Talk:Fundamental thermodynamic relation

message: (added from Talk:Laws of thermodynamics)
We don't have an article on the  combined law of thermodynamics. Should it go here? -- Kjkolb 12:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is presently part of the Thermodynamic potentials article under "fundamental equations", but yes, it is in a way the most fundamental of the fundamental equations and should be mentioned here.  PAR 04:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Added to page per request (I've seen this version used as well).--Sadi Carnot 02:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combined law of thermodynamics 

message: I suggest we give a proper rigorous derivation starting from the microcanocal ensemble. Count Iblis (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrected some serious errors 

message: Most authors usually use dU for the infinitesimal of internal energy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.96.97 (talk) 09:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  dE? 

message: This article says that the second law of thermodynamics is dS = \delta Q/T, but this appears to be archaic and nonstandard nomenclature (according to the wiki page for the second law of thermodynamics, Clausius called this equation the "second fundamental theorem in the mechanical theory of heat", but all modern source I've ever seen, including Wikipedia, say that the second law of thermodynamics is \Delta S  ≥ 0 or equivalent.)76.120.154.6 (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it by bypassing this issue. The lead was also affected, I made the statemtns there a bit more rigorous. Count Iblis (talk) 14:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Better; but the article could be improved by giving references to reliable sources, other than someone's self-published lecture notes.  The stat mech derivation reminds me of Kittel and Kromer's presentation of pressure: is that the source? 76.120.154.6 (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is my own derivation. It is based on a derivation given in the book by F. Reif. But Reif's derivation (or, for that matter, any other derivation given in textbooks) cannot be copied here as it assumes that the reader has read the previous chapters of the book.  Count Iblis (talk) 11:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Might still be useful to reference Reif in one way or another then. I am quite happy I looked here and found these comments, they give me all the more motivation to read Reif's book.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.66.92.220 (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  obsolete terminology 

message: Shouldn't this article use k_{\mathrm B} and \operatorname{ln} for the fundamental definition of entropy and not k and \operatorname{log}? Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 11:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In the scientific literature and most university textbooks the natural logarithm is denoted by "\operatorname{log}". You can argue that k should be k_{\mathrm B}, but you can also argue that k is preferable because there is degree of freedom to define the temperature while by fixing k = k_{\mathrm B} you make a definite choice. E.g. the book by Reif choses k to be an arbitrary but dimensionless constant, so in that book k is not k_{\mathrm B}. This means that temperature and energy have the same dimensions in Reif's book. Count Iblis (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not use the natural logarithm?