Failures of “Meso-Phase” Hypothesis Near Vapor–Liquid Critical Point

I. H. Umirzakov

doi:10.1007/s10765-019-2483-7

International Journal of Thermophysics

February 2019, 40:21 | Cite as

Failures of “Meso-Phase” Hypothesis Near Vapor–Liquid Critical Point

Authors
Authors and affiliations

I. H. Umirzakov

Article

First Online: 23 January 2019

23 Downloads

Abstract

It is shown that the “meso-phase” hypothesis of Woodcock L. V. fails to describe quantitatively and qualitatively the isochoric and isobaric heat capacities, speed of sound, long wavelength limit of the structural factor, isothermal compressibility, density fluctuations, Joule–Thompson coefficient and isothermal throttling coefficient of argon in the “meso-phase” region. It is also shown that VdW-EOS can describe qualitatively the excess Gibbs energy and rigidity of argon near-critical point.

Keyword

Argon Critical point First-order phase transition Heat capacity Phase equilibrium

This is a preview of subscription content, to check access.

Notes

Appendix

Let us consider the first assertion “In contrast to the conjecture [1] there is no reliable experimental evidence to doubt the existence of a single critical point,” citing the Sengers and Anisimov comment [2] based upon historic evidence from divergent isochoric heat capacity \( C_{V} \) measurements at the critical temperature (\( T_{c} \)) which was discussed in [29].

The first part of the assertion (“In contrast to the conjecture [1] there is no reliable experimental evidence to doubt the existence of a single critical point”) was quoted from [4] in [27], but there was not the rest part of the assertion (“citing the Sengers and Anisimov comment [2] based upon historic evidence from divergent isochoric heat capacity \( C_{V} \) measurements at the critical temperature (\( T_{c} \))”) in [27]. The first part of the assertion means that there is no reliable experimental evidence to doubt the existence of a single critical point and this is in contrast to the conjecture of [29] and nothing more. So, the first assertion discussed in [29] is an incorrect assertion from [27], while a correct assertion from [27] is:

Assertion 1

“In contrast to the conjecture [1] there is no reliable experimental evidence to doubt the existence of a single critical point.”

It is evident that Assertion 1 does not mean that Anisimov and Sengers divergent \( C_{V} \) at \( T_{c} \) is wrong. Therefore, the conclusions “if Umirzakov’s first assertion were to be right, Anisimov and Sengers divergent \( C_{V} \) at \( T_{c} \) would have to be wrong. In fact, neither of the assertions will withstand scientific scrutiny” [29] have no sense.

The second assertion discussed in [29] is “… to prove that the existence of a single critical point of a fluid described by van der Waals equation of state (VDW-EOS) is not a hypothesis and is a consequence of the thermodynamic conditions of liquid–vapor phase equilibrium.”

One can see from [27] that the quote in the second assertion is incorrect and a correct assertion from [27] is:

Assertion 2

“We prove that the existence of a single critical point of a fluid described by van der Waals equation of state (VDW-EOS) is not a hypothesis and is a consequence of the thermodynamic conditions of liquid–vapor phase equilibrium.”

It is easy to see reading [29] that there is no proof in [29] that the existence of a single critical point of the fluid described by VdW-EOS is hypothetical and the existence of a single critical point of VdW-fluid is not a consequence of the thermodynamic conditions of liquid–vapor phase equilibrium. So, there is no proof in [29] that Assertion 2 is incorrect.

One can see that VdW-EOS [6] alone was considered in [27] and all conclusions of [27] concern VdW-fluid. There is no statement or assumption in [27] that VDW-EOS describes quantitatively the thermodynamic properties of the real fluids. It is evident that the statements of [27] that “there is no reliable experimental evidence to doubt the existence of a single critical point” and “the existence of a single critical point of a fluid described by the van der Waals equation of state (VDW-EOS) is not a hypothesis and is a consequence of the thermodynamic conditions of liquid–vapor phase equilibrium” do not mean that VdW-EOS describes quantitatively the thermodynamic properties of the real fluids (for example, of argon). It is also evident that the proof that VdW-EOS cannot describe quantitatively the thermodynamic properties of the real fluids does not mean that the above statements of [27] are incorrect.

