Thermodynamic Changes on Potential Energy?
Kumar
Simply I want to know;-
Whether measurable thermodynamic changes occur in any substance(atoms
also) on variations in its potential energy? Increase or decrease in
applied Gravitational force on any substance should change that
substance in some manner.
Best wishes.
Kumar
In other sense, can we measure variations in potential energy of any
substance by its heat & motion(thermodynamic) or by it thermodynamic
variations ?
Cwatters
"Kumar" <lordsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f16a3bd9-f739-46d4...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Yes - take a look at how the sun works.
It's own gravitational pull is enough to cause high pressures and
temperatures at the center - enough to cause the fusion of hydrogen atoms.
Kumar
<colin.wattersNOS...@TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote:
> "Kumar" <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Thanks. If we put a ball high on hill. Will it get change in
gravitational force & will it change its thermodynamics?
Sam Wormley
You do work on the ball giving it potential energy (PE) in a gravitational
field. Upon release PE is converted to kinetic energy (KE). The ball's
KE is dissipated, often in the form of heat.
Sam Wormley
May I suggest you read: http://www.motionmountain.net/index.html
Kumar
>
> - Show quoted text -
But if there are variation in applied GF on hill, will it not cause
persistent thermodynamic changes in ball? Suppose GF is decreased on
hill, it can lower motions in ball due to decrease in applied forces &
till ball is on hill, these motions will be persistent. Then how these
motions are not considered in arriving at PE?
Sam Wormley
> On Dec 13, 11:23 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>
>> You do work on the ball giving it potential energy (PE) in a gravitational
>> field. Upon release PE is converted to kinetic energy (KE). The ball's
>> KE is dissipated, often in the form of heat.
>
> But if there are variation in applied GF on hill, will it not cause
> persistent thermodynamic changes in ball? Suppose GF is decreased on
> hill, it can lower motions in ball due to decrease in applied forces&
> till ball is on hill, these motions will be persistent. Then how these
> motions are not considered in arriving at PE?
What kind of variations are you envisioning? The mass of the earth is
essentially constant, therefore the acceleration due to gravity is
essentially constant.
You can calculate the difference in PE for the height of the hill from
newton law of gravitation
∆g = mG / ∆r^2
where ∆r is the difference to the center of mass of the earth from
to top and bottom of the hill.
A Physics Booklist: Recommendations from the Net
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/booklist.html#general-physics
Sam Wormley
> On 12/13/09 9:43 PM, Kumar wrote:
>> On Dec 13, 11:23 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> You do work on the ball giving it potential energy (PE) in a
>>> gravitational
>>> field. Upon release PE is converted to kinetic energy (KE). The ball's
>>> KE is dissipated, often in the form of heat.
>>
>> But if there are variation in applied GF on hill, will it not cause
>> persistent thermodynamic changes in ball? Suppose GF is decreased on
>> hill, it can lower motions in ball due to decrease in applied forces&
>> till ball is on hill, these motions will be persistent. Then how these
>> motions are not considered in arriving at PE?
>
> What kind of variations are you envisioning? The mass of the earth is
> essentially constant, therefore the acceleration due to gravity is
> essentially constant.
I mean to say you can calculate the the difference in g (not PE).
Kumar
Then, what is the importance of h(height) in mgh?
Kumar
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ug(PE)=mgh. In it, whether height is not important to calculate both
gravity & PE? Will it not suggest that height can vary GF?
Sam Wormley
You can calculate the difference in aceleration due to gravity as a
function r
Kumar
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Ug(PE)=mgh. In it, whether height is not important to calculate both
> > gravity& PE? Will it not suggest that height can vary GF?
>
> You can calculate the difference in aceleration due to gravity as a
> function r
>
> ∆g = mG / ∆r^2
>
> where ∆r is the difference to the center of mass of the earth from
>
> - Show quoted text -
It means, there will be variation in gravity at bottom & top on the
hill ans there will also be some difference in aceleration in a
substance due to gravity variation?
Cwatters
>Then, what is the importance of h(height) in mgh?
mgh is the objects _potential_ energy.
It comes from
work = force x distance
force = mass x acceleration
It can't be converted to another form without changing h.
I don't think there is a way to convert potential energy to another form by
somehow changing g or m.
