Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JMaydom)
    They are not comprehensive enough, especially for the inorganic. Assuming you do go on to study chem at uni you will know what I mean.
    Last time I took out textbooks for my holiday work I could barely lift them all and I had to travel across london to get home.
    Difference I imagine between the physical chem is that we have to derive the thermodynamic equations, not just state them. Atkins doesn't explain the derivations well.
    Hey, I'm working on Atkins' Physical Chem book but finding that there are quite a few sums that appear to have mistakes. Is this just me, or are his answers just wrong a lot? And are there mistakes in the theory and worked examples too, or just the Solutions Manual for the problems at the ends of each chapter? (Because I can get problems from elsewhere, or check solutions online, but I can't learn theory from a book that gets the theory wrong ...)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Big-Daddy)
    Hey, I'm working on Atkins' Physical Chem book but finding that there are quite a few sums that appear to have mistakes. Is this just me, or are his answers just wrong a lot? And are there mistakes in the theory and worked examples too, or just the Solutions Manual for the problems at the ends of each chapter? (Because I can get problems from elsewhere, or check solutions online, but I can't learn theory from a book that gets the theory wrong ...)
    Afraid I have no idea. We never used the worked examples. I would not assume you are right and his answers are wrong. It has had 9 editions to iron out mistakes.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Big-Daddy)
    Hey, I'm working on Atkins' Physical Chem book but finding that there are quite a few sums that appear to have mistakes. Is this just me, or are his answers just wrong a lot? And are there mistakes in the theory and worked examples too, or just the Solutions Manual for the problems at the ends of each chapter? (Because I can get problems from elsewhere, or check solutions online, but I can't learn theory from a book that gets the theory wrong ...)
    I think it's a tad arrogant to assume you know better than an Oxford professor who's written about 10 editions of his book so far...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JMaydom)
    Afraid I have no idea. We never used the worked examples. I would not assume you are right and his answers are wrong. It has had 9 editions to iron out mistakes.
    This is true. I guess I'll have to post some questions around to check.

    To me the biggest advantage of 'Physical Chemistry' is its large coverage of topics, TBH I can't see anything in your past paper which doesn't seem covered in Atkins' book (except for analytical stuff, not sure if you'd count that as physical though). On the other hand its examples are pretty dense (i.e. hard for me to get my head around)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by illusionz)
    I think it's a tad arrogant to assume you know better than an Oxford professor who's written about 10 editions of his book so far...
    So it's just me

    Well I find a lot of people have a problem with Atkins' book, I'm personally comfortable with his explanations when it comes to the theory (just so long as they aren't wrong!), so when I found mistakes in the book (which by the way many people have also told me there are) my first instinct is to suggest that this is why a lot of people don't like it.

    But you're right, as I said in the post above this I'll post some questions online and ask around.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JMaydom)
    Afraid I have no idea. We never used the worked examples. I would not assume you are right and his answers are wrong. It has had 9 editions to iron out mistakes.
    (Original post by illusionz)
    I think it's a tad arrogant to assume you know better than an Oxford professor who's written about 10 editions of his book so far...
    Here's one thing I don't get and it seems like pretty simple maths:

    (Page 15)
    pV=nRT so Vm=RT/p. Now Z=Vm/VmO. The next relationship Atkins draws is easy to derive: Z=RT/(pVmO). The one after that, however, does not seem to follow: pVm=RTZ. Where did this come from? All my rearrangements just yield pVm=RT, no Z, which is what we would expect considering that we originally defined pVm=RT/p, not pVm=RTZ/p.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by illusionz)
    I think it's a tad arrogant to assume you know better than an Oxford professor who's written about 10 editions of his book so far...
    It's just a shame he's a bit of a **** in real life.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Big-Daddy)
    Here's one thing I don't get and it seems like pretty simple maths:

    (Page 15)
    pV=nRT so Vm=RT/p. Now Z=Vm/VmO. The next relationship Atkins draws is easy to derive: Z=RT/(pVmO). The one after that, however, does not seem to follow: pVm=RTZ. Where did this come from? All my rearrangements just yield pVm=RT, no Z, which is what we would expect considering that we originally defined pVm=RT/p, not pVm=RTZ/p.
    I haven't done any physical chemistry for 2 years... and when I did have to do it I didn't learn it and failed the exam. So yeah... organics/inorganics/biological I can help with, physical I've always hated and never really bothered to learn.

    Luckily for me the way our course works, I could do my 3rd and 4th years without having to tough thermodynamics
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JMaydom)
    It's just a shame he's a bit of a **** in real life.
    We have plenty of dicks in our dept too. Generally they're the ones who care only for research and for who students are something they have to put up with. The ones who've written books and stuff seem to genuinely enjoy teaching...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JMaydom)
    It's just a shame he's a bit of a **** in real life.
    Can you explain this?

    (Page 15, 8e)
    pV=nRT so Vm=RT/p. Now Z=Vm/VmO. The next relationship Atkins draws is easy to derive: Z=RT/(pVmO). The one after that, however, does not seem to follow: pVm=RTZ. Where did this come from? All my rearrangements just yield pVm=RT, no Z, which is what we would expect considering that we originally defined pVm=RT/p, not pVm=RTZ/p.

    I've also found arithmetic mistakes elsewhere. He definitely makes plenty of these errors ...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by illusionz)
    We have plenty of dicks in our dept too. Generally they're the ones who care only for research and for who students are something they have to put up with. The ones who've written books and stuff seem to genuinely enjoy teaching...
    Well fortunately I never had to have him as a tutor, but he was very awkward at the chemistry event this year. The 4th years back when I was in 1st year were the last year to have him as a tutor and they said he was awful.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JMaydom)
    Well fortunately I never had to have him as a tutor, but he was very awkward at the chemistry event this year. The 4th years back when I was in 1st year were the last year to have him as a tutor and they said he was awful.
    Who would you normally go to in order to ask questions or clarify problems during your early undergrad years?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Big-Daddy)
    Who would you normally go to in order to ask questions or clarify problems during your early undergrad years?
    My tutors. He was the physical chemistry tutor at my college until about 2009 btw.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.