Lec 2 | MIT 5.60 Thermodynamics & Kinetics, Spring 2008

[MrAlvinMC]

what a great lecture..i can only dream professors like him would teach me

[zerobeginning]

awesome lecture, interesting, in dept, and it does explain quite a bit.

[NavjotGraphicDesign]

god bless.

[roylandyard]

my professor of phyisical chemistry sucks the big one. i would loove to have him as a prof....

[tysmful]

WONDERFUL CLASSES! IF I HAD STUDIED AT MIT AND IN FACT THE MAJORITY OF ITS TEACHERS ARE SO GOOD AS THIS ONE, SURE, I SHOULD BECOME A GOOD PHYSISCIST TOO.

[xkidofemericax]

Thank God for MIT...

[FelipeZucchetti]

thank you professor for your lecture...

[herojha]

He is an awesome professor. I have been trying to understand the origin of Van der waals' gas equation for 2 years now and it finally makes sense to me!

[marts1233]

this school has the best teachers all around the world

[ThisOneGoes211]

It goes to show that MIT is really a prestigious school!

[osmsm]

Very clear explanation.

[OpsOfCod]

Im using 'introduction to chemical engineering thermodynamics (7th edition)' by j.m smith and boy it is a hard read. Cant follow or make out some of their mathematical expressions. This really helped me break the ice on the virial equation of state matter. Thank for the video, i hope you guys also post a video on cubic equation of state.

[smartmanjanu]

this lecture clears your every confusion .. like it!!!

[varons0x4]

Many Thanks to MIT initiative for making these videos available for free also to the clear communication of it`s teachers. Kind Regards, from Brazil.

[looktonature]

Unbelievable clarity! I pay heaps for an education where to the quality of the profs is shit. This is a great act by MIT and an amazing prof.

[alteringenting]

thanx



[amarantnraz]

yet again, MIT r00lz

[rosaline1993]

this video is excellent. i'm gonna have my physical chem exam soon and this is REALLY REALLY helpful. now i know why MIT is no.1 Thankyou :)

[Akhil1191]

My professor is better than him

He don't know that process with constant volume is called Isochoric

[Ryxton]

@Akhil1191 and u don't know hw to write English!

I m guessin u r an indian and pretty much grew up wth englsh around u. and plz dnt compare ur local prof to the MIT teachrs. u r jst embarrassing urself.

[Akhil1191]

@Ryxton

what makes you think that there cannot be teachers better MIT teachers.

open your narrow mind and look around

and talking about my language, it's more than enough that you understand it .

[Akhil1191]

@Ryxton you want channel better than MIT

check nptelhrd channel

it is 10 times better than MIT

[qpham26]

@Akhil1191 i agree that nptelhrd videos are good, the only problem is that...I can't understand whatever they were saying.... =.=

[Akhil1191]

@qpham26 yah! That's the problem with a lot of people

they should make subtitles for that

[TheIlluminerdi]

@Akhil1191

I really like nptelhrd, but I think MIT professors are way better at communicating, in general, than just about everyone. Of course the nptelhrd channel has WAY more videos uploaded and a much more clear focus on engineering (and no gen ed.).

Anyway, you're probably way ahead of this, academically, but have you watched Denis Aureoux teach Multivariable Calculus on MIT's youtube channel? In my opinion, the single best professor on any online lecture videos by no small margin.

[fitshuck]

nice pants, guy

[LordNelson87]

this is so much better than the themo lectures that i had! well done MIT!

[blindsk8r490]

It's all about that:

e/c^2 sqrt(-1) PV/nR

[TheTspahiu]

These are very helpful lectures

[dorothydorothy111]

i love u!!! you are the best teacher in chem i have ever seen! u make it interesting and talk about the history of how things came to be. Thanks a LOT LOT LOT

[samuel91222]

the first time that I feel that chemistry is understandable

[MsFreddy23]

Thanks MIT!

[hakureireimu0909]

Thx, MIT

[sphtut]

MIT forever!

[bombasteininfinity]

Thanks a lot MIT team, God bless you.

[slovakmath]

@bombasteininfinity please don't also sacrifice a goat to while you are "god blessing" MIT

[madass888]

I like this way of teaching. More and more teachers at my university are using powerpoint, wich sucks, because it feels more like a presentation than teaching.

[iamsiddharthajain]

its nice

[TheBhawnayadav]

EXCELLENT !!

[TheBhawnayadav]

It was really good especially their way of explanation by diagrams and graphs........ I liked that and hope I'll get many more things to learn as I go in...... Thanks MIT

[TheBhawnayadav]

it was no doubts very good or say excellent and the way he explain things are really nice ( by diagrams )...... I hope I'll learn more as i go more into it. Thanks MIT

[kanishkapanchal]

This Professor explains things really nicely.

I really respect MIT people for making these teachings available for free.

[bapyou]

Who is the lecturer? His name does not appear in the video description.

