dynamical theory, on which he became the highest authority. By developing an idea originated by Bartoli he placed Stefan’s law of intensity of natural radiation on a theoretical basis, and thus became the pioneer in the modern thermodynamics of radiant energy. He contributed to the advance of physical science by many other investigations, and by his books on Gas Theory, on Electrodynamics, and on Mechanics. I may perhaps be allowed to add that at the time of his unhappy death, Boltzmann’s name was before the Council as proposed for one of our medals.

Simple Proof of Gibbs' Phase-rule

About a year ago, while writing a Text-book on Heat in which the use of higher mathematics had to be avoided, it appeared tome that the phase-rule could be rigorously proved by a process which does not involve the deduction of the somewhat difficult thermodynamical equations used by Gibbs, Planck and others; Quite lately, however, I discovered that proofs somewhat similar to mine had been previously given by Nernst and Bancroft, and I must therefore not be understood to claim originality in thispaper. Seeing, however, that modern thermodynamics do not yet command in this country the interest they deserve, it will not be superfluous to draw the attention of the Society to the subject.