Talk:Charles's law

Charles' or Charles's

I think the name of this article should be changed to "Charles' Law". I'm pretty sure "Charles's Law" Is improper english. --Snafuu 15:54, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is. "Charles" is a proper noun and is singular. I apologize. Lepidoptera 20:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "Charles's law" is improper English. According to my previous learnings, one should place the apostrophe only with an "s" proceeding if the word is pronounced in posessive with the "s." For example, Jacques is pronounced with with an apostrophe "s" at the end as merely "Jacques," and not "Jacqueses," as that is an uncomfortable pronunciation, and therefore it is only necessary to include an apostrophe. A word pronouneced as "es" after the ending "s," does include the "'s" at the end, such as "Sampras's" (Samprases). 68.221.87.219 7:51 24 October 2005 (GMT)

Actually, traditionally, "Charles's" is correct. Increasingly, however, "Charles'" is also becoming acceptable. You can find English style guides that say that only "Charles's" is correct, as well as style guides which say that either "Charles's" or "Charles'" is acceptable. —Lowellian (reply) 18:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it can be used either way, depending on the type of mood you want the word to set. If you want a smooth rhythm then, by all means, use "Charles'." If you want to empthasize that it belongs to Charles then you can use "Charles's." Either way, it just depends on how you want people to view your work. (the_cutout). --the_cutout 13:04, 26 February 2006 (PMT)

Actually, the only appropriate rule here is that each reply has to begin with actually. As for the apostrophe rules, it seems to me like they are in constant flux. --64.24.154.46 03:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Charles's" is correct and should remain the title. I am currently working to shift all of these possessive articles to the correct grammatical form. 69.199.23.90 (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I disagree with you and contest your quest to change all the possessive articles to the incorrect grammatical form. Let's take a poll. Forget what an individual style guide says is correct. Let's go with what a linguist would say is the most common usage. I'm betting that it's without the extra "s". As someone whose last name ends with "s", I find this conversation personal. Do any of you *actually* have a name that ends with "s"?

But would that be most common usage today or in the 18C ? And in English usage or French? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.119.243 (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed! According to The Economist style guide and the forum on wordreference.com "Charles's" is the correct traditional form, as in "Prince Charles's wife, Diana", although sometimes " Charles' " is used to simplify pronunciation. Note that the pronunciation would be more noticeably wrong for the word " boss's " if the form " boss' " was used. Unless someone can give more authoritative citations, I will change all of the uses of the references to "Charles's Law" in the article to be consistent with the title. There is no justification for the title to use one form and the rest of the article to use another form. --Ben Best (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are authoritative words on this subject right here in Wikipedia under the "Apostrophe" entry. It seems that although the "s's" form may have the most authority, dropping the final "s" is accepted as an “alternative practice”, and is the form often used by "some writers". Given that the title of this entry follows the most conventional usage, and given the desirability of consistency, I will proceed with changing the non-conforming uses unless I hear a good argument to do otherwise within the next few days. --Ben Best (talk) 12:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any arguments to the contrary, I proceeded to make the change. --Ben Best (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that in spite of all the citations listed above, some people still insist on editing the occurrences back to “Charles’” instead of “Charles's”. Hopefully to CONCLUDE this matter, I know of no more popular book on this topic than the classic, Elements of Style, by William Strunk Jr. and E. B. White, and on page 10, the author writes, “1. Form the possessive singular of nouns with 's. Follow this rule whatever the final consonant. Thus write, Charles's friend, Burns's poems, the witch's malice, the Beatles’s concert tour. This is the usage of the United States Government Printing Office and of the Oxford University Press. Exceptions are the possessives of ancient proper names in -es and -is, the possessive Jesus', and such forms as for conscience' sake, for righteousness' sake. But such forms as Achilles' heel, Moses' laws, Isis' temple are commonly replaced by the heel of Achilles, the laws of Moses, the temple of Isis.” (Bold emphasis is mine) So for sanity's sake, abide by the proof cited and the authorities who use this style, and realize that whoever taught you that singular nouns don't take an s after the apostrophe, just like plural nouns, was wrong, or at least following bad style. Keep it Charles's, as it should be! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisdawn (talk • contribs) 17:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. It is Charles' not "Charles's". The last 30 years, the education system has declined so badly that people seem to believe a possessive "S" comes after a noun that ends in "S" but that is ridiculously incorrect. Snafuu is correct. 2603:7000:A940:33FA:93B:C39B:55EC:8DF3 (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are hilariously wrong, and it's clear that the one failed by the education system is you. The correct usage would be Charles's, and having 's after proper noun that ends with an s is the correct way. There are only a few exceptions, and this is not one of them. 129.22.1.27 (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Illustration requests

A graph to illustrate the mathematical relationship.
An illustration to show the relationship using idealized hard spheres.

