Timeline for Is $ Q $ dependent on the ϵ which is chosen in the expression for Gibbs free energy of a chemical reaction?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 17, 2021 at 18:45 | comment | added | Chet Miller | @a-cyclohexane molecule Yes. Senior moment. | |
| Aug 17, 2021 at 18:23 | comment | added | a-cyclohexane-molecule | I believe you're referring to the Gibbs-Duhem equation rather than the Clausius-Duhem inequality, which might explain some of Buraian's confusion. | |
| Aug 9, 2021 at 18:08 | comment | added | Chet Miller | All you need to do is show that the CD eqtn is satisfied by this mathematical form of the chemical potential. | |
| Aug 9, 2021 at 17:22 | comment | added | Brian | I understand, I had missed the part since I got stuck right after the C-D eqtn part. I'll check it up in time. | |
| Aug 9, 2021 at 16:19 | comment | added | Chet Miller | Like I said, those cancel out as a result of the Clausius Duhem equation. Do the algebra, and you will see this for this particular problem... | |
| Aug 9, 2021 at 14:37 | comment | added | Brian | By the way quick question, why havne't you considered differential variations in chemical potential as you kick up the moles? | |
| Aug 9, 2021 at 14:36 | comment | added | Brian | Clausius Duhem, I checked it up online, seems to be a result relating to Chemical Engineering and the math back ground for understanding the derivation directly seems a bit out of my reach. The algebra is indeed simple as you said, but the problem for me is fully comprehending the premise which the derivation begins with. Oh well, this turned out more complicated than I had initially expected. | |
| Aug 9, 2021 at 14:35 | comment | added | Chet Miller | You can work it out algebraically, and you will find that those pressure variation changes (as a result of changes in mole fraction) cancel out. | |
| Aug 9, 2021 at 14:29 | comment | added | Chet Miller | Not exactly. You are aware that, because G is an extensive property, the changes in the partial molar quantities such as chemical potentials must satisfy the Clausius Duhem equation, right? That would allow us to write the change in G without including terms for the changes in chemical potential (which would ordinarily follow from the product rule for differentiation). | |
| Aug 9, 2021 at 14:16 | comment | added | Brian | How would you explain the point about pressure fluctuations? Would it be the same as @Karsten Theis | |
| Aug 9, 2021 at 13:45 | history | answered | Chet Miller | CC BY-SA 4.0 |