[ReikoNemo]

I think he made a mistake. The hot pack would be a closed system, not an isolated one, because if it were isolated then we wouldn't be able to feel it get hot.

[imatess]

Its more of an Isolated system since neither energy or mass is exchanged b/w system and surrounding. A closed system exchanges energy but no matter.

[MetaIhead89]

36:25

lol a college student who scratches his head and then bites his fingernails

[bapyou]

Yeah. At least he wasn't picking his nose.

[KrzysztofLorek]

Very well eqplained, this professor really knows how to teach. You should check further lectures by prof. Keith Nelson, who I like even more.

However I'm a bit worried about what the lecturer said at 11:00. Either he or I am getting something wrong. I'm Polish so I could have misunderstood, but he's suggesting, that in the glass of water with ice, the three water phases coexist in triple point. I quite disagree. This is not equilibrium, which is obvious because if we wait, the ice will melt.

[mirurus]

No..It will stay in equilibruim provided that the glass of water is a closed system. No heat transfer and ice will not melt.

[KrzysztofLorek]

That's right. So the professor is right provided that he talks about a closed system at 273.16 K and 0.0061 bar. But under different pressure, or at different temperature we are out of the triple point. That means that if for instance we have ice and water at 273.16 K and the water vapor's patrial pressure is 0.1 bar, the ice will melt without any heat transfer from the outside world. Having water and ice at 273.16 K doesn't imply that the water vapor will stay at 0.0061 bar, at equilibrium.

[xue0chao]

he defined the temperature and the pressure that will keep water in equilibrium between the three phases as the triple point. that's his definition.

[fokGoogol]

He used the glass of water as a deliberate wrong example and explained why it isn't in equilibrium. In his explanation he stated that the presseure of the water vapor is not equal of that in the water or the ice so there is no equilibrium.

[mourerj]

KrzysztofLorek-- He's right -- the triple point is defined as the point where (l), (s) and (g) coexist in dynamic equilibrium. It's invariant, only occuring at a definite T and P (273.16 K and 6.11 mbar). It's beyond our control, thus it's a good definition for T. Imagine a phase diagram; the triple point marks the lowest pressure allowing a liquid phase -- if the slope of the (s) to (l) boundary is > 0 it marks the lowest temp that allows liquid to exist, T(critical) will be the highest.

[KrzysztofLorek]

Eureka! He means that the triple point is the only equilibrium state at 273.16 K for water (I still don't think that I had seen it before). Maybe I'm not any wiser, than I used to be before, but I just had to know what He means here. Thanks everybody for answers.

[sodown]

compared to MIT lecturers, the lecturers in my school haven't an idea on how to teach. They basically just throw formula at you and say "learn this".

[enggizo]

There is no comparison between MIT and Other schools ..

[casusbelli15]

Regarding the sign convention issue

of the work done on or by the system, this lecturer chose a conventiion and stuck to it, 2kotok's prof in israel chose a convention and qian225 disagreed, the important thing here is choosing your sign and sticking too it.

Kep in mind the other method is valid.

Check out textbooks and you will see sign differences too, son't just take my word for it.

[birjibis]

thanks bro

[birjibis]

Hi qian225 i have a question.please

"A 300-ml flask is initially open while in a room containing air at 1.00atm and 20C. the flask is then closed and immersed in a bath of boiling water. When the air in the flask is opened and air is allowed to escape. the flask is then closed and cooled back to 20C (a)What is maximum pressure reached in the flask? (b) How many moles escape when air is released from the flask? (c) what is the final pressure in the flask?. regards: student in Norway.

[david020506]

a) the maximum pressure in the flask can be estimated by means of an state equation using T=100 celcius degrees and 300 ml using the right system of units.

b) n = PV/RT using pressure calculated in a.

c)The final pressure must be 1.00 atm

[magnetmannen]

Can someone please explain why the final pressure must be 1.00 atm?

[dragoonxd]

I believe that since the system is returning to equilibrium, the pressure of the outside must equal to the pressure inside

[2kotok]

hii

qian225

you are rong

*** work done on the system should be positive

**** and work done by the system is negative

i learn in Israel and the prof wrote that

have a nice day

[keropoklekor007]

@2kotok work done on a system is negative, bcoz in thermodynamics.

System is needed to do the work. thus if system do the work its should be Positive.

if work is do on the system then its should be negative.

[qian225]

he didn't have the sign convention for work right... work done on the system should be negative, and work done by the system is positive

[david020506]

well the confusion with signs was solved by the IUPAC: they recommend to consider positive heat and work going into the system. So the first law for a closed system is basically Q+W= energy change of the system.

[keropoklekor007]

@qian225 yes, you are right. my prof also thought that.. work done on the system is negative sign. and work done by the system is positive..

but in this situation its relate with volume which is negative..

thus work done on the system= - FL = -PA(-V)

thus turns out = work is positive.

[divinenuker]

THANK YOU MIT!!!