According to [29], “it was incorrectly asserted that van der Waals equation ‘proves’ the existence of a scaling singularity with a divergent isochoric heat capacity (\( C_{V} \))” in [27]. One can easily see from [27] that there is no assertion in [27] that VdW-EOS proves the existence of a scaling singularity with a divergent isochoric heat capacity.

One can see from the above comments that there is the lack of logic in the reasoning of Woodcock in [29].

We proved in [27] that VdW-fluid has only one critical point. Therefore, the statement “Ref. [1] proves nothing more than van der Waals’ equation has a singularity with two vanishing derivatives” [29] is incorrect if the singularity does not mean that there is only one critical point.

The ability of VdW-EOS to describe the thermodynamic properties of real fluid was not considered in [27]. The fact that VdW-EOS cannot describe quantitatively the thermodynamic properties of the real fluids was earlier established by many authors [7, 8, 9, 23]. So, the statement in [29] that “state functions of van der Waal’s equation fail to describe the thermodynamic properties of low-temperature gases, liquids and gas–liquid coexistence” is not a new insight into the science or physics.

Many conclusions in [29] are based on the fact that VdW-EOS cannot describe quantitatively the thermodynamic properties of the real fluids. This fact does not prove the statements such as “The conclusion that there is no ‘critical point’ singularity on Gibbs density surface remains scientifically sound,” “the conclusion in Ref. [1], i.e., that there is no critical point singularity with scaling properties on Gibbs density surface still holds true,” and “Van der Waals hypothetical singular critical point is based upon a common misconception that van der Waals equation represents physical reality of fluids” [29].

According to [29] “Explicitly built into the equation is an incorrect a priori assumption of continuity of liquid and gaseous states.” One can see from the detailed consideration of [29] that there is no proof of the incorrectness of a priori assumption of continuity of liquid and gaseous states in [29].

There exists the method for direct experimental measure of a critical density—the disappearance of the meniscus method which gives a high precision of the critical density determination (± 0.02 %) [12, 31, 32, 33]. The radioactive tracer technique is also used for direct measurement of the critical density [34]. So, the statement “No research in history has reported the direct experimental measurement of a critical density” [29] is incorrect.

One can see from comparison of contents of [27] and [29] that [29] does not include the proofs of the incorrectness of the assertions and conclusions made in [27]. One can also see the same from the comments presented above.

