Will E.
asked 07/20/22Approximation of a partial derivative
I am looking for a useful approximation for a partial derivative of the form
partial derivative of lnP with respect to lnA at constant S.
Suppose that P=1000 and A=200.
Suppose that I choose deltaP = 5 and deltaA = 0.5 and solve for P=1005 and A=200.5 at constant S.
Would the following then be a good approximation:
ln(P/(P+deltaP)) / ln(A/(A+deltaA)) and in which, in this example, would be
ln(1000/1005) / ln(200/200.5)
?
1 Expert Answer
Ryan C. answered 07/20/22
Ivy League Professor | 10+ Years Experience | Patient & Kind
Hi Will,
Thanks for your question!
Here's how I'd think about the problem. Presumably, P = P(A,S), but since S is constant, we have P = P(A). Now I'm going to write the functional relationship P = P(A) using an intermediate variable that I'll call u:
P = P(u(A)), (Equation 1)
where u = ln(A). As a result, we can think of expressions like dP/du as being equivalent to dP/d(ln(A)). This keeps our notation nice and clean.
Let's suppose now that I vary A by a small amount δA (so that |δA| << |A|). Then, P necessarily changes by a small amount δP (with |δP| << |P|) so that Equation 1 becomes
P + δP = P(u(A + δA)). (Equation 2)
I'm now going to Taylor series expand the function u about A, giving us
u(A + δA) = u(A) + u'(A)δA + ..., (Equation 3)
where the prime on u denotes a derivative with respect to A. Substituting the expansion in Equation 3 into Equation 2, we get
P + δP = P(u(A) + u'(A)δA + ...). (Equation 4)
Now I'm going to Taylor series expand the function P about u(A), giving us
P(u(A) + u'(A)δA + ...) = P(u(A)) + P'(u(A))(u'(A)δA + ...) + ..., (Equation 5)
where the prime on P denotes a derivative with respect to u. Substituting the expansion in Equation 5 into Equation 4, we get
P + δP = P(u(A)) + P'(u(A))(u'(A)δA + ...) + ... . (Equation 6)
The P and P(u(A)) cancel from both sides of Equation 6 by Equation 1. If I drop terms of order (δA)2 and smaller on the RHS of Equation 6, I find the approximation
δP ≈ P'(u(A))(u'(A)δA), (Equation 7)
which can be written as
P'(u(A)) ≈ δP/(u'(A)δA). (Equation 8)
We're on the home stretch now! Suppose I divide Equation 8 on both sides by P(u(A)). Then, using the fact that d(ln(P))/du = 1/P(u)dP/du, Equation 8 becomes
(ln(P(u(A))))' ≈ δP/(P(u(A))u'(A)δA). (Equation 9)
Now we use the fact that u = ln(A) to see that the LHS of Equation 9 is nothing but d(lnP)/d(lnA) when the functional dependencies are dropped and the RHS cleans up to (AδP)/(PδA) since u'(A) = (ln(A))' = 1/A. We then obtain an approximation for the derivative d(lnP)/d(ln A), which is
d(lnP)/d(lnA) ≈ (AδP)/(PδA). (Equation 10)
Note that we could have arrived at a similar answer more formally by noting that d(lnP) = dP/P and d(ln(A)) = dA/A, but it's nice to see how this formal argument is justified more precisely.
Will E.
Wow! Thanks for that! I hope the following helps. I just used P and A to sort of clarify the partial. In fact, it is the partial derivative of LnP with respect to lnrho. I felt that lower case rho would look too much like a p so I used "A" instead. The LnP is actually Ln(Pressure), the Lnrho is actually the Ln(density) of a gas micture at specified pressure, temperature and entropy, and S is entropy. This is all about adiabtaic, isentropic expansion of gasses in a shifting equilibrium. What the partial actually is, is "y" (gamma; ratio of specific heats) but Not in the typically seen form of Cp/Cv (ratio of specific heats at constant pressure and constant volume) that is used in the so-called "frozen" equilibrium expansion of gasses (see Zucrow and Hoffman's "Gas Dynamics" Volume I, for example). The NASA CEA docs state that in a *shifting* equilibrium expansion, the Cp/Cv gamma must Not be used and instead gamma-sub-S where the partial's S denotes isentropic expansion (constant S). So, the P is just pressure, not a function, and rho (density) is a rather simple function of mass per unit volume at a given temperature and pressure. Does your approximation still work considering this? I can calculate the combustion products in equilibrium at an assigned pressure and a computed temperature (based on matching the reactants' and products' total enthalpy) and from this then determine its entropy. I can then slightly adjust the pressure and re-compute an equilibrium composition, but instead, at whatever slight change in temperature is required such that the entropy remains constant between the two cases. I suppose my poorly worded initial question should have included these details, that I just wish to be able to determine gamma-sub-S from these two closely-spaced pressures (P), two temperatures, two sets of product compositions, both at identical entropy, and two calculated densities (rho) from the preceding. On a side note, I have been trying to find ANYTHING ANYWHERE that will tell me why gamma-sub-S must be used instead of the "ordinary" gamma and have had zero luck. I need to dig further into the origins of the NASA CEA code that Gordon Sanford developed in the early 1960's. Always another nut to crack, isn't there? :)07/21/22
Ryan C.
Very cool stuff! Reminds me a lot of my grad school days in meteorology. :) I'm not certain that what I have to say will help you, but I'll throw in my two cents. In deriving the equation of state for adiabatic (or, equivalently, isentropic) processes in equilibrium, you assume that dq = 0 (i.e., that there is not exchange of heat between a parcel of gas and its surroundings) and that the process is quasi-static (or as you say "frozen"), meaning dw = pdV (i.e., the work performed by a parcel of gas on its surroundings) . When not in equilibrium, either dq =/= 0 or dw =/= pdV. If we stick still with adiabatic processes, then the only non-equilibrium process would be if dw =/= pdV, but then the work done by our parcel is no longer written in terms of state variables, making it process dependent. Perhaps this is why gamma must be modified appropriately depending on the nonequilibrium process at play.07/27/22
Still looking for help? Get the right answer, fast.
Get a free answer to a quick problem.
Most questions answered within 4 hours.
OR
Choose an expert and meet online. No packages or subscriptions, pay only for the time you need.
Roger R.
07/20/22