Talk:On the Equilibrium of Heterogeneous Substances

Language
This is a paper published by an American, in English, in a Connecticut journal. It was first noted by Ostwald, but that really ssems an inadequate reason to quote it in German. (If you are having trouble locating the English text, write me, and I'll see what I can do.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen the paper, but it seems plausible to me that since it is quoting Clausius, a German, the quotes may have been in German in the English version of the paper. --Itub 18:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you; the mention of Clausius is not at all clear; on my screen, it wasn't visible at all until I searched for it. (And extensive quotes really should be at Wikisource anyway.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Septe, the quotes are the first law of thermodynamics and the second law of thermodynamics. The "opening section" is how Gibbs typed it verbatim.  Thank you. I have added the English translations in quotes for the sake of non-German readers and the English translation of Clausius’ 1865 book is linked, from which the quote came. --Sadi Carnot 20:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the inclusion of so large a quotation: I believe that - as stated by Septentrionalis - it belongs at Wikisource, not here. Also, the appearance of this quotation under an article heading, without any clear statement or sign that the material below the heading is, in its entirety, a quotation, can only confuse readers.


 * However, the fact that Gibbs opened his work with the direct quotation from Clausius of the first and second laws of thermodynamics, is both interesting and relevant, for it shows to what extent Gibbs aimed to explain a diverse range of phenomena in terms of fundamental principles. It would be worth saying this in the article.


 * If we were to remove the bulk of this quotation - as I believe we should, since it adds almost nothing to the reader's understanding of the subject - that would leave the bulk of the article under the heading "Overview". Perhaps a more apt heading would be "Importance"?  The material in this section admirably summarises the significance of Gibbs' paper to thermodynamics.


 * I would prefer to have some feedback on these thoughts before editing the article. Your thoughts, anyone?  yoyo (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Value of
That's a weird section title if you ask me (perhaps an excess in the attempt to avoid redundancy in the titles?). But what bugs me is the content. It seems to imply that the paper is valuable because it is an expensive collector item, and puts this measure of value on a level parallel to producing four Nobel Prizes. I can think of collector items that are more expensive but would otherwise be considered worthless except for their rarity (e.g., some famous defective stamps). I can also imagine scientific contributions that were very valuable to the history of science but did not become expensive collector items (perhaps because they were published more widely). In any case, the selling price of the original paper is a piece of trivia that should not be conflated with the more general value of the work. --Itub 12:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Certainly you’re entitled to your point of view, but for someone who collects rare books, as myself, and others interested in the value of rare thermodynamic books I think it is an interesting section. To give you an idea, last week I bought:


 * Clausius, R. (1879). The Mechanical Theory of Heat, 2nd Ed. London: MacMillan. Cost: $550.00
 * Guggenheim, Edward, A. (1933). Modern Thermodynamics by the Methods of Willard Gibbs, Methuen & Co. Cost: $139.00


 * Other books of interest for me include:


 * 1872 Boltzmann Article - Manhattan Rare Book Company


 * This rare article costs $3,600 dollars (I didn’t, however, buy this one). Similarly, though, last year, I bought:


 * Lewis, Gilbert, N. & Randall. (1923). Thermodynamics and the Free Energy of Chemical Substances. New York: Mc-Graw-Hill. Cost: $170.00


 * Hence, there is some knowledge to be gained by knowing about the price of collector items. I assume the same holds without question in some of the art-works pages at Wikipedia, although I don’t read these.  Later: --Sadi Carnot 23:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that the information should be deleted outright, but that there's no direct relation between the scientific value (produced four nobel prizes) and the price. If the only point of the section is to talk about the selling price of the book as a collector's item, then it should have a more explicit title (something like "value to collectors", "selling value", or whatever...) I should also point out that some of the examples you just gave are not much more expensive than textbooks published in the U.S. in recent years. For example, Lehninger Principles of Biochemistry, Fourth Edition by David L. Nelson and Michael M. Cox (2004) costs $154.95. :-) --Itub 05:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Changed per request. --Sadi Carnot 17:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted the reference in this section as it was broken, although I must say that I was tempted to delete the whole subsection. However, the 'art-works' argument convinced me otherwise. I wonder how much someone would pay for the PDF copy I have?... ;-)  --Spud Gun (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I am not now so convinced by the 'art-works argument'. I have looked at several Wikipedia pages concerning works of art by Picasso (as good a choice as any...) and many make no mention as to their value. Given the nature of this 'work of art', unless there is a verifiable sale at auction for a substantial sum (rather than some somewhat arbitrary cost value), I suggest that this section be deleted, as its sale value is far from germane to the true vale of the work. --Spud Gun (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. A work of art may have a well-defined selling value (the price paid the most recent time that it was sold), because it is unique. A 100-year old book with many copies in existence will have a price that varies widely due to individual sellers asking for different prices, varying condition of individual copies... --Itub (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Given that the possible cost (not value!) of a copy of this work is orthogonal the spirit of this article, If there are no objections within the week I shall delete the Collector value section. --Spud Gun (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Online sources
The paper is available online from Gallica (Bibliothèque nationale de France) here, as is the French translation by Le Chatelier here. Cheaper than $1000 for just the abstract! Physchim62 (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As usual, Google books has lots of interesting information. There are books that discuss the reactions of Wan der Waals, and Maxwell, as well as many history books that discuss the work, and the proceedings of a symposium held at Yale on the 150 anniversary of Gibbs' birth. --Itub 08:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Good work: --Sadi Carnot 17:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)