Talk:Heat capacity/Archive 2

message: There is a nice animation with this caption...
'Heat energy stored in these motions does not contribute to the temperature of a substance.'
This is misleading and misguided. 
An improvement would be: 'as the temperature of a substance increases, 
the magnitude of motions like these increases'. 
Or
'
When a body gets hotter, the heat energy supplied is going into motions like these.
'
Or
'
When a body's temperature is increased,  the heat energy supplied is going into motions like these.
'
Djcmackay 11:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Awful caption needs changing

message: I don't see the reason for having a separate page called Heat_Capacity.
The material here should be merged over.
Djcmackay 21:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with Heat_Capacity?

message: The history prior to 7 July 2006 has been deleted because this article has been completely revised since then.   Greg L 17:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Major Revision

message: Hello,
I noticed two problems with specific heat capacity of the substances. 
Specific heat capacity varies based on temperature and phase. I reccomend setting the temperature to 298.15 kelvin because it seems the most popular in text books and manuals.
Please recalculate these values because what is currently shown is simply wrong!
: The above comment wasn't signed (four "~" tildes) but a check of the history shows it was from Frozenport on 7 July 2006.  I found this article quite wanting and have been revising it since 8 July 2006. One of the things I cleaned up was the table.  I double checked each and every one of the specific heat values, deleted a couple that I couldn't confirm, added a few I thought were noteworthy, and added a column for molar heat capacity (Cp).  It doesn't mean it's perfect and is completely free from errors; please advise if you find some.  Note that a thermodynamic temperature of 298.15 K is precisely equal to 25 °C (which is the most common point at which to measure the physical properties of substances).  Greg L 17:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check Specific Heat Capacity of Substances! 

message: The modern SI units for measuring specific heat capacity are either the Joule per gram per kelvin (J g–1 K–1) or the Joule per mole per kelvin (J mol–1 K–1). The various SI prefixes can create variations of these units (such as kJ kg–1 K–1 and kJ mol–1 K–1). Other units of measure are often employed in the measure of specific heat capacity. These include calories and BTUs for energy, pounds-mass for quantity, and degree Fahrenheit (°F) for the increment of temperature.
Can anybody tell me about the SI units above? I am doubtful because as far as I know, the SI unit for the mass is kilogram (kg).
Thanks for everybody help. Yves Revi 22:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SI units 

message: Should: 
six degrees of freedom comprising translational motion
read 
three degrees of freedom comprising translational motion?
Pmilne 13:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Degrees of freedom in translational motion 

message: my book says that the specific heat of water is 4190, why is it differnt on wiki
Check the units in your book against the units on the table.  The specific heat for water is around 4.19 Joules per gram per Celsius degree, but if you list it in Joules per kilogram per Celsius degree the value would be 1000 times greater - that is, 4190.  (You'd also get 4190 if you listed the heat in kiloJoules per cubic meter per Celsius degree, although that equivalence only works for materials with a specific density of 1.)  Jasonfahy 21:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The specific heat of water depends on the temperature of the water (see Calorie). JIMp talk·cont 17:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  So does the specific heat of any substance! SBHarris 22:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. JIMp talk·cont 09:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  but my book says.. 

