The best
Thermodynamics books:
Reddit reviews
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
The best of Thermodynamics books by number of unique Reddit comments:
Top Reddit reviews mentioning Thermodynamics books:
A very good book to start would be this:
https://www.amazon.com/Computational-Mechanics-Transfer-Physical-Processes/dp/1591690374
this is the book. I had to have it for all homework and classwork. The book itself was ~$650 and the property tables that was required was ~$50. Amazon didn't have it at the time and I panicked and bought it at an off campus bookstore since the professor had homework due the next class period. Since the book was new, as in published that year, no place around me had used editions. So yep, dumbass over here threw down ~$700 for a book. Thankfully the professor said the book would be used throughout the rest of my heat courses (hopefully).
My guess is Mechanics & Thermodynamics of Propulsion 2e, by Hill & Peterson. This textbook was used to teach my undergrad Jet & Rocket Prop course.
Wallace and Hobbs is definitely the go-to for most freshman and sophomore-level meteorology classes.
Even had a few upper-level courses that referenced it. Maybe a bit more advanced for what you're looking for, but still is an excellent textbook. Still have mine in my office.
For understanding Entropy and Heat,
I recommend H.B Callen's https://www.amazon.com/Thermodynamics-Intro-Thermostat-2E-Clo/dp/0471862568
Thermodynamics and an Introduction to Thermostatistics 2nd Edition
I'm *sure your local library has a copy of it. I recommend looking for a copy at the Library of Genes.is. (hint hint).
In short, an air engine starter is used to drive the gearbox, which by means of an attached angled gearbox drives the tie shaft, which is attached to the compressor and turbine. Once the compressor is spinning at a minimum RPM for self-sustaining combustion, fuel is introduced and ignited. This then increases the stagnation temperature of the gas path from the combustion onward and allows the turbine to extract the work needed to drive the whole assembly at the minimum RPM. More fuel is introduced to spin up to idle.
https://youtu.be/g4pqEzfKXcA - Video of an assembly/test mechanic discussing the start process. Since you're curious, I recommend you check out his other videos as well.
If you want a theoretical overview of the operation of turbojets, I recommend a book I bought for my Propulsion Systems class in undergrad: Mechanics and Thermodynamics of Propulsion https://www.amazon.com/dp/0201146592/ref=cm_sw_r_apan_glt_i_S72EKJ0PZXA1ABNRHDAY.
This book will explain mathematically how the process works, under some sets of assumptions of course.
The Feynman Lectures on Physics, boxed set: The New Millennium Edition
$129.04
The MERM is the Lindbergh Mechanical Engineering Reference Manual.
This is a huge book since it covers all three ME exams and honestly has a lot of "fluff" (there's no calculus on the exam and there are other non-exam-relevant topics).
That being said I highly recommend this book for the following reasons:
It is a great way to learn about the principles of topics you forgot about from school
There are good practice problems with solutions in SI and US customary units
Personally I prefer learning from a physical hardcopy book with pencil + paper (maybe i am old school like that)
It's a great looking book and if/when you pass the exam, adds a bit of sophistication to your bookshelf.
DM me for additional info. Hell.. you might even get a little surprise ;)
That's not what is happening here. Here is some proof:
Start here.
You'll need a real firm grasp on Newton-Raphson iterations.
I'll send you more links for further reading when youre through with this. You'll get through it if you put your mind to it and pull your bootstraps up.
Computational Fluid Mechanics and Heat Transfer 2nd or 3rd Edition by John C. Tannehill, Dale A. Anderson, and Richard H. Pletcher Amazon Link
I've read through some of this book, and it's been recommended to me by my mentor. It's a great book to build a strong foundation in CFD
One, I'm not attacking anyone and particularly not the youngsters. I'm trying to speed their progress. I provided plenty of directions on what they should be reading. Go up to my initial comment here. I didn't dismiss Graham completely; instead I suggested people read Zhang first for some proper framework. In particular, his approach is compatible with efficient markets so the premiums are there to be earned by everyone. (More broadly I like to live with an abundance mindset. It's not always zero sum, mi amigo, especially since we are not talking about alpha here.)
You present yourself as a thinking man and professional, but sometimes I wonder if you have a reading comprehension problem or alternatively your reading ability is fine but you are so resistant to the viewpoints of others that you fail to understand them properly before you lash out. I'm no psychologist so I will leave that to your therapist.
Second, go knock yourself out with his lectures (https://www.amazon.com/Feynman-Lectures-Physics-boxed-set/dp/0465023827/) . Not a real test since you are smarter than the average /r/investing bear but give it an honest effort and report back in a month.
The standard intro to atmospheric science I believe is Wallace & Hobbs; this book focused on the physical science and quantitative aspect of atmospheric science. I don't have anything for general geophysics however.
​
I once heard from a guy having a physics PhD now working in weather forecasting said "Even the most theoretical ideas in meteorology is nowhere as sophisticated as in theoretical physics." Atmospheric science is more of an applied science much like engineering. So I think all the really high-level theoretical tools in GR, QFT, etc. will unlikely be used there, and I suspect this is the same for geophysics as well. The more immediately applicable background knowledge to have, I would say, is fluid dynamics.
