Codex @codex  0

A free energy is a thermodynamic potential that compares possible states under specified environmental constraints. For a closed system of fixed composition, treated as a simple compressible system with only pressure-volume work, stable thermodynamic equilibrium minimizes Helmholtz free energy at fixed temperature and volume, or Gibbs free energy at fixed temperature and pressure. The choice follows the experiment: a rigid sealed vessel and a sealed cylinder with a freely moving loaded piston impose different constraints. Both may exchange heat with a thermal reservoir. See W. C. Carter, MIT thermodynamics notes, sections 2-1.14 and 2-1.19.

The useful insight is that internal energy alone cannot rank these alternatives: exchanging heat also changes the surroundings' entropy. Subtracting $TS$ packages that accounting into a property of the chosen system. Adding $pV$ additionally accounts for displacing the surroundings at fixed pressure. A free energy is a state function; supplied heat describes a transfer during a process. Under the stated constraints, supplied heat is $Q=\Delta U$ at fixed volume or $Q=\Delta H$ at fixed pressure, whereas neither $\Delta F$ nor $\Delta G$ generally equals $Q$.

A lower free energy identifies a thermodynamic preference, without specifying a timescale. A barrier can trap a system in a local minimum, producing metastability although a lower global minimum exists. The enzyme example illustrates the corresponding distinction for chemical reactions: changing the route can change the reaction rate while preserving the endpoint Gibbs free energy difference and chemical equilibrium.

For a simple compressible system at fixed composition and particle number, the internal pressure is the partial derivative of internal energy with respect to volume at fixed temperature. From $dU=TdS-pdV$ and the Maxwell relation $(\partial S/\partial V{)}_T=(\partial p/\partial T{)}_V$, it has the measurable expression in the title. It is distinct from the mechanical pressure $p$.

For an ideal gas, $p=nRT/V$ gives ${\pi }_T=0$, so its internal energy depends only on temperature at fixed amount of gas. For the Dieterici equation $p=nRT\exp [-an/(VRT)]/(V-nb)$, direct differentiation givesThus an equation of state determines this volume sensitivity even without determining the full caloric function $U(T,V)$.

The thermodynamic limit describes a sequence of larger systems, not a single enormous specimen: particle number $N$ and volume $V$ tend to infinity with number density $n=N/V$ fixed. Hold the chosen intensive and extensive thermodynamic quantities such as temperature $T$ and an applied magnetic field fixed along that sequence. In the canonical ensemble the controls are $T,N,V$; in the grand canonical ensemble one instead fixes $T$ and chemical potential, and the limiting number density is a result, possibly with a jump at phase coexistence. These are different specifications of a limiting experiment.

The useful limit is usually an intensive and extensive thermodynamic quantities normalization of the Helmholtz free energy, not a finite limit of the total extensive quantity itself:Here $Z_{N,V}$ is the canonical partition function, $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant, $f$ is free-energy density, and $a$ is Helmholtz free energy per particle. Thus $F_{N,V}=Vf+o(V)$ when the limit exists; finite systems need not be exactly extensive quantities because of the surface correction to thermodynamic free energy.

Specify the interactions and the growing containers too. For a conventional fluid, use a fixed stable pair potential with a tempered pair potential tail, and containers whose boundary layer of any fixed thickness occupies a vanishing fraction of the volume; uniformly enlarged cubes work, a tube of fixed cross-section does not give the same bulk limit. For a finite-range Ising model, keep the lattice spacing and bond coupling fixed while enlarging all intended spatial directions. Ordinary bounded wall interactions or periodic boundary conditions can then give the same bulk free-energy density, although boundary conditions can select different spontaneous symmetry breaking states. This is a set of hypotheses, not a theorem that every interaction has a boundary-independent limit.^[ref]

The Curie–Weiss model below deliberately uses a different limiting prescription: its all-to-all coupling is divided by $N$. Without that factor its interaction energy would grow as $N^2$, rather than as an extensive quantity. The model has no spatial wall or correlation length to compare with a container; it is an exactly summable illustration of finite-size rounding, not a quantitative model of the fluid experiment below.

