Talk:Clausius equation of state: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Carl McBride (talk | contribs) m (Reply.) |
Carl McBride (talk | contribs) m (→a, b and c: new section) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
--Noe 19:53, 19 October 2009 (CEST) | --Noe 19:53, 19 October 2009 (CEST) | ||
:OK. I shall also keep an eye out for anything on this. All the best --[[User:Carl McBride | <b><FONT COLOR="#8B3A3A">Carl McBride</FONT></b>]] ([[User_talk:Carl_McBride |talk]]) 10:09, 20 October 2009 (CEST) | :OK. I shall also keep an eye out for anything on this. All the best --[[User:Carl McBride | <b><FONT COLOR="#8B3A3A">Carl McBride</FONT></b>]] ([[User_talk:Carl_McBride |talk]]) 10:09, 20 October 2009 (CEST) | ||
== a, b and c == | |||
It is worth pointing out that the experssions for a, b and c (Eq. 4) in the paper [http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie50663a005 K. K. Shah and G. Thodos "A Comparison of Equations of State", Industrial & Engineering Chemistry '''57''' pp. 30-37 (1965)] are muddled up. | |||
Latest revision as of 18:08, 20 November 2009
I think that an EOS like: is also known as Clausius equation of state. (?)
--Noe 11:54, 14 October 2009 (CEST)
- I am not sure. I do not have access to the original article, but Equation 2 in a (rather badly scanned) paper by J. Violle dated 1881 has a very similar form to the version here on SklogWiki. The best thing would be to find a paper copy of the original by Clausius. -- Carl McBride (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2009 (CEST)
--- Yes, I have also seen that paper, what I mean is that sometimes the same name is used for the e.o.s. quoted above. If I find some reliable source I will add that information on the page,
--Noe 19:53, 19 October 2009 (CEST)
- OK. I shall also keep an eye out for anything on this. All the best -- Carl McBride (talk) 10:09, 20 October 2009 (CEST)
a, b and c[edit]
It is worth pointing out that the experssions for a, b and c (Eq. 4) in the paper K. K. Shah and G. Thodos "A Comparison of Equations of State", Industrial & Engineering Chemistry 57 pp. 30-37 (1965) are muddled up.