Sam Wormley
> hill ans there will also be some difference in aceleration in a
> substance due to gravity variation?
And they are negligible to at least six (6) decimal places. You
are not likely to have input data better than thre (3) decimal
places.
Darwin123
> Hello,
>
> Simply I want to know;-
>
> Whether measurable thermodynamic changes occur in any substance(atoms
> also) on variations in its potential energy?
gravitational potential energy, chemical potential energy,
electrostatic potential energy, etc. You can't throw all these
"potential energies" into one melting pot.
Most of the time, what we call "potential energy" is energy
that is contained in a "force field" rather than in "matter". For
instance, the energy in a capacitor is contained by the electric field
between the plates, not the electrons in the plates. The potential
energy in an inductor is contained in the magnetic field inside the
coils, not the electrons in the wire. Chemical potential energy is
contained by a chemical potential field, which actually has both
electromagnetic and exchange force components. They all have to be
added separately in the total balance of energy. One doesn't directly
affect the other. There are interactions, but not in the way you are
talking about.
The concept of temperature was originally tied up with the idea of
a "temperature force field." The "internal energy" of an object is an
analog to potential energy. The entropy of the object, sometimes
called the caloric, was considered a type of fluid. The "temperature
gradient" was actually the analog to a force field. Originally, Carnot
thought of the working of a steam engine as being like the working of
a water mill. The major difference, where the analogy completely
breaks down, is that entropy can be made in an irreversible process.
In any case, you can't a priori assume that one form of potential
energy (including internal energy!) automatically affects a substance
the same way as other forms of potential energy. To see how these
different forms of energy interact, you need an equation of state.
>Increase or decrease in
> applied Gravitational force on any substance should change that
> substance in some manner.
change the chemical nature of a material. You are thinking of chemical
potential energy.
If someone jumps off a cliff, the change in gravitational
potential energy won't change the chemicals in his body. When he hits
the ground, he will change the amount of elastic energy in the bones
of his body. This still won't change his chemistry very much. When his
bones break and his organs rupture, there will be an increase of
entropy in his body. This will change his chemistry immensely. He will
be dead.
Autymn D. C.
> Most of the time, what we call "potential energy" is energy
> that is contained in a "force field" rather than in "matter". For
> instance, the energy in a capacitor is contained by the electric field
> between the plates, not the electrons in the plates. The potential
> energy in an inductor is contained in the magnetic field inside the
> coils, not the electrons in the wire. Chemical potential energy is
The field /is/ where elèctròns or other matter are.
Kumar
>
> >>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>> Ug(PE)=mgh. In it, whether height is not important to calculate both
> >>> gravity& PE? Will it not suggest that height can vary GF?
>
> >> You can calculate the difference in aceleration due to gravity as a
> >> function r
>
> >> ∆g = mG / ∆r^2
>
> >> where ∆r is the difference to the center of mass of the earth from
> >> to top and bottom of the hill.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > It means, there will be variation in gravity at bottom& top on the
> > hill ans there will also be some difference in aceleration in a
> > substance due to gravity variation?
>
> And they are negligible to at least six (6) decimal places. You
> are not likely to have input data better than thre (3) decimal
>
> - Show quoted text -
Likewise, will there be variation in weight of substance at bottom &
top on the hill?
On Gravity push, it was told that EM forces resist us in going down,
can it be possible that there can be a push but other forces esp. EM
resist it?
Kumar
> On Dec 12, 11:15 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote:> Hello,
>
> > Simply I want to know;-
>
> > Whether measurable thermodynamic changes occur in any substance(atoms
> > also) on variations in its potential energy?
>
> There is more than one type of potential energy. There is
> gravitational potential energy, chemical potential energy,
> electrostatic potential energy, etc. You can't throw all these
> "potential energies" into one melting pot.
> Most of the time, what we call "potential energy" is energy
> that is contained in a "force field" rather than in "matter". For
> instance, the energy in a capacitor is contained by the electric field
> between the plates, not the electrons in the plates. The potential
> energy in an inductor is contained in the magnetic field inside the
> coils, not the electrons in the wire. Chemical potential energy is
> contained by a chemical potential field, which actually has both
> electromagnetic and exchange force components. They all have to be
> added separately in the total balance of energy. One doesn't directly
> affect the other. There are interactions, but not in the way you are
> talking about.
