Sentences with phrase «thermodynamic equilibrium state»

The maximum entropy state is the thermodynamic equilibrium state is the isothermal hydrostatic solution, not the hydrostatic solution with the DALR or any other initial thermal gradient.

the ideal gas... will relax to isothermal, the true thermodynamic equilibrium state.

It seeks to convince the reader that they should not believe that the atmosphere intrinsically establishes a vertical thermal gradient as a spontaneous stable thermodynamic equilibrium state, one that would somehow «heat» the bottom relative to the top even if the whole thing were in a giant Dewar flask and one waited long enough for true equilibrium to be established.

Even though I can't imagine gravity functioning as a Maxwell Demon, even though Caballero in section 2.17 both states and leaves as a student exercise the proof that the thermodynamic equilibrium state of a vertical column of gas is isothermal, there has been a lot of confusion and strange assertions about a gas arriving at a state because of bulk transport that sorts out temperature differences approximately adiabatically (neglecting conduction), but that is somehow thermodynamically stable without transport and with conduction in the end.

In the original post I included the correct thermodynamic equilibrium state.

That's why people ignore gravity as a general rule when worrying about the thermodynamic equilibrium state of a column of air.

ECS does not refer to full thermodynamic equilibrium states but the states that have the partial equilibrium in Earth energy balance.

Anyway defining thermodynamic equilibrium states is beside the point to me, so I won't pursue this further here.

Not exact matches

By contrast, in «near equilibrium» thermodynamic systems, also known as the linear «Onsager regime,» the physical state tends toward maximum disorder (i.e., minimum negative entropy), while maintaining the temporal symmetry of classical Newtonian mechanics.

(aside: for those thermodynamic disequilbrium states, hysteresis would be avoided if they remain — I mean, if you don't then go to equilibrium at the same T, p and then try to reverse the process)

Due to solar radiation the atmosphere is never in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium as energy and temperature gradients are always present.

What you have not yet realised is that I can help you and David overcome the incorrect belief that you have been led to accept because of your lack of sufficient education about and / or understanding of just what entropy is and what processes have to occur for it to be maximized, and what the conditions will thus be in the state of maximum entropy which physicists call thermodynamic equilibrium.

The fact that people still use the term «equilibrium», which is a carefully defined thermodynamic state, when what they mean is a cyclical steady state shows a degree of ignorance typically only found in journalist majors.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is now stated «An isolated system, if not already in its state of thermodynamic equilibrium, spontaneously evolves towards it.

The Second Law (with this condition quoted from Wiki) «Thermodynamic equilibrium has the greatest entropy amongst the states accessible to the system» is exactly what I talk about in the 4 page Appendix of «Planetary Surface Temperatures.

The Second Law says: «An isolated system, if not already in its state of thermodynamic equilibrium, spontaneously evolves towards it.

Thermodynamic equilibrium has the greatest entropy amongst the states accessible to the system.

You have no understanding of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which «states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems always evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium, a state with maximum entropy.»

See Curry post on «Nonequilibrium thermodynamics and maximum entropy production in the Earth system» paper by Axel Kleidon (downloadable) https://judithcurry.com/2012/01/10/nonequilibrium-thermodynamics-and-maximum-entropy-production-in-the-earth-system/ «The Earth system is maintained in a unique state far from thermodynamic equilibrium, as, for instance, reflected in the high concentration of reactive oxygen in the atmosphere.

The content of my book proves beyond doubt that isothermal conditions are not the state of thermodynamic equilibrium in a gravitational field or any force field.

That is why thermodynamic equilibrium includes mechanical equilibrium, and so it stuns climatologists when I tell them that the density gradient is there because of the Second Law and it is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium.

Every physics textbook on the planet states clearly that global thermodynamic equilibrium is isothermal.

Sadly, you have to deal with me — an ignoramus who stubbornly persists in thinking that thermodynamic equilibrium is an isothermal state in spite of the fact that you know that nearly every physics textbook on the subject states otherwise and has numerous examples of how physical forces can sort things like gas molecules into stable sub-reservoirs at different temperatures.

He incorrect asserts that the hydrostatic equilibrium state with a lapse rate is true thermodynamic equilibrium and would be present in an isolated gas after a very long time.

At the very least somewhere the onus of proof was upon him to demonstrate that an atmosphere with a DALR is actually in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium, which would have required some actual work and algebra on his part, one would think, since it violates the letter of these laws.

Further, please explain how this model differs from the «gravito - thermal» hypotheses using the governing thermodynamic equations for the equilibrium states.