message: I have corrected want to point out a serious misinterpretation of the heat capacity of water vapor. Water molecules do not have "a maxiumu of six degrees of freedom", they have nine, 3 each for translation, rotation, and vibration.The vibrational d.f. are mostly "frozen out" at T=100C, so the zero-order estimate for Cv is (3/2 R) for translation + (3/2 R) for rotation =  3R. For an ideal gas Cp =Cv + R, so  you expect
Cp approximately equal to 4R, ie. 33.26 J/mol K. This is slighly less than the value in the table, 37.47,
just what one expects since the bending vibration is fairly low frequency and is therefore not
completely frozen out. The fact that the final answer is close to twice that of a monatomic gas
is a numerical coincidence - if the vibrational contribution were completely frozen, one would expect
the ratio of the two Cp's to be (4R)/(2.5R) = 8/5 = 1.6 . 
I also have never heard of this "alternative convention", described in footnote 2, according to which a
degree of freedom is counted in each direction. Unless someone comes up with a reference for this, I'm
going to get rid of it.--Rparson 22:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I don't where the 6 vs. 12 degrees of freedom for water came from in this footnote. The atoms in a 3-atom molecule have a total of 3 x 3 = 9 ways to move in space with no bond constraints. Add bonds which are not frozen, and heat capacity goes up because you store 2 times as much per bond as in translation, due to the potential contribution. Without vibration you get (as you note) 3/2 + 3/2 = 3R/mole for translation and rotation of the molecule. Nevermind the Cp which is a red herring-- that's the Cv for no vibration: just R per atom for water. If you add the 9-6 = 3 vibrational modes, with R for each, you get 6R/mole = 2R per atom. Still not up to the max of 3R per atom of solids, but you expect to lose heat capacity simply because free water molecules in a gas have lost a bunch of ways to put energy into potential energy of vibration, due to all those missing bonds between molecules. The bigger the molecules you have in a gas with all vibrational modes excited, the closer Cv gets to 3R per atom. But of course Cv per mole goes up and up, the larger the molecules get. That's not a fair way to look at heat capacity, of course. SBHarris 03:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Water vapor 

message: 'The standard pressure was once virtually always “one standard atmosphere”...' What in God's name is this supposed to mean?Edison 21:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, air pressure is not the same everyplace, even at sea level. It goes up and down with weather and temperature and so on. So a "standard atmosphere" was picked as a standard condition for STP to measure things at. Do you need the exact number? There's a whole wiki on it at Atmosphere (unit). It might help if you'd refine your question. SBHarris 21:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What does this mean?

message: the article indicates that the specific heat of water is in the unit joules per kelvin per kilogram- yet the chart indicates that the specific heat of water is in joules per kelvin per gram. Which is correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.8.123.248 (talk) 03:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both are correct. Water is 4184 J/K/kg (as stated in the opening para) or 4.184 J/K/g (as stated in the table). You have your choice of mass units and it affects the value of the number.SBHarris 04:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ? What is with the deviation? 

message: Spiel496: Regarding this edit you made, I don’t understand why we are interpreting the meaning differently as I see you are a physicist. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems like simple reading. Note what Physlink’s Glossary says about the term. Search on the following text string to go to the relevant section: “Specific. In physics and chemistry”. PhysLink defines “specific” as follows:
Also, it seems that the opening definition in Intensive and extensive properties is clear as glass. It says
Clearly, measuring two grams of water produces a different value for the amount of heat energy required than does measuring just one gram.
The same Wikipedia article goes on to describe intensive measures. It says…
 (my emphasis).
An example of an intensive property would be viscosity, the value of its measure is independent of sample size until you get down to microscopic amounts.
Why do you think specific heat capacity is an intensive measurement? Greg L (my talk) 00:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've carefully read the "intensive/extensive" business some more and believe you are right. I see that if you divide an extensive property by another extensive property, one gets an intensive property. Allow me to rewrite the article accordingly. My humble appologies. Greg L (my talk) 00:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Again, you were (very) right. And you even had the grace and patience to say "prove it" and slap the "citation needed" tag. I corrected it per your teachings but downplayed the intensive/extensive stuff. Any more than what's there now starts looking like a treatise that better belongs in the Intensive and extensive properties article. Greg L (my talk) 00:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, Greg L edits so fast, both sides of the conversation have been carried out in my absence.  I guess I have nothing else to add, but to say that I like the way the article reads. Thanks for all the work you've put in the past few days. Spiel496 03:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You’re welcome. I appreciate the attaboy. Greg L (my talk) 04:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Extensive measure vs. Intensive measure