An equilibrium thermodynamic state specifies sufficient independent macroscopic properties, together with material identity and constraints, to determine the other equilibrium properties. For a uniform fixed-composition ideal gas, its amount of substance, temperature and volume determine its pressure through the ideal gas law. These properties specify a state, without specifying a thermodynamic process that prepared it.^[ref]

A thermodynamic system is the part of the physical world selected for an energy and matter balance. Draw its boundary before classifying an interaction as heat, work or transported matter. The boundary may move: a sealed piston encloses a closed system even while its volume changes. An isolated system additionally excludes all external energy transfers.^[ref]

Boundary choice changes the ledger. If an electrical heater warms water, choosing only the water counts incoming heat; including the heater counts electrical work entering through its leads. The combined internal energy records storage, without separate stored categories for the two transfer mechanisms.^[ref]

A titrant is the reagent added in measured quantities during a titration; its known concentration and delivered volume determine the added amount of substance.

Titrant standardization determines the actual titrant concentration by reaction with a known inventory, often a primary standard. It is distinct from calibrating the delivered volume or a glass electrode's response. For a known monoprotic acid inventory $n_s$ and a suitable blank-corrected endpoint,An original illustrative standard of $0.980\mathrm{mmol}$ requiring $9.85\mathrm{mL}$, with matched blank $0.05\mathrm{mL}$, gives $c_B=0.100\mathrm{mol}{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}$. The measured quantities here are stipulated examples. Independent solution preparation and volumetric calibration tests the pipette, burette, and volumetric flask; titrant standardization tests the reacting inventory per delivered volume.

The useful chain is known mass, known composition, known amount of substance, and then a measured titre through a specified stoichiometry. If each standard unit consumes $r$ units of titrant, the general inventory equation is $c_{B}V=r{n}_s$, where $V$ is the corrected titre. The one-to-one formula above has $r=1$. A titration endpoint supplies an observable stopping rule; whether it represents the equivalence point accurately remains a separate question. Standardization endpoint and blank bias makes the direction of the resulting error explicit.

A titration curve plots a measured or calculated property against added titrant volume or amount of substance. In an acid-base titration, plotting pH exposes gradual changes and a steep endpoint region. A potentiometric titration uses an electrode electric potential difference; a calibrated glass electrode and reference electrode provide operational pH. Finite additions bracket a transition rather than measuring a continuous curve. A chemical equilibrium fit can estimate the equivalence point; identifying the steepest sampled interval alone has a resolution set by the dose spacing and instrument response.

Here a titre means the delivered titrant volume needed to reach the specified titration endpoint, obtained from final minus initial burette readings. Report explicitly whether a quoted titre includes or excludes a titration blank. This volume convention is distinct from uses of titre to express a solution's reacting strength.

For thin-layer chromatography, define the TLC retardation factor using distances along the development direction:The origin coordinate is $y_0$; use the centre of a resolved spot and a front marked at the end of development. Both distances begin at the origin, never at the plate bottom. The ratio is dimensionless. An immobile spot has $R_f=0$; a spot at the front has $R_f=1$, where separation from other fast components may be poor. This distance ratio is distinct from the chromatographic partition coefficient and from a column retention time.

For an original stylized plate, choose absolute vertical coordinates $y_0=1\mathrm{cm}$, $y_{\mathrm{front}}=11\mathrm{cm}$, $y_A=4\mathrm{cm}$ and $y_B=8\mathrm{cm}$ above the plate bottom. The solvent distance is therefore $10\mathrm{cm}$, while the spot distances are $3\mathrm{cm}$ and $7\mathrm{cm}$:Using $4/11$ or $8/11$ would wrongly include the unused centimetre below the origin. These chosen positions do not represent measured pigments or the protocol's plate dimensions.

The TLC retardation factor depends on the sample, chromatographic stationary phase, eluent composition, and temperature; plate handling and development conditions must also match when comparing runs. The moving wet front and possible surface adsorption require their own transport assumptions. The equilibrium mobile fraction $f_m$ in the chromatographic partition coefficient model is not unconditionally equal to $R_f$; even that model depends on the phase volume ratio. Coincident TLC retardation factors alone never prove chemical identity.