Does it mean that mass which is also a consolidation of energy & can
be converted into energy do not come under the preview of potential
energy? Do you mean that PE is something which is in energy form not
in matter/mass form?
> The concept of temperature was originally tied up with the idea of
> a "temperature force field." The "internal energy" of an object is an
> analog to potential energy. The entropy of the object, sometimes
> called the caloric, was considered a type of fluid. The "temperature
> gradient" was actually the analog to a force field. Originally, Carnot
> thought of the working of a steam engine as being like the working of
> a water mill. The major difference, where the analogy completely
Wecome & thanks.
Do you meant PE is represented by permanent or stable temp. of a
substance which can be generated by internal energy which is in
motion?
> breaks down, is that entropy can be made in an irreversible process.
> In any case, you can't a priori assume that one form of potential
> energy (including internal energy!) automatically affects a substance
> the same way as other forms of potential energy. To see how these
> different forms of energy interact, you need an equation of state
Can diffrent type of PE be commonly related to the variations in heat
(temp.) & motions of a substance?
.>Increase or decrease in
> > applied Gravitational force on any substance should change that
> > substance in some manner.
>
> This is what I mean. Gravitational potential energy doesn't
> change the chemical nature of a material. You are thinking of chemical
> potential energy.
> If someone jumps off a cliff, the change in gravitational
> potential energy won't change the chemicals in his body. When he hits
> the ground, he will change the amount of elastic energy in the bones
> of his body. This still won't change his chemistry very much. When his
> bones break and his organs rupture, there will be an increase of
> entropy in his body. This will change his chemistry immensely. He will
> be dead.
Chemical changes is anoher thing. Here, I am trying to understand
measurable variations in heat(temp.) & motions?
Can we consider temp. of a substance, esp. persistant, is relevant to
PE whereas its radiated heat to KE?
Kumar
This was a confusion to me also. Whether field is not dependant on
electrons & matter?
Kumar
<colin.wattersNOS...@TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote:
> "Kumar" <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Will you tell more about it?
Darwin123
the one that separated the "electric field" from the "electric
current." Before him, people called it "electricity" and didn't
distinguish between them.
I will use as an example electromagnetic energy. An electron is
usually thought of as "matter." If it moves, it has kinetic energy
[KE=0.5mv^2]. However, the electron is not the electric field or the
magnetic field.
However, attached to the electron is the electric field. The
electric field lines are conventionally shown with arrows moving into
the negative charge (here the electrons). They extend outside of the
electron. They push and pull other particles of "matter" outside the
electron. If the electron moves, it has magnetic field lines arranged
in circles around it. The magnetic field lines don't touch the
electron at all.
If the electron oscillates, electromagnetic waves travel down the
field lines. These waves act independently of the electron that
generated them. You could say in the case of the light (radio, xray,
gamma ray) that it consists of oscillating electric fields and
magnetic fields that act independently of electrons.
This is why physicists in all their calculations distinguish
between "currrents" and "fields." The currents represent the motion of
what is called "matter" and the fields represent the direction of the
"fields."
The concepts of current and field can't be completely separated,
of course. I think Lorentz was the first to show that the "mass" of an
electrically charged particle was partl contained in its "field." The
same way, the concepts of "matter" and "energy" can't really be
separated.
However, when looking at simple phenomena it is really useful to
make the distinction. When designing a water mill, one is usually
better off separating the "kinetic energy" of the "water particles"
from the potential energy of "the gravitational field."
One way to look at the potential energy is as something contained
in the field. When the water falls a distance, its gravitational field
cancels out part of the gravitational field of the earth that is
pulling it. This disappearance of the gravitational field can be said
to be the source of the kinetic energy that the water gains while
falling.
I used to get confused in problems when I thought of the
potential energy as being contained in the falling object itself. It
helps me keep things straight to think of the potential energy as
being contained in the field. The PE may be said to belong to the
particle falling, but the PE is located in the field. So to me, the
field is like a bank. It contains the energy that properly belongs to
the particles. I throw this picture away when I get to the really
advanced problems, however |:-)
Darwin123
> On Dec 15, 2:39 am, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 12, 11:15 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote:> Hello,
>
> Do you meant PE is represented by permanent or stable temp. of a
> substance which can be generated by internal energy which is in
> motion?