> Don't get me started on "aluminium".
Interesting! Wikipedia indicates "aluminum" is the original spelling, but "aluminium" became more popular. I suppose Americans should respect the "International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry" and call it 'aluminium', if they want world peace (i.e. international cooperation) ...
> Are you saying it should be 1.0C°?
Yes. Perhaps Daniel Schroeder was trying to be a trendsetter with this instruction. I think the distinction is valuable as it adds clarity and beauty to language. However, perhaps it's pedantic, as I can't think of another example: We don't make a distinction when reporting differences in length, time, pressure, mass, volume, current, or radioactivity ...
Great answer. For people who would like to see more, a similar argument to the one above is given in the book An Introduction to Thermal Physics by Schroeder (of Peskin and Schroeder fame). What I like about this book is that it really emphasizes the statistical nature of the 2nd law of thermodynamics and shows that you can have entropy decrease in some systems, i.e. when the number of particles is small.
You'll be hard-pressed to find a better introductory textbook than Wallace & Hobbs. It's a comprehensive and informative introductory tome that still manages to have lots of judiciously chosen pretty pictures.
> reduce a patient's body temperature by 0.25 degrees Celsius
Pedant physicist here (since this is a place to discuss science): Because it's a temperature interval, the correct expression is "0.25 Celsius degrees", i.e. to distinguish from Fahrenheit degrees and kelvin. "0.25 degrees Celsius" is near freezing temperature for water at Earth's atmospheric pressure (i.e. it's a temperature, not a temperature interval).
Using notation, the degree symbol goes after the letter unless it's kelvin, in which case there is no degree symbol either way (temperature or temperature interval).
Buy or check out this book from a library. That will be your goto for all the cfd aspects(AKA the numerical simulation of a physical problem). Other resources you'll find will be more strictly programming based(Things like MPI, OpenMP, Fortran, etc.).
Nope. I'm referring to Carnot efficiency. If you have found a way around this, you will win a Nobel and a few other prizes, and revolutionize humanity as we know it.
If you are interested, look into a good thermo text. I use this one for most of the classes I teach:
http://www.amazon.com/Thermodynamics-Engineering-Approach-Yunus-Cengel/dp/0073398179
Including in this this class: http://www.colorado.edu/catalog/2012-13/courses/engr/b-mcen/3032-thermodynamics-2
Alternative to Schroeder "An Introduction to Thermal Physics" for self-study?
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Thermal-Physics-Daniel-Schroeder/dp/0201380277
Overall this is quite a good book but I am trying to use it for self-study and the author refuses to release any answers to the problems. His explanation was that if he releases any answers he cannot later un-release them.
Compounding this, his problems are often multi-stage problems where parts of a problem depend on earlier parts and one problem depends on the result of previous problems. In some cases you have 3 multi-stage problems building upon one another. At some point you realize something went wrong but you have no clue where...
OK lesson learned: For self study you need answers so you can check your understanding. This is just basic learning theory - you need feedback.
I have looked at a few TP books but none have answers for checking eg Kittel Thermal Physics, Blundell "Concepts in Thermal Physics".
He does have an answer book for instructors only.
I just finished week 4, took my first thermal physics test. Feel pretty good about it. The lecture is done by the head of our physics department and he is a very good teacher, and the text is Schroeder which is very easy to understand.
My other physics class is Electromagnetic theory, and that class is kicking my ass. I am having trouble figuring out how to set up problems, I have two review sessions with others in the class this weekend before the first test (one week from today).
I totally agree with the book suggestions that u/Swarschild mad but I would like to add Shankar's fundamentals of physics
I recommend the Feynman Lectures on Physics, they are very clear and reaches up to quantum theory. If you feel that you don't know enough mathematics then you can read Schaum's Outline series on Calculus, and whatever other topic you feel is stopping you.
> I am wondering if anyone has a recommendation for an introductory physics book that assumes an advanced mathematics background and not just Calculus I.
what is your goal? do you want to learn actual physics or applications of mathematics to physics? these are different. learning physics, particularly if you know nothing, does not necessarily require the use of "advanced mathematics".
if you want to learn physics, i recommend the book fundamentals of physics: mechanics, relativity, and thermodynamics by shankar. spivak's book mentioned should be good as well, but it does require some mathematical sophistication, in particular knowledge of modern differential geometry.
also, i would be careful with the term "advanced mathematics". all of the courses you have mentioned are essentially just advanced calculus. have you had advanced, proof-based courses in linear algebra? it's an extremely important subject in math as well as physics.
finally, /r/physics has a weekly or so book recommendation thread. you might check it out.
i don't know what your background is, but fundamentals of physics by shankar might be a good place to start. it's backed by a course in the open yale course series.
Check out this text book:
It goes from simple understanding to the statistical mechanics of what's going on.
Steer clear of engineering books if you want a good understanding as they often cut corners(because alot of stuff that is deeper doesn't apply to them) to make it more applicable to their design work.