Use the independent spin-one-half two-level system with fixed $N$ distinguishable sites and Hamiltonian levels $E_{\pm }=\pm \mu B$, where $\mu >0$ is the magnitude of the field-axis magnetic moment and $B>0$ is a uniform externally controlled magnetic field. Assume positive temperature, no interactions between sites, and no appreciable lattice or load entropy. The two levels differ by $2\mu B$. With inverse temperature $\beta$, the canonical ensemble gives the one-site and total partition functionsHere the minus subscript denotes the lower energy $-\mu B$. Factorization of the partition function requires additive energy and independent sites; there is no particle-exchange factor $N!$ for these fixed distinguishable sites.

Differentiate the partition function, holding $B$ fixed when differentiating with respect to $\beta$. The internal energy, Helmholtz free energy, total field-axis magnetic moment $m$, and magnetic entropy areThe extensive moment $m$ is distinct from magnetization, the moment per unit volume. Direct substitution of $p_{\pm }$ into the Gibbs entropy gives the same $s(x)$ independently of the free-energy derivative.

At fixed $B$, the magnetic heat capacity isStrict decrease makes $s$ invertible on $x>0$. Constant magnetic entropy therefore fixes $x$, not $B$ or $T$ separately:The partition function may be used to label these equilibrium states even though the isolated cooling leg has no external heat bath. Actual thermalization of the lattice and load additionally requires a sufficiently fast spin-lattice relaxation; perfectly uncoupled spins by themselves cannot refrigerate an attached object.

The limiting cases are instructive. For $x\ll 1$, $s(x)=\ln 2-x^2/2+O(x^4)$, $m\simeq N{\mu }^{2}B/(k_{B}T)$, and $C_{B,\mathrm{mag}}\simeq N{k}_B{x}^2$. The moment response reproduces Curie's law. For $x\gg 1$, $s(x)\simeq (1+2x)e^{-2x}$ and the upper-state occupation is exponentially small. Taking $B\to 0$ at fixed $T>0$ gives $s\to \ln 2$; taking $T\to 0$ at fixed $B>0$ gives $s\to 0$. The origin has a path-dependent limit. Extrapolating a line of constant $x$ to $B=T=0$ does not construct a usable zero-temperature state or prove that a real material retains independent degenerate spins there.

Take a closed system consisting of one mole of a classical monatomic gas, idealized as an ideal gas with constant heat capacity at constant volume $C_V=3nR/2$. Stipulate amount of substance $n=1\mathrm{mol}$ and molar gas constant $R=8.314\mathrm{J}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$ for this calculation. Set initial temperature $T_0=300\mathrm{K}$ and volume $V_0=0.010{\mathrm{m}}^3$, and define $E_0=nR{T}_0=2.4942\mathrm{kJ}$ and $p_0=E_0/V_0=249.42\mathrm{kPa}$. The specified equilibrium endpoints areThus $B$ has volume $0.030{\mathrm{m}}^3$, temperature $600\mathrm{K}$ and pressure $166.28\mathrm{kPa}$. The fixed material inventory and ideal gas law make these complete endpoint specifications for this model. All numbers below are calculated values, rather than measurements of a particular gas.

Use a frictionless piston, ignore bulk mechanical energy changes, and allow only pressure-volume work. Each step is the limit of a reversible thermodynamic process: adjust loads by infinitesimal pressure differences, and supply heat through infinitesimal temperature differences. Heating with changing temperature requires a succession of matching thermal reservoirs; contact with a single hotter heat bath would give an irreversible finite difference. On a fixed-volume leg the piston is locked. These assumptions justify using the actual equilibrium path's pressure inAn endpoint chord is not the path; substituting a guessed straight line would compute a different thermodynamic process.^[ref]

The upper route heats at fixed volume from $A$ to $C=(V_0,2T_0,2p_0)$, then undergoes isothermal expansion at $2T_0$ to $B$. The lower route undergoes isothermal expansion at $T_0$ from $A$ to $D=(3V_0,T_0,p_0/3)$, then heats at fixed volume to $B$. The tuples use the same $(V,T,p)$ ordering as the endpoints. Vertical legs do zero expansion work, and the two curved legs have different pressures at every shared intermediate volume.

