Talk:Helmholtz free energy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.
Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify its strengths and weaknesses.

Contents 1 Comment 2 IUPAC compliance 3 Link 4 Changing A to F

[edit] Comment

Does this article need to be marked as a stub? It seems at least somewhat comprehensive. If things are missing, how about the attention-tag? O. Prytz 21:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the stub tag can be removed. I will do it and see what happens. PAR 22:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IUPAC compliance

The page urgently needs to have the word 'free' eliminated to comply with IUPAC recommendations. Ref. http://www.iupac.org/goldbook/H02772.pdf Need to set up new page and convert this one into a REDIRECT. DIV, 2006-05-31 (Melbourne)

The discussion was moved to Talk:Gibbs free energy, and can now be found in Talk:Gibbs free energy/Archive1.

Outcome after extensive discussion was strong consensus for No change -- continue with the title as Helmholtz free energy.

Further points should be raised at Talk:Gibbs free energy.

Jheald 11:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link

Under see also, there's no link to anything other than general wikipedia pages where it says "This link details the Helmholtz energy...". I'd remove it, but I'm hoping someone know where it's supposed to go to, since I'd like to see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.110.240.11 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 20 September 2007

[edit] Changing A to F

I did this because most physics books still use F. Certain equations are so common with F used in it (like F = - k T Log(Z)) that replacing F by A makes them look weird. But I'm not going to insist on this change and will let others decide on what they prefer.

I'm now going to write up the derivation of "F = -k T Log(Z)" and of the Bogoliubov inequality for the free energy. Count Iblis (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to change F back to A pending further discussions on this matter. Count Iblis (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Physical chemists tend to use A, and IUPAC uses A.[1] This may be one of those cultural differences between chemists and physicists... Are there any equivalent standard recommendations or style guides for physicists that recommend F that could be cited? In any case, if it is shown that there are conflicting standards, I don't really mind which one is followed as long as the article mentions the existence of the other (which it already does). --Itub (talk) 09:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen a style guide that spells this out. The physics style guides are not rigorously enforced anyway, at least that is my experience. I think there would be no problem in using the symbol X for the free energy in a Physical Review journal article, e.g. if F was already used for something else. Would a referee or editor object? I don't think so.

So, the "cultural differences" could be that in physics we don't really stick to such detailed mandated rules. The authors will use the symbols as he/she sees fit. Because it is in their interest to make what they write as easily understandable as is possible, they'll then stick to the usual convention. Count Iblis (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)