288
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION
To the Editor: We have not until quite recently noticed the in- 29, 449 (1940); (4) J. Phys. Chsm., 44, 699 (1940); teresting paper "Heat and Entropy" by H. H. Steinour, (5) Kgl. Danske Videnskab. Selskab, Math-fys. Medd., (25, 19, No. 8 (1941); (6) "Textbook of Physical Chempublished in the January issue of THIS JOURNAL 15, 20 (1948)). Contrary to the belief of the author, istry," 2nd ed., Ejnar Munksgaard, Copenhagen, we find that the views on heat and entropy here pre- 1943; (7) Fysisk Tids., 43, 133 (1945); (8) ibid., 43, sented are essentially those of Brgnsted. This is, 155 (1945); (9) Monograph published by the Univerfurthermore, also true of the treatment of the work sity of Copenhagen, November, 1946. We also give reference to the following two papers: concept, although the difference in formal language and TH., Fysisk Tids., 41, 1 (1943); terminology is apparent. As the author only gives (10) ROSENBERG, JR.,H., Tids., Kjemi, Berguesen Met., 8, reference to one of Brgnsted's papers (4), >lTethought it (11) HOLTAN, perhaps might be of interest to the readers of the JOUR- 124 (1948). The authors of the present note will in the course of 1949 publish a book in English entitled NAL to have a complete list of Brgnsted's publications "Thermodynamical Problems Solved by the Method of on "energetics," from 1937 and until his death. J. N. Brginsted." We disagree with Dr. Steinour when he says that Brgnsted's system necessitates a "new mat,hematical K ~ RSANDVED L AND HANSHOLTAN, JR. treatment." But a new formulation of fundamental principles, by means of the revised concepts, is naturally required. The conformity of Dr. Steinonr's views with those announced by Professor Brginsted is indeed remarkable when it is remembered that his ideas are conceived without knowledge of Brginsted's production. Dr. To the Editor: Steinour has not onlv found the same weak s ~ o t in s traditional thermodykmics as did Br@nsted,he also I am happy if the thoughts expressed in my paper on suggests a revision along the same lines as followed by "Heat and Entropy" are in such essential agreement Brgnsted. We find much sound criticism and many with developments by Prof. Brgnsted as Professors bright ideas in his paper, and the reading of it has Karl Sandved and Hans Holtan, Jr., indicate. certainly been very encouraging. The Brgnsted article that I cited came to my attenIt may suffice in this connection to mention that the tion ouly after my own ideas were well developed. theory for the reversible heat engine, as presented by While I recoenized a kindred nnirit, and fnnnd ron.;ideraprocess of heat conduction are precisely as explained on the basis of Brgnsted's system of "energetics." Even what Brgnsted classifies as "the reversible reproduction of an irreversible process," during which entropy (or heat) has to he supplied to the system from the outside, is given due consideration in Steinour's paper. As a consequence of this agreement it follows that Steinour subscribes to the statement made by Brgnsted t.hat heat cannot be converted into work under any conditions whatever. It is therefore only natural to find that Steinour attacks the classical interpretation of the expansion process of a perfect gas using the same weapons as Brgnsted does. As far as formal treatment and preciseness of language are concerned Brgnsted's exposition ia decidedly superior to that of Steinour, simply because the latter author has not undertaken the rather formidable task of building up a complete "symmetrical system" of defined quantities from basic principles. Some of the readers of THISJOURNAL may perhaps think that it is a question of conflicting vievs, apparently supported in their impression by the author himself. I t is the chief purpose of the present short note to point out that such differencesof opinion do not exist. J. N. Brgnsted's publications on energetics: (1) Kgl. Danske Vidmskab. Selskab, Math-fys Medd. 14, No. 4 (1937); (2) Ibid., 16, No. 10 (1939); (3) Phil. Mag.,
avoidedthe sharp distinctibn between heat storage and other potential sources of work which I had made the basis of my treatment. Moreover, Br@nstedlsformulation of the work principle and his use of it in deriving thermodynamic relationships seemed to me to amount to the introduction of a new technique, whereas in my paper I proposed only a new viewpoint. The closing remarks in my paper were intended to indicate only such differences. I believe we both produced self-consistent treatments that do have much in common. Apparently ouly minor changes in viewpoint are needed to bring them together. I am studying a paper, received very recently from Professor Victor LaMer, which is a sympathetic iuterpretation of Brgnsted's energetics in terms of classical thermodynamics. I t is an address delivered in 1947 which is to be published this year in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. I mention i t as appropriate for addition to the list of references given by Sandved and Holtan. It is entitled, "Some New Procedures in Thermodynamic Theory Inspired by the Recent Work of J. N. Brgnsted," and is by Victor K. LaMer, Olav Foss, and Howard Reiss.
