Talk:Thermodynamic free energy
|WikiProject Physics||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|Thermodynamic free energy has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Science. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as Start-Class.|
|WikiProject Energy||(Rated Start-class)|
Stat-mech point of view?
I think it would be useful to relate free energy to the concept of partition function.. Also, to show how occupation numbers/density as well as magnetization/etc are related to it. It would be cool if someone writes this, if now, I guess I can write it when I have more time. IlyaV (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Internet coverage of the subject of free energy is vast, ranging from magnetic motors to solid state generators, including claims to working prototypes as well as charges of fraud, conspiracy, or just plain delusion. At a minimum, it makes for entertaining review. 
- I think you'll find that all motors are magnetic. It's how they turn, you see. - Mark Ryan 07:18, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- You mean all electric motors are electromagnets; but the point remains to change the phrase to "electric motors". Actually, I'm not even sure that this is true, since linear motion can be mechanically converted into circular motion. No matter, any PPM calling itself a "magnetic motor" probably claims to work only on magnetostatics, not electromagnetism, so "magnetostatic motor" would be the way to distinguish them. -- Toby Bartels 20:17, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Not a field-based distinction
It's very misleading to say that chemists use one free energy and physicists use the other. Helmholtz free energy is a very important notion for explosives chemistry, because naturally, PV is not really a going to be a controllable term.
Why is Merle Randall referenced? At the very least, a description should be added to who he was. Also seems like if you are to include him, Helmholtz, Gibbs and Lewis ought to be linked as well. Thermodude 15:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Level of the topic
The current "overview" section is really a commentary on things given for granted as if they were already acquired. I suggest that someone could write a real overview section to this page, which should ideally be understandable to a middle school student. People who can readily understand this page, as it currently is, are likely to be already knowledgeable in the field, and certainly have access to more in-depth coverage from thermodynamics textbooks. The remaining people may not be able to follow the explanation without jumping from one "prerequisite" definition to another. This makes this, and similarly conceived pages, practically useless. Most subjects can be explained to a 12-year old, as Einstein suggested, if your aim is just to illustrate things, not to train experts; and if they turn out to be too complicated, then it is most often the teacher's, not the student's fault. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 08:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
"The free energy is the internal energy of a system less the amount of energy that is not unusable to perform work, given by the entropy of a system multiplied by a reference temperature." - could someone reformulate this sentence? I don't get it. gretts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 10:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Energy is logically or historically subsequent?
Energy is a generalization of free energy.