message: The following text had incorrectly been in the Specific heat capacity article for 229 days:
The above text had been added, even though the following chart (and related text) had been in the article for months prior:
                    	Under constantpressure	At constantvolume
Unit quantity = mole	Cp  or  CpH           	Cv  or  CvH
Unit quantity = mass	cp  or  Cph           	cv  or  Cvh
Please note that in the above chart, Cv and cv denote that a measurement was a constant-volume measurement of either a specific-mass or specific-molar quantity, not a “specific-volume” quantity. The alternative to a constant-volume measurement is a constant-pressure one (either Cp and cp). Accordingly, the following editors note () was added to the “Unit quantity” section:
Greg L (my talk) 19:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's a big difference between saying you disagree with some notation or that you haven't ever encountered it personally, and claiming it is incorrect. See Incropera and Dewitt, a standard engineering heat-transfer text, for multiple instances of volume-specific heat capacities for solids and liquids (C/V where V is volume) being given the subscript v (as in cv), as opposed to mass-specific quantities, which are given a subscript m. You could as easily have simply kept the data and added the notation that "Some idiot engineers do this, and Greg L. doesn't like it." Science isn't always nice and consistant, and notation is still not standard across all fields. FYI, there are instances where volume-specific heat capacities are actually an easier value to work with. An example is digitally-simulated weather calculations, where volume-parcels of air are the gridded variables, and all one cares about is the property of each parcel, even if its mass changes from moment to moment. IOW, whatever the column of air above any section of land contains, or what its temperature variations with altitude are, at least one can say by definition that it always has the same volume. SBHarris 18:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Volume-specific measurement

message: As Greg L continues his editing rampage (in a good way) I'm curious to know his opinion, and anyone else's, on merging this article with heat capacity.  It was brought up earlier on this page, but not discussed.  All the interesting stuff in this article would be just as relevant in the heat capacity article or vice-versa.  The only thing that distinguishes the two topics is the fact that "heat capacity is proportional to the amount of material".  That statement is not interesting enough to warrant a second article. Spiel496 01:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh. I hate to think about it. I didn't know heat capacity was a separate article and was really surprised to learn that C is the symbol used for molar-based specific heat capacity as well as plain ol’ heat capacity (without the “specific”). Science seems to have several logical lapses—check out the naming convention for many chemicals. The heat capacity article is clearly more technically complex and is directed to a different type of reader. I think that would make merging damn difficult. I also don't quite understand why there would even be a separate article on heat capacity; If someone wanted to calculate the heat capacity of a swimming pool, they must first start with specific heat capacity to find out how much energy is required for a kilogram (liter), and work from there. And no one gives a damn about carefully performing a constant-pressure measurement on a swimming pool; they’re pretty much “by-gosh, by-golly” estimates subject to relatively great uncertainty. To this extent, the subject the article covers seems less scientific to me even though the article itself is geared to a more technical audience. That's my two-cents anyway. Greg L (my talk) 08:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Update: Well, now I’ve done it. What is it that’s the sincerest form of flattery? As you will see, I folded pretty much all of the contents of Heat capacity into Specific heat capacity. At the same time, I fixed a number of errors and misleading advise in Heat capacity. Why incorporate one into the other? The two articles seemed extraordinarily redundant to me. If what I’ve done is a major Wikipedia faux pas, feel free to revert it. However, since nothing on Wikipedia is copyrighted, and since I didn’t delete the heat capacity article, I didn’t see the harm. I guess I’ll find out soon enough, won’t I? Greg L (my talk) 23:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I have no experience with the formalities of a merge, but  I put merge templates on both pages.  The next logical step would be to remove the heat capacity article. Spiel496 05:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks BenB4.  Greg L (my talk) 01:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?

message: The two tables of specific heat capacities look very out of place, right in the middle of the article. You're talking physical theory and nomenclature one minute and then all of a sudden it switches to building materials? (Seriously. WTF? Didn't have the time to figure out who added the latter list from the history.) Even the first table could do with some explanation of why it's placed there.
There's another list under Orders of magnitude (specific heat capacity), which has different substances listed. Might it be an idea to move/merge these two there instead? (And provide a short paragraph linking to said article.) —Liyang 02:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tables of Specific Heat Capacities 

message: Was Joseph Black a physician or a physicist? Bewp 13:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joseph Black 