How many ways can I say no before you understand me?
Kumar
Sorry, although you tried but it is bit difficult fore me. Let us take
three thinhs. One is matter, 2nd permanent motions in a substance, 3rd
current motions due to applied forcs. As matter has potential to be
converted into energy. Permanent motions in a substance(eg in atoms)
(i don't know it is potential or KE), current motions should be KE.
Now pls tell accordingly.
Kumar
Sorry, Whether confriguration changes don't cause changes in an atom?
Darwin123
Sorry. I don't understand your question at all. I tried to
understand, but I can't.
Kumar
PE is related as a result of change in position &
confriguration.Whether Such change in confriguration don't cause
changes in relevant atoms? Eg. on chemical bonding, some changes occur
in atoms.
Autymn D. C.
> > > The field /is/ where elèctròns or other matter are.
>
> > This was a confusion to me also. Whether field is not dependant on
> > electrons & matter?
>
> The concept of "field" goes back to Faraday in the 1850's. He was
> the one that separated the "electric field" from the "electric
> current." Before him, people called it "electricity" and didn't
> distinguish between them.
and of flux and effluvium?
> I will use as an example electromagnetic energy. An electron is
> usually thought of as "matter." If it moves, it has kinetic energy
When is it not?
> [KE=0.5mv^2]. However, the electron is not the electric field or the
> magnetic field.
No, but it's at the field.
> However, attached to the electron is the electric field. The
> electric field lines are conventionally shown with arrows moving into
> the negative charge (here the electrons). They extend outside of the
> electron. They push and pull other particles of "matter" outside the
> electron. If the electron moves, it has magnetic field lines arranged
> in circles around it. The magnetic field lines don't touch the
> electron at all.
Your model is classic, popular, and wrong. There is no outside of the
elèctròn other than outside of its univers. The [free] elèctròn has a
inner size (classic elèctròn radius) and outter size (causal horizon
radius); its field and body are coincident: http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+-autumn+sun+bird.
> If the electron oscillates, electromagnetic waves travel down the
> field lines. These waves act independently of the electron that
> generated them. You could say in the case of the light (radio, xray,
> gamma ray) that it consists of oscillating electric fields and
> magnetic fields that act independently of electrons.
ocsýmòròn. Well, there's a far-field and near-field, and hýsteresis.
> This is why physicists in all their calculations distinguish
> between "currrents" and "fields." The currents represent the motion of
> what is called "matter" and the fields represent the direction of the
> "fields."
matter (- field; 's`(matter) = <'field'>
> I used to get confused in problems when I thought of the
> potential energy as being contained in the falling object itself. It
> helps me keep things straight to think of the potential energy as
> being contained in the field. The PE may be said to belong to the
> particle falling, but the PE is located in the field. So to me, the
> field is like a bank. It contains the energy that properly belongs to
> the particles. I throw this picture away when I get to the really
> advanced problems, however |:-)
yawn
-Aut
Autymn D. C.
Upon a bond, PE lowers, enthalpy lowers, and entropy rises.
Kumar
>
> - Show quoted text -
Pls tell me more about enthalpy lowers & entrophy rises? Is there any
change at global/unversal level due to any bond?
Darwin123
> On Dec 22, 10:58 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 21, 8:04 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 21, 12:54 am, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 18, 9:44 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 18, 7:45 am, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Dec 14, 9:53 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Dec 15, 2:39 am, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Dec 12, 11:15 pm, Kumar <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote:> Hello,
> Pls tell me more about enthalpy lowers & entrophy rises? Is there any
> change at global/unversal level due to any bond?
The global/universal level of what?
This is one of the problems understanding your question. You have
a jargon that may come from another subject which the rest of us
don't understand.
Kumar
>
> - Show quoted text -
On any change in local temp. whether some changes also occur in
thermodynamic equilibrium of universe?
Darwin123
In thermodynamics, the metric for thermodynamic equilibrium is the
amount of entropy. The conventional theory is that the global entropy
has to increase, it can never decrease. The conventional theory says
that it will increase until it can't increase anymore.