-- Beland 07:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done pfctdayelise (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

murag ka bryt . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.205.181.32 (talk) 10:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How did Charles express temperature?

I have a question.

The Charles's Law (V/T=k) is only true if the temperature is expressed in kelvin. If it is in Celsius or Fahrenheit, the equation does not hold. ((Add 460 to your temperature in Fahrenheit or Add 273 to your temperature in Celsius.))

The page says Charles did his work around 1787 and Joseph Louis Gay-Lussac proposed the law in 1802. But kelvin was not proposed until around 1850.

I can envision Charles or Gay-Lussac heated or cooled gases and observed their expansion or contraction. But how could they propose that V/T is a constant if the kelvin scale did not exist?Ctchou 14:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He expressed it initially in Celsius, but after the derivation of the Kelvin for thermodynamic properties, it was adopted.

♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ ^{slurp me!} 14:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure but how could he use Celsius, it doesn't work.

Explanation: Charles used celsius, and observed that gases expand when heated, period.

It was Gay-Lussac who did the analysis, and made up an equation, using CELSIUS. It works, but not in the way you'd expect it to work. The Law wasn't expressed the way we know it nowadays.

Gay-Lussac said that the volume of a gas at 0 Celsius should be converted to volume 1 (Unitless). For every increase in celsius, the gas' volume would increase by a factor of 1/273.15.

So, Volume at 0 = 1. Volume at 1 = 1 + 1/273.15 Volume at 2 = 1 + 2/273.15 Etc.

Gay-Lussac then took two values for volume, volume at 100 and volume and 0, and expressed a law: V(100) - V(0) = K V(0). With K being 1/2.7315. Replacing volumes: 1+100/273.15 - 1 = K (1) 100/273.15 = K K = 2.7315.

Once again, Gay-Lussac's equation was: V(100) - V(0) = K V(0).

It wasn't until Kelvin that the law was re-developed in the more practical sense we know it nowadays: V1/T1 = V2/T2.

Hope this helped!

-Sniffity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1388:803:11F2:68D0:A498:6EA2:6EFC (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question with wording

The second paragraph states, "In other more thermodynamics-based definitions, the relationship between the fixed mass of a gas at constant pressure is inversely proportional to the temperature applied to the system, which can be further used by stipulating a system where α represents cubic expansivity of a gas, with θ representing the temperature measured of the system in Kelvins:"

I'm confused with the bolded part of the paragraph, "fixed mass of a gas at constant pressure is inversely proportional to the temperature." ? So if fixed mass of a gas at constant pressure is inversely proportional to temperature, then as temperature increases, fixed mass decreases? Is this an error? How could fix mass increase/decrease?

The relatioinship is actually between the VOLUME OF THE FIXED MASS OF GAS at constant temperature not with the FIXED mass of gas Nonso 007 (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anticipated by Dalton?

I have a brief biography of Dalton which claims that Dalton anticipated Gay-Lussac and Charles in 1801. Can anyone else confirm this? LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC) MrZhuKeeper (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had heard that too. I forgot where though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.25.160 (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now there's a lot of detail on Daltons contribution but it also says "The basic principles had already been described a century earlier by Guillaume Amontons[3] and Francis Hauksbee.[4]" - Can we have more on what exactly GA and FH described (eg was it only for air) ? - Rod57 (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

question pls...

can you please give some illustrative problems, then some practice problems..? its our pRoject kc weh... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.2.95.164 (talk) 06:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC) sorry i havent got around to it yet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.41.34 (talk) 03:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Charles's law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110721015748/http://www.polytechnique.fr/bcx/associations/gaylussac/pages/CommunicationsGL.html to http://www.polytechnique.fr/bcx/associations/gaylussac/pages/CommunicationsGL.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]