**BARIC DERIVATIVES**

Still referring to systems for which , we introduce other two state functions which are also additive functions of mass, i.e.:

Reminding that, for the state we are considering, and , we obtain the following relationships between the different mappings introduced so far:

In many practical problems **we know the value of pressure instead of that of volume**. Hence, we would prefer to have p among the state variables in place of *V*. If we suppose that a function exists such that:

Then, by substituting this function into the constitutive mappings, we can generate new mapping functions which map the triplet *p, T* and *x* into the value of the function of state.

We discuss here in some details the issue of *invertibility*. Consider, as an example, the* p-V* plot for the liquid-vapor equilibrium for a pure substance (see figure below). Here, the internal state variable, *x*, is the vapour phase fraction. With reference to the figure, we have that the *equilibrium line* where* x = x**, is the line ‘0257′:

In the entire range of pressure *p14- p36* the function is ** not invertible** for the volume. In particular we have that:

- ‘
‘ – corresponds to x = 0 (liquid phase) with the ‘**0123**‘ line representing*23*(non equilibrium condensed phase).**superheated liquid** - ‘
‘ – is an hypothetical phase which cannot be realized; all the points on the curve correspond to**34**.**absolutely unstable conditions** - ‘
‘ – corresponds to**4567***x*= 1 (vapour phase) with the ‘45′ line and representing(non equilibrium condition).**undercooled vapour**

Even is not invertible from point 2 to point 5. However, the curves ‘0123′ (*x = 0*) and ‘4567′ (*x = 1*) have everywhere a finite derivative. We then conclude that, when *T* and *x* are fixed, is * locally invertible quite everywhere*. This implies that the inversion can be done, but complying to the constraints imposed by

If we consider all the changes in the state of the system for which the system is located along that part of the

From which we can get dV only if is finite.

If we then consider a generic change in state at *ρ* = const. (*dρ = 0*), in the regions of local invertibility, we can evaluate dV from eq. (2). As a consequence, for this change in s we have:

From the previous expression we can define the following* baric derivatives* (i.e. derivatives at constant

Where

From eq. (3a) we obtain (see note 4 at the end of the chapter 2 of the lecture notes):

We need finally to define only . In fact, at constant *T* and *x*, we have:

We still consider the case of systems for which the state is:

The state functions (constitutive functions) we consider are: *p, S, H, U, G* and* A*. We have that for a differential change in state, *dσ*:

*dA* is actually a differential since *p, S* and θ have finite values.

The invertibility assumption for the constitutive functions implies that, for the same differential change in state, the change of all the other functions of state are differential:

Equations (4) – (7) are called * Maxwell relations*. We underline here that we have used the following equalities:

In fact, as an example, from the definition of* baric derivatives*, we have:

While, from the definition of * entropic derivatives*, which will be illustrated later on, we have:

From the previous relationships we obtain several other relationships. For example:

a) in a direct way we obtain:

b) putting equal to zero two differentials on the right hand side of eqs. (5) and (6):

c) by differentiation and substitution:

d) by commutation of second derivatives:

Other useful relationships are the following:

where *C _{V}* and

Consequently:

We will show how, using procedures analogous to those adopted to obtain the expressions of baric derivatives, we can obtain expressions for * entropic derivatives*. In particular, we will obtain the expressions for:

We pass from a description of the state of the type , to a description of the same state of the type . If we consider a * process at constant S*, i.e.

Since, for a generic differential change in state we have:

For a differential change in state complying to the constraint that *dS = 0*, we obtain:

From this expression we easily derive the expression for * entropic derivatives* we were seeking for:

We can use these expressions, to demonstrate that (see note 5 at the end of chapter 2 of the notes):

and that, more in general:

We have already seen in lecture 7 that, under proper smoothness hypothesis, if , with x internal state variable, the equilibrium condition is:

We demonstrate now that, if we express the state as , the equilibrium condition is:

In fact, from the 2^{nd} law inequality:

Moreover:

Now, since we have demonstrated that from the 2^{nd} law inequality that:

we have:

And we can write

Substituting eqs. (9) into (8) we obtain:

That, using eqs. (10) becomes:

Inequality (11) implies that * U is minimum at x = x*, i.e. at equilibrium at constant Vand S.* Using a similar procedure analogous equilibrium conditions can be found for G and H.

We can then summarize the equilibrium conditions for an ‘internal’system whose state is identified, equivalently (invertibility hypothesis holds true) by , as follows:

**S is at a maximum for a closed and isolated system**

** A is at a minimum at constant V and T**

** G is at a minimum at constant p and T**

** U is at a minimum at constant V and S**

** H is at a minimum at constant p and S**

*1*. Body, state and constitutive behaviour

*3*. 1st and 2nd principles of thermodynamics. Integral and local forms. The concept of entropy

*4*. State and equilibrium. Part 1

*5*. State and equilibrium. Part 2

*6*. State and equilibrium. Part 3

*7*. State and equilibrium. Part 4

Progetto "Campus Virtuale" dell'Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, realizzato con il cofinanziamento dell'Unione europea. Asse V - Società dell'informazione - Obiettivo Operativo 5.1 e-Government ed e-Inclusion