Talk:Van der Waals equation
Add topic| Van der Waals equation was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (December 15, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
| Van der Waals equation was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (December 16, 2023, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
| This It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
[edit]Is there any way we can find out the value of b theoretically if the value of radius of nucleus is known
and if there is any way of caluculating a plz do write
- Yes, there is, but you will need heavy-duty quantum physics and a lot of computational power to get reasonably good answers. By the way, the atomic radius is considerably bigger than the size of the atomic nucleus. -- Karada 08:20, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- The van der Waals equation is really only an approximation valid at the macroscopi levels... not sure why you would want to bother using it at the subatomic level. yosofun 00:25, 7 Mar 2004 (PST)
Changed notation
[edit]I changed the notation for the formulas to the form more familiar to me of lower case p for pressure and lower case for per-particle properties. Hence v for volume per particle (specific volume), and V for total volume; N for total number of moles (or particles) rather than n which is used for the number density of molecules (number of particles per unit volume: n = 1/v = N/V, if N is the total number of particles)(or n = N x Na / V if N is the total number of moles, and where Na is Avogadro's number).
- Tom Lougheed 2005-09-27
Equation 1b
[edit]I suggest eliminating equation 1b entirely, since equation 1a is equivalent. Figure A, which is supposed to come from equation 1b is also missing. Fiske (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
- Figure A has now been restored, and equation 1b appears in that figure. Now the question is "Can equation 1a be eliminated"? Equations 1a and 1b differ by only a trivial rearrangement. Fiske (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Internal energy, and entropy
[edit]It is impossible to understand what is going on without deriving everything yourself. There appear to be two definitions of c_v: one with one argument and one with two arguments. The integration limits are missing too. I could assume the lower limits are some reference values (maybe irrelevant) and the upper limits are sort of the same as the integration variables. Is C_u a constant or a function of u? Does it matter? Yes there are references. But I'm not going to bother. I'm not buying a textbook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-37800-83 (talk) 05:13, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- Former good article nominees
- C-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Physical sciences
- C-Class vital articles in Physical sciences
- C-Class physics articles
- High-importance physics articles
- C-Class physics articles of High-importance
- C-Class fluid dynamics articles
- Fluid dynamics articles