Difficulty: Easy
Correct Answer: Yes
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:
Classifying properties as intensive or extensive is fundamental to formulating balances and scaling processes. The question asks whether the additivity definition correctly captures the essence of extensive properties.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:
An extensive property scales with system size and is additive over disjoint subsystems: X_total = Σ X_i. Examples: mass, volume, total internal energy, total enthalpy. In contrast, intensive properties (pressure, temperature, density) are not additive; they do not scale simply with size and are defined locally or as ratios of extensive properties (e.g., specific volume v = V/m).
Step-by-Step Solution:
Verification / Alternative check:
Dimensional analysis: properties proportional to amount of substance (moles, mass) are typically extensive. Taking specific or molar forms (dividing by an extensive amount) yields intensive counterparts.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Homogeneity is not required; additivity holds as long as subsystems are disjoint. Saying properties “never add” contradicts conservation laws. Temperature constraints are irrelevant to extensivity.
Common Pitfalls:
Confusing entropy’s subtlety; despite path dependence, total entropy is extensive for non-interacting aggregates. Also, mixing up “sum” vs. “average” when combining subsystems.
Final Answer:
Yes
Discussion & Comments