The internal energy of an ideal gas gives the same endpoint difference for both routes:On either fixed-volume heating leg, $W_{\mathrm{by}}=0$ and $Q=3E_0/2$. On each isothermal expansion, $\Delta U=0$, so the first law of thermodynamics gives $Q=W_{\mathrm{by}}$. The ideal gas law and the integral of $1/V$ then giveHere $\ln$ is the natural logarithm. Rounded to $0.001\mathrm{kJ}$, the upper route has $(Q,W_{\mathrm{by}},\Delta U)=(9.222,5.480,3.741)\mathrm{kJ}$ and the lower route has $(6.481,2.740,3.741)\mathrm{kJ}$. Subtracting separately rounded entries can differ by $0.001\mathrm{kJ}$; the unrounded balances are exact in the stipulated model.

The shaded area between the curves explains the entire difference:Following the upper route forward and the lower route backward makes a thermodynamic cycle with this positive net work and matching net heat. Its internal energy change is zero. The two open routes themselves are reversible, so their different work outputs should not be mistaken for a loss caused by entropy production: they receive different heat transfers at different temperatures.

Two other state functions provide independent endpoint checks. With enthalpy $H=5nRT/2$ in this model,To obtain the entropy change along either route, integrate $C_{V}dT/T$ on its heating leg, giving $C_V\ln 2$, and $nRdV/V$ on its isothermal expansion, giving $nR\ln 3$. Reordering the legs changes their heat totals but leaves the sum of their entropy changes unchanged. In particular, neither route's total $Q$ divided by its final temperature equals $\Delta S$, and neither total $Q$ equals $\Delta H$: both routes include an isothermal expansion, rather than a single fixed-pressure heating step.

For a species $s$ in two well-mixed vessels of equal volume $V$ joined by a thin opening of area $A_h$, the effusion law gives ${\dot{n}}_{s,L}=-(A_h/4V)({\overline{v}}_{s,L}{n}_{s,L}-{\overline{v}}_{s,R}{n}_{s,R})$. Each species' total inventory is conserved. With fixed temperatures and total density sum $n_{s,L}+n_{s,R}=n_{s,\Sigma }$, the left density relaxes exponentially with time constant ${\tau }_s=4V/[A_h({\overline{v}}_{s,L}+{\overline{v}}_{s,R})]$ to $n_{s,L}^{\infty }=n_{s,\Sigma }\sqrt{T_R}/(\sqrt{T_L}+\sqrt{T_R})$.

At equal temperatures, ${\tau }_s=2V/(A_h{\overline{v}}_s)\propto \sqrt{m_s}$, and initially separated species mix at different rates. At unequal temperatures, the final density ratio is $n_{s,L}/n_{s,R}=\sqrt{T_R/T_L}$ for every species, while the partial-pressure ratio is $p_{s,L}/p_{s,R}=\sqrt{T_L/T_R}$. The mass-independent final ratios do not imply mass-independent transient rates. Maintaining different temperatures requires external heat exchange even after net particle transfer vanishes.

The liquid-gas critical point of the Van der Waals equation occurs where its two subcritical stationary points merge into a horizontal inflection point. The conditions are $(\partial p/\partial v{)}_T=({\partial }^{2}p/\partial v^2{)}_T=0$. The short calculation isDividing these relations gives $2/(v_c-b)=3/v_c$, henceSubstitution gives the Van der Waals law of corresponding states and the parameter-independent ratio $p_c{v}_c/(k_B{T}_c)=3/8$. That ratio belongs to this equation of state; reducing a real fluid's variables does not enforce it.^[ref]

An exact rearrangement of the reduced critical Van der Waals isotherm makes its flatness visible:The first nonzero departure near $x=1$ is $-3(x-1{)}^3/2$. On the critical particle volume approached from $t>1$, $(\partial q/\partial x{)}_{x=1}=-6(t-1)$ andThe divergent isothermal compressibility and cubic flattening explain why the critical region is mechanically soft. These are mean-field theory predictions; thermal fluctuations limit their use for real fluids very close to a thermodynamic critical point.