message: Ok there is something I don't get about rotation of diatomic gas on the z axis (rotation around the axis of the molecule)
if the wave function is cylindrical (which is true I suppose -but i am not sure- for diatomic gases such as H2), then there is no rotation possible.I mean that if the molecule has perfect indiscernibility through rotation on itself, you cannot talk about rotation. The rotation is not frozen out, it is not a rotation at all since you get the same object when you rotate it. When user says "Electrons in any atom can gain angular momentum, so options to rotate more are frozen out but never absent)", what is meant by "electron gain angular momentum" ?
By the way would not it be the same problem for monoatomic gaz? if the "electrons can always gain angular momentum", then we could say that the sphere (monoatomic gaz) can turn on itself and you should consider 3 degrees of freedom of rotation for monoatomic gaz which I have never heard of (of course they would be frozen as well I know that, I just want to know what happens theoretically if you could go at whatever temperature you wanted...).
Now I know that in most molecules, there will be P-orbitals that are not invariant through rotation. But what if there is only S-orbital that are available? Is that impossible?
:Basically, molecules have much lower energy gaps between rotational energy levels based on nuclei changing angular momenta WRT each other (rotation on other than the interatomic axis). Electrons can rotate faster in a bond, but must be promoted into a higher energy (exited state) to do it. Generally these states involve a change in bond electron angular momentum (with respect to the bond axis). The free electron in one antibonding orbital of nitric oxide gives the gas come extra heat capacity at room temp by moving to an excited orbital with more angular momentum and energy. Of course it's the energy that's important-- angular momentum change isn't necessary unless you want to couple to photon absorption. Helium at high temps would have increased heat capacity from electrons jumping from 1s to 2s orbitals-- no change in angular momentum but yes in energy. Of course 1s to 2p involves a change in L.  Basically all this is why monatomic gases show no signs of "rotating". What would rotate? The individual electrons either have angular momentum or not, and changing it for each one comes with an energy price. You can't rotate the singe monatomic gas "atom" without making it equivalent to electrons increasing angular momentum, and that's already fixed. SBHarris 10:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When you reason in terms of energy, You may consider the different energy levels accessible to the molecule (computed via the hamiltonian of the system), and you will see that there are levels of energy with non-zero angular momentum. And a rotation will correspond to a transition between a state of zero angular momentum and a non-zero one.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.128.252.209 (talk) 08:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Angular momentum about what axis? If it's the axis that connects 2 nuclei, what is it that is rotating? For other axes, this is rotational degrees of freedom are discussed in the article. SBHarris 02:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rotation of diatomic gas 

message: What makes certain "minima" and "maxima" "notable"? at first, i thought these might be the highest and lowest heat capacities in the table, but this is not the case.  and are the bold numbers "notable" as well? in what way? The answers to these questions should be included with the table. in its current state, the colors and bold numbers are just confusing.--Jmjanzen (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of specific heat capacities 

message: How come there's no mention of how the specific heat is related to the partition function?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.216.146.141 (talk) 13:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll get there. That's a fairly complicated topic. SBHarris 02:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specific heat and the partition function 

message: I just moved this section down below monatomic and diatomic gases, and gave a linear polyatomic example for N2O. It many not be enough but it's a start. I think this fleshes out the gas part somewhat better. The sections treating actual heat capacity for molecules n >3 perhaps deserves more separaton from the discussion of quantum freezing out of modes. SBHarris 02:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polyatomic gases 

message: I'm going to change the representation of the coherent derived units in this article to division (using solidus) versus negative exponents. SI allows either to be used, but Wikipedia (which doesn't require SI anyway) specifies to use the most understood form when writing to a general audience. Since a person generally learns the mathmatical concept of division prior to learning exponentals (and certainly prior to learning negative exponentals), more people in the general audience of this article will understand unit representation via division. 66.19.201.92 (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coherent derived unit representation (division vs. negative exponent) 

message: The specific heat capacity of diatomic gases should be 7/2 R, but since the vibrational mode is frozen out most are less than 5/2 R.  Presumably this is becasue the rotational modes are partly frozen out, but this is not explained. What puzzles me is why Br has a specific heat greater than 7/2 R. Could someone explain that? A B McDonald (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bromine 

message: The article says the specific heat of water is 4186 Joules per kilogram, but cites a website which may not be reliable. A more reliable one, such as wolfram alpha which has all its data checked by real scientists, says it is 4.18 Joules per gram, and if it were 4186J/kg surely wolfram would have written it as 4.19J/g?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RLakshan (talk • contribs) 09:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specific heat of water is incorrect, but correct me if I am wrong... 