Jelbring's only actual unique claim in his paper is that this state is actually thermodynamic equilibrium, and it is incorrect.

We reiterate that the entropy maximization problem in its pure classical setting — that is, imposing the constraints of 1) a constant total mass, as well as one of the two following constraints: 2) a constant energy E or 2 ′) a constant enthalpy H — will result in an isothermal profile, corresponding to the state of thermodynamic equilibrium.

What it tells us about how they get shared around is that the state of maximum entropy, the stable thermodynamic equilibrium, is the state where the internal energy of the system is no longer available for doing work.

Going back to our example, the diffusion of heat will lead our glass of water toward global thermodynamic equilibrium, a state in which the temperature of the glass is completely homogeneous.

They prevent the atmosphere from ever coming close to thermodynamic equilibrium, that is, the ultimate state of maximal entropy.

But once the system reaches isoentropic equilibrium at the DALR, heat will flow via real conduction, not adiabatic movement of parcels, and the system will, I believe, relax to isothermal equilibrium that — as I've clearly shown — is an entirely valid thermodynamic state that is dynamically stable.

It satisfies all of the stated conditions for thermodynamic equilibrium that are to be found in any textbook.

Then that state of thermodynamic equilibrium acquires a reduced gradient due to the temperature levelling effect of inter-molecular radiation and other radiation associated with those molecules.

However, radiating molecules do radiate to each other and have a temperature levelling effect that means that the overall state of thermodynamic equilibrium (taking this radiation into account) has a less steep gradient.

Gravity forms a density gradient in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and likewise it forms a temperature gradient as the process described in statements of that law indicate will happen, each being the same state of thermodynamic equilibrium.

The force of gravity acting on molecules in flight establishes a state of thermodynamic equilibrium which, in the absence of radiating molecules, has a temperature gradient equal to the «dry» lapse rate.

And this also demonstrates why the density gradient is not altered once that same state of thermodynamic equilibrium evolves, simply because there's no further redistribution of KE during collisions.

The direction of convection (which includes diffusion and advection) when there has been previously a state of thermodynamic equilibrium (with its associated temperature gradient formed by gravity) is always in all accessible directions away from any source of new thermal energy which has disturbed the previous state of thermodynamic equilibrium.

No, the ocean thermocline never reaches a state of thermodynamic equilibrium because there is a new supply of thermal energy each day and that energy must be diffused downwards and then towards the poles, so there is continual energy movement and the temperature gradient is always there in the thermocline, so how could it possibly be thermodynamic equilibrium?.

Now, when that thermodynamic equilibrium is disturbed by new incident solar energy absorbed in the troposphere, there is a propensity (as the Second Law tells us) for the state of thermodynamic equilibrium to be restored, meaning thermal energy transfers in all accessible directions (including downwards) away from the source of new energy.

Radiative equilibrium does drive towards an isothermal state, but mixing goes towards an isentropic state, which is a recognized term indicating constant potential temperature (also dry adiabatic) because the log of potential temperature is basically the entropy in thermodynamic terms.

For example, internal energy, enthalpy, and entropy are state quantities because they describe quantitatively an equilibrium state of a thermodynamic system, irrespective of how the system arrived in that state.

It's typically in a stationary state, but never a thermodynamic equilibrium.

Collisional excitation and relaxation of the vibrational excited states of GHGs is much faster than absorption and emission throughout the troposphere AND most of the stratosphere (local thermodynamic equilibrium).

This apparent downward heat transfer is really just establishing a new state of thermodynamic equilibrium with a higher mean temperature due to the new energy arriving when the Sun shines.

Because the temperature gradient in a planet's troposphere is the state of thermodynamic equilibrium which the Second Law of Thermodynamics says will evolve, the planet's supported surface temperature is autonomously warmer than its mean radiating temperature, so warm in fact on Earth that we need radiating gases (mostly water vapour) to reduce the gradient and thus cool the surface from a mean of about 300K to about 288K, this being confirmed by empirical evidence (as in the study in my book) which confirms with statistical significance that water vapour cools rather than warms, all these facts thus debunking the greenhouse conjecture.

When a gas is in LTE then the absorption and emission is isotropic, but when Milne came up with the idea of LTE he wrote «This permits us to see in a general way why the state of local thermodynamic equilibrium in the interior of a star breaks down as we approach the surface.»

From the state of thermodynamic equilibrium, the law deduced the principle of the increase of entropy and explains the phenomenon of irreversibility in nature.