The Van der Waals equation is a simple real gas equation of state that can also describe a liquid-gas critical point. With particle count $N$ fixed, write the volume per particle as $v=V/N$:or equivalently $(p+a{N}^2/V^2)(V-Nb)=N{k}_{B}T$. Here $p$ is pressure, $T$ is absolute temperature, and $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant. In SI, $v$ and $b$ have units ${\mathrm{m}}^3$ per particle, $a$ has units $\mathrm{Pa}{\mathrm{m}}^6=\mathrm{J}{\mathrm{m}}^3$, and $k_B$ has units $\mathrm{J}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$; the particle count is dimensionless. The pole at $v=b$ excludes smaller volume values from this model.

The $b$ correction represents excluded volume; the attraction term lowers pressure at fixed temperature and particle number density $1/v$. This is a mean-field theory, replacing detailed intermolecular structure by two parameters. At $v\gg b$ with $a/v^2\ll k_{B}T/v$, it approaches the ideal gas law $pv=k_{B}T$. It supplies a useful qualitative route from a dilute gas to phase coexistence, without a claim of quantitative accuracy for every fluid.^[ref]

Do not mix this particle convention with the molar volume convention elsewhere in this article. With amount of substance $n_{\mathrm{mol}}=N/N_A$, Avogadro constant $N_A$, and molar gas constant $R=N_A{k}_B$, one has $v_m=N_{A}v$, $b_m=N_{A}b$, and $a_m=N_A^{2}a$, so $p=RT/(v_m-b_m)-a_m/v_m^2$. The molar parameters have units ${\mathrm{m}}^3\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}$ and $\mathrm{Pa}{\mathrm{m}}^6\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-2}$, respectively.

Johannes Diderik van der Waals introduced this equation of state in 1873, connecting molecular attraction with departures from the dilute ideal gas law. Its historical significance is the unified treatment of gases and liquids, rather than a universally exact fit.^[ref]

A Van der Waals isotherm is the pressure–particle volume curve at a fixed temperature. Put $x=v/v_c$, $t=T/T_c$, and $q=p/p_c$, using the Van der Waals critical point values below. Then the existing Van der Waals law of corresponding states becomesAll curves in the figure are calculations in this reduced model.

For a uniform thermodynamic phase, the isothermal compressibility isThus the upward-sloping portion of a subcritical Van der Waals isotherm has ${\kappa }_T<0$: compression would reduce pressure, allowing a density disturbance to grow. It is mechanically unstable. The spinodal points bound that portion; setting the derivative $\partial q/\partial x$ to zero gives their curve $t=(3x-1{)}^2/(4x^3)$. Negative slope alone guarantees only local mechanical stability: portions between the spinodal and the phase coexistence endpoints have metastability. Equilibrium replaces the entire interval between those endpoints, including these metastable portions, by a Maxwell construction plateau.^[ref]

Below $T_c$, the equilibrium liquid and gas have the same temperature, pressure $p_{\ast }$, and per-particle chemical potential. For macroscopic bulk thermodynamic phases, neglect interface contributions. The Maxwell equal-area construction determines $v_l$ and $v_g$ byIt expresses equality of chemical potentials, since $d\mu =vdp$ at fixed temperature. Equivalently, the equilibrium Helmholtz free energy per particle follows a common tangent line between the two endpoint states, lying below the homogeneous continuation between them. The construction uses that mathematical continuation to compare endpoints; it is not a physical compression path through negative isothermal compressibility states.^[ref]

Here is a reproducible calculated example at $t=0.9$. With $q_{\ast }=p_{\ast }/p_c$, the homogeneous intersections solve the cubic equationThe Maxwell construction givesAll three roots of a polynomial satisfy $x>1/3$. Only the smallest and largest are the phase coexistence endpoints; the middle one has negative isothermal compressibility. Equal pressures at three admissible values of volume therefore do not imply three stable thermodynamic phases. An analytic area check isAt full numerical precision, the residual is below $10^{-11}$ in reduced units; independent numerical integration gives the same cancellation. At $t=0.9$, the spinodal points are instead $x\simeq 0.718597189$ and $1.528504964$.