message: Under: Symbols and standards
Water (liquid): cp = 6.1855 J/(g·K) (25 °C), and… ...
Table of specific heat capacities:
Water at 25 °C liquid Cp = 4.1813 J/(g·K)
The 2 figs in italics refer to the same constant, however they differ on the same page.
I think the error is in the former, the latter being the correct figure.
Tks
 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.177.137 (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.177.137 (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was just some vandalism that hadn't been caught -- fixed.  Thanks for noticing.  Spiel496 (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  error value in "Symbols and standards" 

message: The terminology here is inconsistent both internally and with usage "in the wild", where there is also inconsistency.  In particular, use of the term "specific heat" appears to predate the use of "specific heat capacity" as used in this article.  I have two college physics textbooks by Robert Resnick and David Halliday, (Resnick, R. and Halliday, D.; _Physics, Part I_; 1966) & (Halliday, D. and Resnick, R.; _Fundamentals of Physics_, 1970) that define specific heat as "heat capacity per unit mass".  Earlier college physics textbooks (I have Hausmann and Slack, _Physics_ (2nd ed.); 1939) and (Spinney, L. B; _A Text-Book of Physics_ (3rd ed.); 1925) that both define "specific heat" of a material as the ratio of the heat requried to raise the temperature of the material by one degree to the heat required to raise the temperature of water by one degree.  A starting water temperature of 15°C is implied.  Dictionary definitions, plus my 1975-76 CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics agree with this definition of "specific heat" as a unitless ratio.
To further complicate things, the CRC handbook agrees with Hausmann & Slack in defining "thermal capacity" to mean what this article calls "specific heat capacity", while the older Spinney book uses the same term "thermal capacity" to mean what Resnick, Halliday and this article refer to as "heat capacity"--a property of an object, not a material.
Reading this article, there are regular references to "specific heat" in the Resnick/Halliday sense of dQ/(m dT) or "heat capacity per unit mass".  The Wikipedia article on Calorimetry uses "specific heat" to mean the same thing. Eric Weisstein's "World of Physics" (hosted by Wolfram Research at http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecificHeat.html) also lists specific heat as the primary term, noting that it is "also called specific heat capacity".
Maybe these modern writers are shortening the longer "specific heat capacity" term, but it seems unlikely that Resnick and Halliday were.  It seems to me that some citation is needed here.  When did the terms "specific heat capacity" and "heat capacity" become *the* terms in the senses used here, and by what authority.
Husoski (talk) 06:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I take specific heat to be synonymous with specific heat capacity, with dimensions of J/(kg*K) or J/(mol*K) or J/(cm^3*K) depending on the application.  Some texts define it as a dimensionless quantity, which is a confusing convention that Wikipedia should avoid (in my opinion). Does there need to be an authority on the convention chosen?  As long as the article is self-consistent, we're OK.  Is it inconsistent somewhere?  (I did remove the bit about "specific heat" being the incorrect term.)  Spiel496 (talk) 06:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The term "specific" means in general that you're dividing by some unit which EITHER makes the property "intensive" (not dependent on quantity of material); OR which makes it BOTH intensive AND dimensionless, because you're comparing it with a known reference substance. Example of the first is volume-specific, mole-specific, and mass-specific heat capacities, which all arise by dividing total heat capacity of a material by its volume, or molar content (assuming it's a pure substance), or its mass. This results in something with a new unit (obviously).  The older way of using the word specific is as a clue that something was being compared to some standard, like water, by further comparing the previous number to the corresponding one for water. And thus, you obtain a "water-specific heat capacity," which is dimensionless. The number 0.5 simply means it has 50% of the corresponding figure for water, but to get the units you have to see what they used for the water.  This is confusing because sometimes the WORD "water" is left off, so you have to know the reference to water is implied, if no units are given. The same thing happens with "specific gravity": it's really "water-specific gravity," and it's unitless. Something with a "specific gravity" of 9, that means it has 9 times the density of water, but no units are given unless you use the units you meansured density in, with water (mass per volume). Acceleration is sometimes measured in units of g's, and then it's "g-specific" acceleration and you have to know the units of a standard g. The older use of "specific" as comparing to some standard other than one involving an SI unit, is dying away. Nowadays, "specific" almost always means you divide by a new SI unit which relates, directly of indirectly, to amount of material. Water comparisons are out. Oh, yeah, sometimes even then they use the word specific, and don't tell you WHAT is the unit being used for the comparison. They say specific and mean "mass-specific." Since you might think volume or mole-specific, that's bad form. SBHarris 08:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Thermal Capacity" and "Specific Heat" 