However, the local entropy density can decrease. This is a
confusion some nonscientists have. A particular reaction can decrease
the entropy density in a confined region of space. However, when adds
up all the entropy in a closed system, the entropy must decrease.
An example would be when a plant grows. The entropy density in
the volume of the plant decreases as it grows. However, the total
entropy increases due to the growth of the plant.
It is as though the plant is pumping entropy into its
surroundings. It's chemical reactions suck out the entropy in the
material that makes the plant, and spreads it around. In addition, the
chemical processes of the plant manufacture lots and lots of entropy.
Same thing as the organism grows, reproduces, and evolves.
Same thing for a refrigorator. The chamical and physical processes
in the refrigorator lower the entropy density inside the refrigerator.
Entropy is sucked out of the refrigerator. That is why ice forms in
the ice trays of the refrigorater. However, the refrigerator doesn't
reduce the global entropy. It creates even more. A refrigorater
actually heats the surrounding area.
Kumar
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks. I think global warming is a similar example.
entrophy is defined as; "randomness, entropy, S ((thermodynamics) a
thermodynamic quantity representing the amount of energy in a system
that is no longer available for doing mechanical work) "entropy
increases as matter and energy in the universe degrade to an ultimate
state of inert uniformity"
What does it mean by matter and energy degrade to an ultimate state of
inert unfiformity? What is inert uniformity & how energy can degrade?
Autymn D. C.
> On Dec 23, 11:10 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On any change in local temp. whether some changes also occur in
> > thermodynamic equilibrium of universe?
> However, the local entropy density can decrease. This is a
> confusion some nonscientists have. A particular reaction can decrease
> the entropy density in a confined region of space. However, when adds
> up all the entropy in a closed system, the entropy must decrease.
Thermodýnamics say otherwise--entropy lowers in a open sýstem--but
screw arbitrary frames. Elèctronics still believe holes drive
currend.
> An example would be when a plant grows. The entropy density in
> the volume of the plant decreases as it grows. However, the total
> entropy increases due to the growth of the plant.
Ayye, in growth many other molecula are implicate as intermediate
states and blow up the population as they were in the ground and loft
when the seed and sun weren't there.
-Aut
Edward Green
> On Dec 13, 8:00 pm, "Cwatters"
>
>
>
>
>
> <colin.wattersNOS...@TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote:
> > "Kumar" <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
> > > Hello,
>
> > > Simply I want to know;-
>
> > > Whether measurable thermodynamic changes occur in any substance(atoms
> > > applied Gravitational force on any substance should change that
> > > substance in some manner.
>
>
> > Yes - take a look at how the sun works.
>
> > It's own gravitational pull is enough to cause high pressures and
> > temperatures at the center - enough to cause the fusion of hydrogen atoms.
>
> Thanks. If we put a ball high on hill. Will it get change in
> gravitational force & will it change its thermodynamics
It will if you include gravitational time dilation under
"thermodynamic properties"! Otherwise, no (in a uniform gravitational
field -- tidal stresses and local changes in g change the answer
somewhat).
Darwin123
> On Dec 23, 2:31 pm, Darwin123 <drosen0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 23, 11:10 am, Kumar <lordshiva5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On any change in local temp. whether some changes also occur in
> > > thermodynamic equilibrium of universe?
> > However, the local entropy density can decrease. This is a
> > confusion some nonscientists have. A particular reaction can decrease
> > the entropy density in a confined region of space. However, when adds
> > up all the entropy in a closed system, the entropy must decrease.
>
> Thermodýnamics say otherwise--entropy lowers in a open sýstem--but
> screw arbitrary frames. Elèctronics still believe holes drive
> currend.
The total entropy must increase. However, the entropy density can
decrease.
I was trying to make a point about the difference between entropy
and entropy density. I made a big blunder when I said the entropy must
decrease.
I will punish myself by repeating the correct statement.
The entropy must increase.
The entropy must increase.
Entropy increase must the,
.....
>
> > An example would be when a plant grows. The entropy density in
> > the volume of the plant decreases as it grows. However, the total
> > entropy increases due to the growth of the plant.
look that way, when one looks only at the plant. However, the plant is
a region with a small entropy density.
Most of the entropy created by the plant has been pushed into the
environment surrounding the plant. The entropy density of the plant is
small. So there has been a local decrease in entropy density.