Wednesday, May 1, 2019

thermodynamics - Enthalpy (H) formula: what is the pressure volume product


$$H=U+pV$$


Above is the formula for enthalpy or the sum of the internal energy and pressure volume product.



$-p\Delta V$ is work done by or on the system. But $pV$, yet very similar to work, I think, calculates the whole “cylinder”. Instead of just calculating the height difference of the cylinder before and after the air is condensed, it calculate the height of whole cylinder.


But anyway this is just my guess, what is it really?



Answer



Enthalpy $H$ is defined so that $\Delta H = q_P$, the heat at constant pressure. This is convenient for constant-pressure calorimetry---it makes it possible to track energy changes without considering volume changes in the system.


$$\begin{align*}\Delta U &= q + w & \text{(first law)}\\ \Delta U_P &= q_P + w_P & \text{(constant pressure)}\\ \Delta U_P &= \Delta H + w_P & \text{(definition of enthalpy)}\\ \end{align*}$$


...so the difference between $\Delta H$ and $\Delta U$ can be interpreted as minus the work for a constant pressure process.


But this doesn't answer your question for a general process. If the process is not constant pressure, we can still apply the definition of enthalpy, but the difference isn't minus the expansion work anymore. But what is it, then? How can we use something we've defined for a constant pressure process for all processes in general?


We'd like a new thermodynamic function $H$ that includes all of the information in $U$. We have $$dU = TdS - PdV$$ so the natural variables of $U$ are $S$ and $V$. We want this new function $H$ to have $P$ as a natural variable in place of $V$, so it will be convenient for constant-pressure calorimetry. Consider the following plot of $U$ vs. $V$:


enter image description here


The equation for the tangent line at some value of $V$ is $$ U = \left(\frac{\partial U}{\partial V}\right)_S V + intercept$$



If we define the new function as the intercept of the tangent line shown in the graph, it will have the properties we need:


$$H \equiv U - \left(\frac{\partial U}{\partial V}\right)_S V$$


You can see that the derivative $\left(\dfrac{\partial U}{\partial V}\right)_S = -P$ from the equation for $dU$ above. Then


$$H \equiv U - (-P) V = U + PV$$


so


$$dH = dU + d(PV) = TdS - PdV + PdV + VdP = TdS + VdP$$


By adding $PV$ to $U$, we've transformed the information in $U$ (with natural variables $S$ and $V$) to a new function $H$ (with natural variables $S$ and $P$).


This trick is called a Legendre transformation, and it can be used to understand the definitions of other thermodynamic functions like $G$ and $A$ as well.


mistakes - Circumcision liability


A story was recently publicized about a Mohel who botched up a circumcision by cutting of more than he was supposed to, requiring six hours of surgery, numerous blood transfusions, a two month hospital stay for the unfortunate baby, and a long life of turmoil, embarassment and shame.


What would a biblical punishment be for such action?




words - Connection Between Liver & Honor?


Seeing that lashon hakodesh allows for analyzing the connection between similar rooted words, what is the connection between liver (כבד) and honor (כבוד)?



Answer



Shemot 7:14 says:




וַיֹּ֤אמֶר ה' אֶל־משֶׁ֔ה כָּבֵ֖ד לֵ֣ב פַּרְעֹ֑ה מֵאֵ֖ן לְשַׁלַּ֥ח הָעָֽם


The Lord said to Moses, "Pharaoh's heart is heavy; he has refused to let the people out.



The word “kaveid” means “heavy” although I believe some translate this here as "stubborn" in the Torah. Why not say his heart was “kashah”: “hardened” or “ikeish”: "stubborn"? One explanation is that “kaveid” also means “liver” and liver must be broiled and the more it is broiled, the harder it becomes. Usually, when a stubborn person is beaten and punished, his heart softens and he begins to concede and yield. So the Torah is telling us that the heart of Pharaoh was like liver: the more plagues he received, the more stubborn he became. (מיוסד על מדרש רבה שמות, ט,ח)


That was an interesting fact from the Torah and Sages to tie it altogether with the other translation "heavy" as some in the comments noted.




To answer your question:


So how does "liver" relate to "honor"? Your liver is the hardest working organ in your body, performing over 500 life-sustaining functions. It is the largest internal organ in the body and filters toxins from your blood, produces digestive enzymes called bile, stores vitamins and minerals, regulates hormones and the immune response and helps clot blood. Your liver is the only organ in your body that can regrow after parts of it have been removed or damaged. In fact, your liver can grow back to its full size in just a matter of months.


Can you live without the liver though? NO. The liver is so crucial to existence that while you can live with only part of a liver, you can’t live without any liver at all.


In fact, we can live without various body organs... but not without the liver. Just as we cannot survive without our livers, we cannot have success in our lives or survive without any honor. But perhaps a lesson to take from the connection between "honor" and your "liver" is that just like how if you lose a part of your liver it can regrow... so to if you lose a part of your honor it can be regained.



halacha - Is there a halachic time limit for sending an organization its charity box money?