message: The given value is erroneous. I think it is the value in cal/g/K and I proposed a value of 1700 J/kg/K. It is not a precise value, being subject of variation with different types of wood and with humidity. I do the same correction in the french wiki page, with the same table translated from english page. A concluding remark for anybody who want to complete the talk : the german wiki page on the same talk is well documented.--Jean-Marc.Vignon (talk) 08:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specific heat capacity of wood is incorrect 

message: the compare for the climate change of sea water and air.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.115.155.131 (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: the problems of the global warming up, climate change.

message: The heat energy required to raise water’s temperature one kelvin per kg is given as 4186 Joules per kilogram in the first couple of sentences but in the table is listed as 4.1813 J/(g*K).  This is not consistant.  1 kg of water is not exactly equal to 1000 cm^3. Hcbonner (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specific heat discussion in first paragraph doesn't match table 

message: The article states that the specific heat capacity of water is 4186 J/kg (3rd line from the top).  This is wrong.  The specific heat capacity of water is a function of temperature, fitting closely the following equation:
	Cp water(liq) = -1.0545E-04(T^3) + 1.1554E-01(T^2) - 41.296T + 9018, where T = degrees K.
	The Cp decreases from a value of 4210 at 273.16 K to about 4178 at 308 K, then it goes back up to about 4219 at the bouling point (373.15 K).  Thus there are actually two temperatures where Cp = 4186.  
	There are many references giving the actual numbers for Cp of liquid water as a function of T.  Can somebody please edit the article to correct the error?Thermbal (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is "Specific heat capacity", not "Empirical formulas for the specific heat of water". Adding that kind of detail to the lead would accomplish nothing towards the explanation of heat capacity.  Spiel496 (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes. Beyond nothing that ALL specific heat capacities are T-dependent, we should simply specifify the temp at which water has a heat capacity which is approximately 1 kcal/kg, so that the conversion from 4186 joules to 1 kcal becomes obvious. That happens at 15 C. SBHarris 23:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specific heat capacity of liquid water 

message: Is there a link to how to calculate the specific heat capacity of alloys, such as brass or mixed materials such as humid air? This might be interesting especially for the construction and HVAC industry active in continental, maritime and tropical climates.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.82.143.78 (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alloys 