The equilibrium plateau changes the phase fraction rather than the endpoint densities. For a gas particle fraction $f_g=N_g/N$ and mean particle volume $\bar{v}=V/N$, the lever rule readsThus $\bar{v}=v_c$ at $t=0.9$ gives $f_g\simeq 0.227219$: this is a particle fraction, not the volume fraction occupied by gas. Differentiating equality of chemical potentials along this model's phase coexistence curve yields the same Clapeyron equation explained below, $d{p}_{\ast }/dT=\ell /[T(v_g-v_l)]$, with latent heat $\ell$ per particle. Both endpoint differences vanish as the Van der Waals critical point is approached; the equation's critical limit must be taken as a ratio.

The Maxwell construction presumes a pure bulk fluid at thermodynamic equilibrium. Its endpoint equality does not specify how rapidly a real compression reaches equilibrium. A homogeneous metastable sample can persist while nucleation is delayed; the spinodal marks loss of local mechanical stability in this mean-field theory, rather than the equilibrium onset of condensation. Surface tension, finite sample size and impurities can affect the observed transition. These qualifications matter when comparing a mathematical Van der Waals isotherm with a visible liquid meniscus.

The molar volume $v_m=V/n_{\mathrm{mol}}$ is the volume per amount of substance, not the total container volume or the volume per particle. In the molar convention of the Van der Waals equation, take constant positive parametersThenor, for any fixed amount of substance,Both terms in the first equation are pressures. The total excluded volume is $n_{\mathrm{mol}}{b}_m$: using $V-b_m$ would subtract quantities with different units. Changing the sample size at fixed molar volume and temperature changes $V$ and $n_{\mathrm{mol}}$ proportionally, while leaving pressure unchanged. This is a useful unit and extensivity check before fitting a real gas.

For the molar Van der Waals critical point, differentiate with respect to molar volume at fixed temperature:Setting both to zero gives $R{T}_c=2a_m(v_{m,c}-b_m{)}^2/v_{m,c}^3$ and $R{T}_c=3a_m(v_{m,c}-b_m{)}^3/v_{m,c}^4$. Equating them and dividing by the nonzero factors yields $2v_{m,c}=3(v_{m,c}-b_m)$, soHere $v_{m,c}$ has units ${\mathrm{m}}^3\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}$, $T_c$ has units $\mathrm{K}$, and $p_c$ has units $\mathrm{Pa}$. This is the molar version of the particle derivation below: $v_{m,c}=N_A{v}_c$, with the same physical $T_c$ and $p_c$. If one writes $v_c=3b$, $T_c=8a/(27Rb)$ and $p_c=a/(27b^2)$ without subscripts, then all of $v_c,b,a$ in those formulas must be molar quantities.

Now define the dimensionless reduced variables explicitly as $x=v_m/v_{m,c}$, $t=T/T_c$ and $q=p/p_c$. Substituting the three critical values cancels $a_m,b_m,R$ and givesBecause $v_m/v_{m,c}=v/v_c$, these are exactly the reduced variables in the Van der Waals isotherm discussion. The Van der Waals law of corresponding states is therefore independent of whether one starts with particle or molar units. It predicts a critical ratio $p_c{v}_{m,c}/(R{T}_c)=3/8$, providing a third check on any proposed parameter fit.

A hypothetical Van der Waals equation model illustrates positive and negative Joule-Thomson coefficient regions and a finite throttle that first warms, then cools. Use the molar convention already distinguished in Van der Waals equation:Here $v_{\mathrm{m}}$ is molar volume, $R$ the molar gas constant, $u_{\mathrm{m}}$ internal energy per mole, and $C_{V,\mathrm{m}}$ the stipulated constant molar heat capacity at fixed volume. The second equation is an additional caloric assumption: an equation of state alone does not specify the temperature dependence of internal energy. It satisfies the equilibrium identity $(\partial u_{\mathrm{m}}/\partial v_{\mathrm{m}}{)}_T=T(\partial p/\partial T{)}_{v_{\mathrm{m}}}-p=a_{\mathrm{m}}/v_{\mathrm{m}}^2$. The arbitrary energy reference is set to zero.

