Customer Reviews

Schaum's Outline of Thermodynamics With Chemical Applications (Schaum's Outline Series)

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

The Schaum Outline Series has stood the test of time and Thermodynamics by Abbott and Van Ness is no exception. If you want to learn thermo beyond the typical undergraduate level, progressively working through the problems chapter-by-chapter in this book will do the trick.

Although this book does follow the old sign convention for work (positive when the system does work on the environment), it properly follows the specific energy convention of "energy/mass". Thus, the ideal gas equation is PV = RT, where V has units of "volume/mass". Once this simple terminology is understood, steam tables can be readily used without confusion.

This outline, like that of Clyde R. Metz (Physical Chemistry) is defective in its presentation of the very first fundamental quantities of thermodynamics, Enthalpy (H) and Internal Energy (U). I find it hard to believe that the authors of these supplements can't seem to understand that (1) PV has units of ENERGY, *not* units of energy/mol*K, (2) H and U (and their associated changes) would PERFORCE have to have units of energy also, since H = U + PV, and (3) using "molar volume" without explicitly defining it as V/n while using the SAME symbol as "ordinary" volume without telling the reader is nothing more than pedagogical carelessnes...or possibly stupidity. Abbot and Van Ness aren't doing anyone any favors by doing silly things like blithely declaring the Ideal Gas Law to be PV = RT, which automatically gives the student pause wondering if it's a typo. Having foolishly bought both Metz' "Physical Chemistry" and Abbot & Van Ness' "Thermodynamics With Chemical Applications", I'm here to warn anyone else contemplating similar purchases: DON'T DO IT, UNLESS YOU LIKE BEING CONFUSED. These authors are apparently too "advanced" and "learned" to bother with such petty details of presentation, and unless you learned your elementary thermo on some other planet where they don't use n (or always use molar quantities,) you're going to be scratching your head wondering where n went, or where n suddenly came from in their example problems. How such supposed experts could be so sloppy on small but important details like these is beyond me.

Unfortunately the authors are still using a sign convention for work which has been outdated for years. This can only confuse students.