message: The note to editors claims that there is ambiguity about the unit quantity in specific heat? Where is that found? As far as I know, specific heat capacity (or anything specific to that matter) always refers to property/mass. For a unit quantity of mole, the name is molar.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander.mitsos (talk • contribs) 23:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The term "specific" simply means "divided by something". This, we have mass-specific, volume-specific, and mole-specific heat capacities. Often the "mass" is left out of "mass-specific" but we really should leave it in to avoid problems like yours. If you want a good example, consider specific gravity, which is density divided by the density of water. It's actually "water-specific density". But badly named. However, that's how it's derived, and that's where the word comes from. SBHarris 23:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you are misinformed and Alexander.mitsos is quite right in his remark. When a physical quantity is referred to a 'specific quantity' it is by convention an intensive property, referenced to some measure of amount of matter, either mass (primarily in physics) or amount of substance (primarily in chemistry). There are quantities that are related to volume, indeed, but this must always be clarified by the mark 'volume-specific' property. Kbrose (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused.  I don't see how Sbharris's paragraph contradicts anything Kbrose just said.  Sbharris doesn't deny that specific heat is an intensive property.  He just says volume-specific heat has different units than mass-specific heat.  Am I missing something?  Spiel496 (talk) 04:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, actually you're not missing much. However, in physics, the qualification of a property as 'specific' implies mass independence, and not just "division by something", as suggested. sbharris' comment was to contradict the original poster's comment (as shown by the lead in "no..."), and resulted in his edit of the article to be reverted. Kbrose (talk) 04:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Then this is just semantics.  To determine the specific heat of a substance, Sbharris is pointing out that you divide the measured heat capacity of a sample by the mass of that sample.  The result is a quantity that is independent of the amount of sample.  I assume you don't dispute that.  Now, regarding the units: The units of mass-specific heat are J/(kg*K).  The units mole-specific heat are J/(mol*K).  Is that right?  Spiel496 (talk) 05:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unit quantity discussion 

message: That some elementary quantum theory is necessary to calculate heat capacities, is an undergraduate textbook subject. For example, my own (dated-- 1966!) copy of W. Kauzmann's Kinetic Theory of Gases, has a full chapter on it. He not only treats the easy cases where the equipartition theory asigns the full R/2 heat capacity per degree of freedom in gases (with a guess as to which degrees will be fully excited and which fully frozen out) but also treats the harder cases in which either rotational or vibrational modes are only partly participating, so that heat capacities are intermediate. Example: chlorine has a Cv heat capacity of 2.5 R if no vibrational modes are exited, and 3.5 R if they all are. The observed value for 25 oC is 3.1 R in modern sources, (2.9 R in the heat capacity article, which needs changing; but 4.1 for Cp = 3.1 Cv in the clorine article)-- right in the middle of these two equipartitial values. The quantum theoretical value (from Kauzmann) assuming partial excited vibration is 3.1 R, which is better that his experimental data (which is 3.0 R). Evidentally, though, these things come out fairly well. I can give other examples in a table as Kauzmann does, and perhaps should.  Now, user:Kbrose has worked to remove all mention of quantum effects in the LEDE, saying (in the diff) "quantum theory is not used to predict thermodynamic systems, semiempirical methods are hardly successful." Rather than argue with somebody who does not know what he is talking about (this is not an expression of bad faith, it is a self-evident fact) I'm going to put the matter here and in some chem-group talk pages, and let you all tell him what I just did. Perhaps he'll listen to some of you. SBHarris 00:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your incivility of ground-less accusations is noted. Your user page states you are a physician, yet you do not use the scientific insight or language, that I found most physicians display, since they all have to take physical chemistry at some point. Most can discuss basic thermodynamics far more intelligently.  Debye theory was developed well before quantum mechanics was established, the uncertainty principal was not formulated until some 15 years or so later. I removed the false statement from the lede and reformulated the remainder of the paragraph in acceptable language. Kbrose (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Incivility accusations-- the last refuge of the wrong. Physician I am, but I also have a degree in chemistry and enough understanding of the history of physics that I can obviously teach you something there, also. Now hear this: "Quantum mechanics" did not burst upon the world full-blown with the idea of the uncertainty principle in 1927. From Planck's discovery of his constant in 1900, right up to Heisenburg's first full treatment of QM in 1925, the idea of the quantum of action was used to solve or at least give results for many previously intractable problems in mechanics. Abraham Pais in Inward Bound (recommended) calls this era, the "old quantum mechanics."  But it includes notable successes like mathematical solutions for the blackbody problem, the photoelectric effect, the hydrogen spectrum (and the K-alpha X-ray spectra of elements), the heat capacity problems we have noted, and an explanation of the Compton effect which proved the existence of photons to even the doubters. Don't dismiss it because it wasn't complete. When it worked, it worked better than what came before. As for my "scientific language," there's nothing wrong with it. If you don't understand that some thermal energy in solids is stored as potential energy of vibration, my understanding is superior to yours. I wrote large sections of the article we're discussing. Try reading it. SBHarris 01:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quantum theory and heat capacity 

