1
$\begingroup$

I don't know where to begin with this question.

A scientist discovered that the state of the unknown gas can be well described by the equation of state below: $$P = \frac{RT}{\overline{V}} + \left(\frac{a + bT}{\overline{V}^2}\right)$$ Find the partial derivative $\left(\frac{\partial \overline{V}}{\partial T}\right)_P$ which is expressed in terms of $\overline{V}, R, b$, and $P$. (Hint: If $\overline{V}$ is a function of two variables $T$ and $P$ (i.e. $\bar{V} = f(T, P)$), then the total differential can be expressed as $$d\bar{V} = df(T, P) = \left(\frac{\partial \overline{V}}{\partial T}\right)_PdT + \left(\frac{\partial \overline{V}}{\partial P}\right)_TdP$$ Use a particular condition to derive the expression $\left(\frac{\partial \overline{V}}{\partial T}\right)_P$ in terms of $\left(\frac{\partial \overline{V}}{\partial P}\right)_T$ and $\left(\frac{\partial P}{\partial T}\right)_{\overline{V}}$.)

This problem is related to the physical chemistry of the gas law. What is the correct approach?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ My first thought was simply to solve the equation for T in terms of P, V, R, b, and a, then take the partial derivative. It's a fairly straightforward quotient rule. My solution still contains a though... $\endgroup$ – Jason Patterson Mar 12 '16 at 4:48
  • $\begingroup$ That's not universal; what if we were not able to get the explicit form for either V or T? $\endgroup$ – Ivan Neretin Mar 12 '16 at 8:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is purely a question about maths. You will probably get a better answer if you ask it on maths.SE. $\endgroup$ – bon Mar 12 '16 at 11:01
  • $\begingroup$ On math.SE it would get rejected right away for not using MathJax. $\endgroup$ – Ivan Neretin Mar 12 '16 at 14:58
  • $\begingroup$ Please don't remove the question. That isn't very helpful. $\endgroup$ – bon Mar 15 '16 at 13:24
4
$\begingroup$

Think of it this way. $$dP = \left(\partial P\over\partial T\right)_VdT+ \left(\partial P\over\partial V\right)_TdV$$ Now, we want P to be constant (that is, $dP=0$). What does that entail? A certain relation between $dV$ and $dT$ (which, BTW, are now $\partial$ rather than $d$): $$\left(\partial V\over\partial T\right)_P=-\left(\partial P\over\partial T\right)_V\left/\left(\partial P\over\partial V\right)_T\right.$$

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.