Many Jewish organizations distribute tzedaka (charity) boxes. A few that I know tell people, "collect the money and at some point, empty the money and mail us a check."


Let's say someone leaves this tzedaka box in a shul, and people place coins and bills in the box.



  • Is there a maximum time, halachically, when the box owner should send a check to the organization, if the org, never specified a schedule? In some cases, the org. said "when full, mail us a check". That could be quickly or could be a year depending on how often people donate.

  • The org. says, "send us a check". Meaning, you empty the box, keep the money and mail them a check in the amount that was in the box. Is there a halachic "time limit" between your emptying the box and mailing the check?




Answer



The Talmud (RH 4a) tells us that Tzedaka, like any other Neder, is included in the Biblical prohibition of Bal Te'acher (don't delay paying up your vows). However, unlike ordinary vows for sacrifices for which one does not violate unless they don't bring the sacrifice before 3 consecutive festivals have passed (Rambam Maaseh Korbanot 14:13), the Talmud tells us (RH 6a) that for Tzedaka one needs to pay immediately for there are always poor people available. Rambam codifies this in Matnot Aniyim 8:1, noting that if there is no poor person available, one seperates the money and awaits a poor person. Tosfot (RH 4a) explains that while the 3-festival rule doesn't apply when there are needy people available, if there are no needy people then you have to seek them out before 3 festivals have elapsed. Rambam (ibid.) mentions no such distinction. The Tur (YD 257) quotes his father, Rosh, as arguing on the Rambam and ruling that if one were to stipulate at the time of the Neder that one should be allowed to distribute the money slowly to different people, that would avoid any of these limits.


Shulchan Arukh YD 257:3 rules like the Rambam against Tosfot (see Shakh 5, Gra 6), and like the Rosh against the Rambam. However, in your case we need not worry about any of that, as the Rama there notes (my translation; bolding added):



הגה: וכל זה בצדקה שיש בידו לחלקה בעצמו אבל כשנודרין צדקה בבית הכנסת ליתנה ליד גבאי או שאר צדקה שיש לו ליתן לגבאי אינו עובר עליה אע"ג דעניים מצויים אא"כ תבעו הגבאי ואז עובר עליה מיד אי קיימי עניים והגבאי היה מחלק להם מיד ואם אין ידוע לגבאי צריך הוא להודיע לגבאי מה שנדר כדי שיוכל לתבעו ... ואם אמר אתן סלע לצדקה לפלוני אינו עובר עד שיבא אותו עני אע"ג דשאר עניים מצויים:‏
GLOSS: All this is by Tzedaka which is in his capability to distribute, but when they vow Tzedaka in synagogue to give to the hands of the Gabbai or other Tzedaka which one needs to give to the Gabbai [for distribution], he does not violate even if poor people are present unless the Gabbai sought [the money from] him, and then he violates it immediately if the poor people are present and the Gabbai would distribute to them immediately. If [his vow] was not known to the Gabbai, he must notify him so that he can seek [the money from] him. ... And if he says "I will give a Sela to [a specific poor person" he does not violate until that specific person comes, even if there are other poor people present.



It seems from this that not only are the people who put money in the box not bound by time limits, but the box manager too is not bound by any limit as it is not up to him to distribute the money. If the organization requests the money (the Shakh there states that until otherwise known we assume they need it for immediate use) then he must (a biblical obligation!) send it to them immediately. If they haven't requested the money (and he doesn't want to send it yet), he should notify them that the money is available so they can request it if they want. Seemingly, he can assume they don't want to be bothered with notifications for each coin dropped in.


parshanut torah comment - What is the difference in meaning / nuance between ריב and תלונה?



We frequently see some form of ריב and /or תלונה used when B'nai Yisra'el complains with Moshe and Aharon. Examples:


Shemot 15:24 וילונו


Shemot 16:2 וילונו


Shemot 17:2 וירב


Shemot 17:3 וילן


My understanding - תלונה means a complaint, and we do see in these examples, that the people are complaining. But in the 2nd to last example, it seems that they are complaining, as well by saying "Give us water". Although, they are stating a direct request, here, where as in the next verse they are registering their "usual wish" of why Moshe took them into the desert.


I understood the term ריב means "argument", unless there is another definition or nuance, here. When / why would oen of these 2 terms be more appropriate?



Answer



Rav Hirsch on Beshalach 15:24




וַיִּלֹּנוּ הָעָם עַל משֶׁה לֵּאמֹר מַה נִּשְׁתֶּה



:tranlates this as



And the people murmured against Moshe, saying: What shall we drink?