message: In his zeal to make us all believe the fiction that "thermal energy" in solids is a total of kinetic energy, we have an editor who has added cites 4 and 5. Although WP:RS deprecates web and self-published sources, and encourages scholarship which is to say, "published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses," instead we get a commercial dot.com website run by http://www.ronkurtus.com "School for Champions". Last publication: Tricks for Good Grades: Strategies to Succeed in School. And let's hope Ms. Teacher doesn't know much quantum theory of heat capacity. 
For grins, I cannot resist giving some of what this website says about thermodynamics:
Thermal Energy is Total Kinetic Energy by Ron Kurtus (revised 22 March 2007): The thermal energy of an object consists of the total kinetic energy of all its atoms and molecules...The Kinetic Theory of Matter states that matter consists of atoms or molecules in random motion. Those moving particles can transfer their kinetic energy to other nearby particles. The total kinetic energy of all the particles in an object make up the thermal energy of that object. 
"The kinetic theory of matter"? Bet you never heard of it. That's because Kurtus just made it up. And if you can't figure out why he doesn't don't know better, there is a quote about this here series, asserting that he knows better than the texts: Heat is the movement of molecules. It is the sum of their kinetic energy. In many physics textbooks, they look at heat as some sort of substance and heat energy as something independent of kinetic energy. In our lessons, it is just another form of kinetic energy.
So, it doesn't matter if our lessons are wrong. They're our lessons, and we're sticking to them. :0
And finally a definition of thermal energy that includes the kinetic energy of electrons, protons and neutrons: This motion is the culmination of the constant little movements, wiggles, jiggles, and vibrations of those atoms and molecules that make up this human. In describing the capacity of all this atomic and molecular movement to do work, physicists refer to it as thermal energy. Remember, energy is defined as the capacity to do work. These constant wiggles, jiggles, and vibrations are called translational, rotational, and vibrational movements. If we move further down the scale, thermal energy is the culmination of the kinetic energy of the movement of the constituent parts of an atom (electrons,protons, and neutrons).. Bet you didn't know thermal energy included the movement of consituent neutrons in atoms. 
I've put a  template on this source. Rarely have I encountered a science "source" on the web that needed it so badly. SBHarris 08:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I didn't know most of the nonsense you claim, indeed. Thank goodness. Kbrose (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

text: He put them back and I took them out again. This is not a common term. It actually redirects to internal energy on WP, which of course does not only mean heat kinetic energy. For a web definition which says that "thermal energy" includes both kinetic and potential energies, see . I think we're going to have problems with User:kbrose SBHarris 00:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Kbrose, talk first then gain consensus then change. Your recent contentious edits to a couple of articles when there are editors saying "stop!" does not look good. Glider87 (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

text: * Ditto; what Glider87 said. To Kbrose: It is clear that you are editing against consensus. Please use this discussion venue to discuss your views and then make changes if there is a consensus to do so. Do not use this venue to explain your thermodynamic theories after you’ve ignored what others are trying to explain to you and you simply  to wade into the article and do what you please. The same goes for other thermodynamic-related articles here on Wikipedia. There appears to be a common thread to your edits that is fouling things up wherever you go. You might consider the possibility that if you go to Wikipedia’s many thermodynamic-related articles and wonder “how can everything be so screwed up across the board,” that there is another explanation for your observation. To that point, Headbomb, in his 04:51, 26 February post, above, made an insightful observation that would remedy this needless conflict if you took it to heart. Greg L (talk) 03:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now we're citing educational websites for children, as sources for physics 

message: Feynman's name has been misspelt in ref.6 (spelt as Feinman)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.56.7.137 (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  References