By Kent W. Mayhew

The Differential Shuffle

Tradition starts off with the isothermal (dT=0), and isobaric (dP=0) relation, and equates it to
work:

TdS=dE+PdV eqn 1)

Where W is work done, dE is internal energy change, P is isobaric pressure, dV is volume change. T is isothermal temperature
and dS is entropy change

Based upon eqn 1, in terms of internal energy change (dE), we obtain:

dE=TdS-PdV eqn 2)

When transforming either eqn 1) or eqn 2), most texts will use the following relation:

PdV = d(PV)-VdP eqn
3)

A more precise analysis would write:

d(PV)=PdV+VdP+dPdV eqn 4)

For infinitesimal changes: dPdV<<<PdV and/or VdP, then changes as described in eqn 3) approximates changes as described
eqn 4). It must be said, that for some processes this may not be the case.

Continuing with the traditional: Combining eqn 2) with
eqn 3), gives:

dE=TdS-d(PV)+VdP eqn 5)

Again on might ponder what does eqn 5) mean because both dE and TdS obviously concern the system while the change to the mechanical parameters [d(PV)] traditionally wrongly concern system when in reality the work was done onto the surroundings. Okay perhaps two wrongs do make a right after all, at least in the sciences.

Collecting the terms, then eqn 5) can be rewritten:

d(E+PV)=TdS+VdP eqn
6)

Traditional thermodynamics defines “enthalpy” as:

H=E+PV eqn 7)

Again eqn 7) only has validity when H and E concern the system and the mechanical parameters concern the surroundings. Okay at this point all logic is lost and we shall. just do hammer based mathematics (rather than logic based).

Traditional thermodynamics
rewrites eqn 6), as the “enthalpy relation”:

dH=TdS+VdP eqn 8)

Again the enthalpy relation

Applying similar logic, traditional rewrites: TdS in the following manner:

TdS=d(TS)-SdT eqn 9)

Therefore, eqn 8) becomes:

dH=d(TS)-SdT+VdP eqn
10)

Which can be rewritten as:

d(E=TS)=-SdT+VdP eqn 11)

Define “Helmholtz free energy” as:

F=E-TS eqn
12)

Consequentially, eqn 11) can be rewritten as:

dF=-SdT-PdV eqn 13)

Helmholtz free energy change is for changes in temperature (*T*) and volume (*V*). In my book "New thermodynamics: Say no
to entropy" I do derive an equation that is similar to the Helmhotz free energy equation but is derived via logic rather than sledge
hammer based illogical differential based math. It is first accomplished in my chapter 9 and then again in chapter
14.

Again, traditional starts off with eqn 1):TdS=dE+PdV. Applying the transformations for *d*(*TS*) and *d*(*PV*), as given by eqn 3) and
eqn 9) respectively, gives:

dE=d(TS)-SdT-d(PV)+VdP eqn 14)

Eqn 14) can be rewritten as:

d(E-TS=PV)=-SdT+VdP eqn 15)

Define Gibbs free energy as:

G=E-TS+PV eqn
16)

By inserting eqn 16) into eqn 15), traditional thermodynamics obtains:

dG=-SdT+VdP eqn 17)

Changes to Gibbs free energy [eqn 17)] applies to processes that are both isometric (dV=0) and isentropic (dS=0?): Isentropic
really depends upon your interpretation of *S* (See my entropy blog)

In my book "New thermodynamics: Say no to entropy" I do derive an equation that is similar to Gibbs free energy equation but again it is derived via logic rather than sledge hammer based illogical differential based math. It is in my chapter on physical chemistry (Chapter 14).

Forget
the problematic logic: Even from a mathematical basis traditional thermodynamics is unique in its use of differentials! It starts
with a part: *PdV*, from which the whole: *d*(*PV*) is then subtracted, obtaining the other parts: *VdP*. Certainly logical dictates that
if one started off with the whole: *d*(*PV*), one could then deduce the parts: *PdV* & *VdP*!!!

The reason that eqn 1) is beheld
with such relevance is that it was equated to the lost work as deduced by 19^{th} century heat engines, e.g. Carnot cycle. The equating
of: W=TdS, was a mental progression to Clausius’s understanding that *ST* gives energy under the constraint of lost work. Of course
lost work meant that the Carnot engine could not return to its original state without an influx of energy, leading to Lord Kelvin’s
Second Law of Thermodynamics. It all would be so humorous if it were not for the fact that the second law and entropy, both took on
a demigod status, and the 150 yrs of indoctrination that has followed.

Due to the elevated status of
entropy in terms of isobaric isothermal work eqn 1) became the first equation in thermodynamics. Although lacking clarity entropy
(*S*) was construed so that its relation to both volume (*V*) and internal energy (

The net result being the indoctrination of the
cumbersome array of differential equations 1) through 17), all embedded with circular logic. The fact that statistical mechanics is
accepted as the inarguable proof behind traditional thermodynamics, speaks more of the power of statistics, then the science’s logic.
And of course the equating of Boltzmann’s constant (*k*) so that it explains empirical data here on Earth just reinforces what is said.

The
simplest explanation for this is our new perspective that lost work: W=PdV, signifies the ideal work required to displace the Earth’s
atmosphere against gravity. If only our 19^{th} century scientists had realized how useful expanding systems tend to displace our atmosphere,
then who knows. Well we certainly know that the science would be simpler, as it would have been based upon constructive logic rather
than some dance of partial derivatives.

Understandably, processes whereupon pressure and volume must be treated
equally become easier to comprehend by considering the whole, i.e. we treat pressure and volume equally.

Our new way of thinking is
not that different after all. We start with the ability of a system to do work:

TS=E+PV eqn 18)

For any process, change to the ability to do work is defined by the a new general law:

d(TS) = dE+d(PV) eqn
19)

For infinitesimal changes we can rewrite eqn 19) as:

TdS+SdT=dE+PdV+VdP eqn 20)

Or if you prefer:

W=dE+PdV+VdP eqn 21)

Deriving all relations based upon the general law (eqn 20) ultimately results in the same equations,
when the same conditions are applied. I.e. holding two parameters constant in eqn 20), results in the same series of Maxwell equations.

This website is copyright of Kent W. Mayhew who in 2018 resides in Ottawa Ontario Canada

This website is full of new
ideas, which are the property of Kent W. Mayhew.

Furthermore you are free to share, copy
or distribute in any manner that you feel is warranted, so long as you fully respectfully reference the author (Kent W. Mayhew) in a
manner that you deem fit.

If you have a science related website and want to have links attached here please contact us and we will see if links are
suitable.