** וילונו - לון **



to seek shelter from hardship, hence to stay somewhere overnight, and מלון an inn. From which we get הלון על to seek redress from a hardship which one has to endure, to put yourself above somebody, to speak and spread abroad complaints about somebody, to grumble about somebody.




Here they not only had no water but they had undrinkable water. They did not realize that had they gotten to a real oasis, there would have been people there who would have objected to their coming. However, Hashem had set up a situation where He would sweeten the water for them, but the population of the area knew that the water was undrinkable (as shown by the name) and had abandoned it. Had they encountered people they would have panicked and run.


Rav Hirsch then translates Beshalach 17::2



וַיָּרֶב הָעָם עִם משֶׁה וַיֹּאמְרוּ תְּנוּ לָנוּ מַיִם וְנִשְׁתֶּה וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם משֶׁה מַה תְּרִיבוּן עִמָּדִי מַה תְּנַסּוּן אֶת יְהֹוָה:



as



And the people contended with Moshe and said: Give us water that we may drink



Rav Hirsch comments:




וירב is not תלונה as in verse 3, which we found (from the meaning of לון) to mean seeking relief from some privation or distress that one is beginning to feel, but וירב is chiefly used for establishing a supposed or real claim to something to which one has a right, as in the dispute over the wells (Gen. XXVI,20). Here they were not yet making any reproaches, did not refer to their requirements, but as a justified claim, demanded water. Where we camp, there must be water: תנו לנו מים As the ן in תריבון and תנוסון stresses the second person, the retort runs: you know quite well that it is not I but Hashem who has led you hither, and surely you have by now had sufficient experience of Hashem to quietly trust to Him that here also He will not let you die of thirst. In ordinary circumstances your demand would be quite justified, but you etc.



Note that Beshalach 17:3



וַיִּצְמָא שָׁם הָעָם לַמַּיִם וַיָּלֶן הָעָם עַל משֶׁה וַיֹּאמֶר לָמָּה זֶּה הֶעֱלִיתָנוּ מִמִּצְרַיִם לְהָמִית אֹתִי וְאֶת בָּנַי וְאֶת מִקְנַי בַּצָּמָא:



Rav Hirsch translates as



But when the people thirsted ...




Rav Hirsch points out that they still had water and manufactured an argument because new water was not waiting for them. Had they waited one more station, they would have arrived at Chorev and received the miraculous well of Miriam that was to provide them with water for the entire trip. Thus, the Torah uses the term for argument rather than recognition of a justified complaint.


grammar - How does どうするんだ function here?


For more context, see the full text here: https://www.docdroid.net/RdEh6ZK/img-20170712-0001-new.pdf


Taken from line 3: すると、一人の男が「そんな物、怖がってどうするんだ。...」といばった。



On jisho, どうする translates into "what to do about it" http://jisho.org/search/dousuru I feel rather unsure about the implementation of this meaning here. I'd translate the sentence like this:


"Hereupon, one of the men bragged: "Such things, being afraid what to do about it?..."


I think this phrase goes in the direction of "Such things, why bother with being afraid?" or "such things, what do you do about feeling afraid". The latter would imply a question about what they do to cope with it. I would say that the first of the two interpretations is probably more fitting here, but as I said, I don't really know what to do with this どうする here.



Answer



The guy is basically bragging that he is not scared of that "thing", and in a way mock everyone who is scared.


The どうする might not be easy to understand. It technically means,



"what you gonna do about it",



but the meaning is more something like,




"how can you keep on going(living your life etc...) if you can't handle this".
"What are you gonna do if you can't even handle that".
"If you can't manage that much, there is nothing you can do(you are doomed to failure/mediocrity)"



Another easy way to understand might be to see it like this.



Oh no what shall we do!



halacha - Laws of inheritance according to the Torah still applicable?


I was wondering if the inheritance Torah laws were still applicable in western countries like US or France.


First Question


For example, in France, by law a parent can not disinherit one of his children. In this case, there is no possibility for a daughter to get nothing at the death of her parents. Yet according to the law of the Torah, she shouldn't receive any inheritance from her parents.



Does the law of the land override halachic inheritance laws?


This question may already has an answer here


Is there a difference in Israel and other countries?


Second (and most important) Question


This rule is surprising today, when women do not occupy the same place as when these rules were enacted. Perhaps, the inheritance laws were related to the part of the land of Israel that should always remain in the same tribe? Today, it seems terribly unfair to deprive girls of their parents' inheritance. Jewish women, especially in the religious world, have enormous responsibilities; which was not the case at the time when these rules were established.


Can we consider that inheritance laws no longer apply today, given that the situation has evolved enormously?


My question has no provocative purpose, nor does it question the eternity of the laws of the Torah.


I thank you in advance for your clarifications,




digital communications - Understanding the Matched Filter

I have a question about matched filtering. Does the matched filter maximise the SNR at the moment of decision only? As far as I understand, ...