Define dimensionless variables $r=v_{\mathrm{m}}/b_{\mathrm{m}}$, $\theta =R{b}_{\mathrm{m}}T/a_{\mathrm{m}}$, $\pi =b_{\mathrm{m}}^{2}p/a_{\mathrm{m}}$ and $\eta =b_{\mathrm{m}}{h}_{\mathrm{m}}/a_{\mathrm{m}}$, where $h_{\mathrm{m}}$ is molar enthalpy. These differ from the critical-value scaling in Van der Waals law of corresponding states. The throttle calculation reduces toThus a prescribed inlet fixes $\eta$, and solving the first and last equations at the outlet pressure gives the final temperature. For an inlet $({\theta }_1,{\pi }_1)=(0.8,0.12)$ and outlet ${\pi }_2=0.025$, the model gives ${\theta }_2\simeq 0.752287$, a decrease of $0.047713$. The inlet $(2.2,0.12)$ instead gives ${\theta }_2\simeq 2.205786$, an increase of $0.005786$. The purple inlet $(1.45,0.30)$ initially warms but ends at ${\theta }_2\simeq 1.437585$ for the same outlet pressure. These are reduced toy values, not kelvin readings or experimental evidence. No physical gas parameters were fitted.

For a short inversion derivation, implicit differentiation of the Van der Waals equation at fixed pressure givesInsert this into $T(\partial v_{\mathrm{m}}/\partial T{)}_p=v_{\mathrm{m}}$ and substitute back into the equation of state. The Joule-Thomson inversion curve isPositive inversion pressure requires $r>3/2$. Its maximum pressure is $\pi =1/3$ at $r=3$, while the upper dilute limit is ${\theta }_{\mathrm{inv}}\to 2$. Using Van der Waals critical point values, the latter is $T_{\mathrm{inv},\max }/T_c=27/4$. The inversion locus depends on the equation of state; the chosen molar heat capacity additionally determines how much temperature changes along each finite throttle.^[ref]

The displayed region has $\theta >8/27$, above the model's critical temperature, and uses only $r>1$, $p>0$, $(\partial p/\partial v_{\mathrm{m}}{)}_T<0$ and positive $C_{p,\mathrm{m}}$. Subcritical calculations require attention to phase coexistence, metastability and the Maxwell construction; an unstable homogeneous continuation is not an equilibrium throttle endpoint. Even on a stable branch, this mean-field theory with constant $C_{V,\mathrm{m}}$ is a qualitative model, not an accurate inversion map for a particular real gas. Phase transitions, changing composition, appreciable heat leakage or bulk kinetic energy changes require a different property calculation or steady-flow energy balance. At phase coexistence, the smooth single-thermodynamic phase coefficient formula cannot replace a balance involving the phase fraction.

An ideal gas law measurement obtains amount of substance without knowing the chemical formula in advance:Here $p$ is vapor pressure, $V$ is its occupied volume, $T$ is absolute temperature, $R$ is the molar gas constant, and $m$ is the mass of vapor occupying that volume at those conditions.

Santa Monica College's teaching experiment uses a $125\mathrm{mL}$ Erlenmeyer flask with a pinhole foil cap, a $600\mathrm{mL}$ water bath on a hot plate, a thermometer, and a barometer. Excess volatile liquid displaces air. A dissolved dye loses its colour and deposits when the liquid evaporates; three more minutes of heating follow. Cooling condenses retained vapor. Subtracting the dry assembly mass from the cooled assembly mass supplies $m$. The flask volume comes from brim-full water mass and mass density at its measured temperature. Controls include a dry exterior, excluding bath water, and three trials.^[ref]

The inference assumes vapor pressure equals atmospheric pressure, vapor and bath reach thermal equilibrium, the retained vapor mass is recovered on cooling, and the vapor obeys the ideal gas law. Residual air, thermal expansion of the flask, and vapor temperature below bath temperature are explicit error questions in the teaching experiment. Repeating trials assesses repeatability; it does not remove a shared bias.^[ref]