Talk:Chemical thermodynamics

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Chemistry High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Chemical and Bio Engineering (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Chemical and Bio EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Chemical and Bio EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject Chemical and Bio EngineeringChemical and Bio Engineering Physics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I have been waiting for ages for something like that to show up on Wikipedia! Thanks for writing that :-) --HappyCamper 16:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This does indeed look promising. The Chemical thermodynamics article should not redirect to Thermochemistry. However, I note that on HappyCamper's talk page you state "I'm also including material seldom available in textbooks, including my own reformulations". This might be good stuff, but you can not do it - see Wikipedia:No original research, unless of course your own reformations have been published somewhere with peer review. Regards from another old chemist. --Bduke 20:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your page that day when I was getting ready to block someone for vandalism while monitoring Special:Recentchanges. Actually, I couldn't help but smile a little bit when I read your article...the material feels right at home, as do the references. I have a colleague who also likes to present those topics in a similar manner. On another notes, I think you're doing just fine with your contributions here. I have an area you might want to look into though, and that is Wikipedia:Template namespace. Take a look at some examples on my user page - it's still work in progress, but I've found that they can help tremendously with organization of related topics. --HappyCamper 04:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I merged a large chunk of the material into this page from User:David Shear/Chemical thermodynamics; I cleaned it up, and took out whatever could possibly construed as "original research", and polished it a bit and it seems like a good contrib.We still need to format the foot-notes and references to the new style. Good work David. --Sadi Carnot 00:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Hmm just named you at Th'mchem! Ema--or (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please add "J" to J. Willard Gibbs. His name was Josiah Willard Gibbs. 03:05, 29 May 2007 User:68.117.68.120 (Talk)

Done: --Sadi Carnot 07:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please notify me for any changes made via email Amos Tanny (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In tharmodynemaics what is entalpy Akash kumar saw (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Back in 2007 an editor thought this article should mention non-equilibrium thermodynamics. So some text was dumped into the article along with a link to the main article Non-equilibrium thermodynamics.

Along with a spelling nit, two concerns come to mind. First is location and importance. The text was inserted between two third-level sections, but with a second-level section title. Huh? Second is that the text has had only two words changed in 10 years (spelling and linking). Is this article really so low-traffic that it's unreviewed, and goofs unnoticeable? Shenme (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article states "The 3 laws of thermodynamics: The energy of the universe is constant.". This is utterly wrong, it's not what that law says, (even though it might not catch a chemist's eye who maybe isn't all that concerned about the principles of thermodynamics more than its application). The law says the internal energy of a system can change by work and heat. 77.3.219.3 (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. MaxwellMolecule (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]