References

1.
M.A. Anisimov, Critical Phenomena in Liquids and Liquid Crystals (Gordon and Breach, New York, 1991)Google Scholar
2.
R.J. Baxter, Exactly Solved Models in Statistical Mechanics (Academic Press, London, 1982)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
3.
A. Pelissetto, E. Vicari, Critical phenomena and renormalization-group theory. Phys. Rep. 368, 549 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-1573(02)00219-3 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
4.
J.V. Sengers, M.A. Anisimov, Comment Gibbs density surface of fluid argon: revised critical parameters, L. V. Woodcock. Int. J. Thermophys. (2014) 35, 1770–1784. Int. J. Thermophys. 36, 3001 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10765-015-1954-8 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.
J.M.H. Levelt Sengers, Liquidons and gasons; controversies about continuity of states. Phys. A 98, 363 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4371(79)90145-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.
J.D. van der Waals, On the continuity of gas and liquid states, (original Ph.D. Thesis Leiden 1873) translated and edited by J. S. Rowlinson. (Dover Inc., New York 1987)Google Scholar
7.
J.O. Hirschfelder, C.F. Curtiss, R.B. Bird, Molecular theory of gases and liquids (Wiley, London, 1954), p. 930zbMATHGoogle Scholar
8.
L.D. Landau, E.M. Lifshitz, Statistical physics, 3rd edn. (Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 2013)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
9.
S.M. Walas, Phase equilibria in chemical engineering. Parts 1 and 2 (Butterworth publishers, London, 1985)Google Scholar
10.
R.C. Reid, J.M. Prausnitz, T.K. Sherwood, The properties of gases and liquids (McGraw-Hill Inc., London, 1977)Google Scholar
11.
R. Balesku, Equilibrium and non-equilibrium statistical mechanics (Wiley, New York, 1975), p. 405Google Scholar
12.
D.Y. Ivanov, Critical Behavior of Non-Ideal Systems (WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co KGaA, Weinheim, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.
V.A. Rabinovich, V.V. Sychev, YuE Sheludyak, The regularities of the thermodynamics of critical phenomena in the liquid-gas system. High Temp. 33(2), 293–315 (1995)Google Scholar
14.
NIST Thermo-physical Properties of Fluid Systems (2017), http://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/fluid/
15.
M.I. Bagatskii, A.V. Voronel, V.G. Gusak, Zh Exp, Teor. Fiz. Sov. Phys. JETP 43, 728 (1962)Google Scholar
16.
M.I. Bagatskii, A.V. Voronel, V.G. Gusak, Sov. Phys. JETP 16, 517 (1963)ADSGoogle Scholar
17.
C. Tegeler, R. Span, W. Wagner, A new equation of state for argon covering the fluid region for temperatures from the melting line to 700 K at pressures up to 1000 MPa. J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 28(3), 779–850 (1999)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.
R. Span, W. Wagner, Equations of state for technical applications. II. Results for nonpolar fluids. Int. J. Thermophys. 24, 41 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.
R. Span, W. Wagner, Equations of state for technical applications. III. Results for polar fluids. Int. J. Thermophys. 24, 111 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.
E.W. Lemmon, R. Span, Short fundamental equations of state for 20 industrial fluids. J. Chem. Eng. Data 51, 785 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.
R. Gilgen, R. Kleinrahm, W. Wagner, Measurement and correlation of the (pressure-density-temperature) relation of argon I. The homogeneous gas and liquid regions in the temperature range from 90 K to 340 K at pressures up to 12 MPA. J. Chem. Thermodyn. 26, 383 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.
R. Gilgen, R. Kleinrahm, W. Wagner, Measurement and correlation of the (pressure-density-temperature) relation of argon II. Saturated-liquid and saturated-vapor densities and vapour pressures along the entire coexistence curve. J. Chem. Thermodyn. 26, 399 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.
M.N. Berberan-Santos, E.N. Bodunov, L. Pogliani, The van der Waals equation: analytical and approximate solutions. J. Math. Chem. 43, 1437–1457 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.
D.C. Johnston. Advances in Thermodynamics of the van der Waals Fluid. David C. Johnston. 118 pp. IOP Concise Physics, Morgan & Claypool, San Rafael, CA (2014)Google Scholar
25.
D.C. Johnston. Thermodynamic Properties of the van der Waals Fluid. arXiv preprint arXiv:1402.1205 (2014)
26.
L.V. Woodcock, Gibbs density surface of fluid argon: revised critical parameters. Int. J. Thermophys. 35, 1770 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10765-013-1411-5 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.
I.H. Umirzakov, New comment on Gibbs density surface of fluid argon: revised Critical Parameters, L. V. Woodcock, Int. J. Thermophys. (2014) 35, 1770–1784. Int. J. Thermophys. 39, 8 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10765-017-2331-6 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
28.
L.V. Woodcock, On the interpretation of near-critical gas–liquid heat capacities. Int. J. Thermophys. 38, 139 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10765-017-2277-8 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
29.
L.V. Woodcock, Failures of van der Waals’ Equation at the Gas-Liquid Critical Point. Int. J. Thermophys. 39, 120 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10765-018-2444-6 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
30.
I.H. Umirzakov, On the Interpretation of Near-Critical Gas–Liquid Heat Capacities by L. V. Woodcock, Int. J. Thermophys. (2017) 38, 139: comments. Int. J. Thermophys. 39, 139 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10765-018-2414-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31.
A.G. Stoletov, Collected Works, in 4 volumes (Gostekhteorizdat, Moscow, Leningrad, 1939) 1, 276, 307, 333Google Scholar
32.
M.A. Weinberger, W.G. Schneider, On the liquid-vapor coexistence curve of xenon in the region of the critical temperature. Can. J. Chem. 30, 422 (1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33.
M.A. Weinberger, W.G. Schneider, On the liquid-vapor coexistence curve of xenon in the region of the critical temperature. Can. J. Chem. 30, 815 (1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34.
M.A. Weinberger, W.G. Schneider, Density distributions in a vertical tube containing xenon near the critical temperature as measured by a radioactive tracer technique. Can. J. Chem. 30, 847 (1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

I. H. Umirzakov
- 1
Email author

1.Institute of ThermophysicsNovosibirskRussia

Failures of “Meso-Phase” Hypothesis Near Vapor–Liquid Critical Point

Abstract

Keyword

Notes

References

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

Personalised recommendations

Cite article